Space-X receives contract to ‘decommission’ ISS?
- Thread starter David_Stack
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
ISS is currently scheduled to be decommissioned in 2030. That may be extended depending on whether other stations are available and whether ISS can continue to operate safely.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,280
- Reaction score
- 7,579
That should be a helluva show, but unfortunately, in the middle of nowhere. Maybe they can put some of those Starlink-enabled cameras on it and get some POV video of it burning in.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 944
HOLY CRAP YOU'RE RIGHT.
When ISS deorbits we will undoubtedly watch in real time from onboard. Something like the Starship re-entry. The ultimate Viking funeral!
They could then use this design, paid for by NASA, as a general purpose tug. It should have plenty of extra delta V.
Could also be used to de-orbit other large pieces of junk. But they would need an alternative means to securely latch onto something like a tumbling upper stage. Like maybe a harpoon shot into a tank that would be reeled in. After a de-orbit burn, the tug could detach and boost back into orbit.
I can't do the arithmetic in my head (I plead caffeine deprivation), but somehow I imagine 1 million pounds times x delta v equals a lot of fuel, more than a regular trunk. maybe not, considering how "easily" Progress can boost the orbit.
going to be interesting
Imagine the possibilities of a free paid for Tug in orbit, with the ability to refuel from starship fuel carrier edition.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,686
- Reaction score
- 8,539
In their coverage, Ars Technica said that it was likely going to be a "Super Dragon" like they're planning on using at the Lunar Gateway space station. It's apparently a Crew Dragon with a bunch of extra stuff (including lots of fuel) in its service module.
terryg
Well-Known Member
Interesting, I am not sure how much the reentry of such a large cumbersome vehicle can be controlled.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
It will probably be done in sections, just a guess.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 944
Elon likes funny names; he should call the deorbit craft Major Kong.
MClark
Well-Known Member
If they are targeting Point Nemo there may be nice places (Tahiti!?) to watch it burn in from a beach with an umbrella drink in your hand.
A Super Dragon or Dragon XL designed for supplying the Lunar Gateway would need to be modified with a propulsion system capable of deorbiting the ISS. In addition to much more thrust and propellant required, the engines would need to gimbal to ensure the thrust is in line with the station center of mass.
These mods would be necessary for a general purpose space tug or space trash disposal truck.
Last edited:
If anyone wants a space tug then use NTP craft they have the thrust and the efficiency to deorbit 10 perhaps 15 times! Take DRACO and give it a harpoon gun, or maybe a spray foam that can be decomposed with another chemical.
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
"NASA also considered partially disassembling the station before its reentry but found this would be much more complex and risky than a controlled deorbit that kept the complex intact." Link
Maybe SpaceX will build a Hammerhead Corvette ala Rogue One
see https://screenrant.com/star-wars-rogue-one-guide-trivia-ships-vehicles-uwing/#:~:text=Hammerhead
see https://screenrant.com/star-wars-rogue-one-guide-trivia-ships-vehicles-uwing/#:~:text=Hammerhead
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,280
- Reaction score
- 7,579
If it can deorbit a Star Destroyer…
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,686
- Reaction score
- 8,539
For a deorbiting maneuver, I believe that you want a lot of thrust right now so you can lower the object's altitude enough to get into reliably thicker air so you can hit a general target in the sea. That's pretty much the opposite of what NTP does. Plus, I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that even if approved tomorrow and no major funding issues, an NTP system would not be flying in 2029 or 2030.
Isn't there a docking port at either end of the main spine that you could use as the connection point? Smarter people than me would have to say whether the Super Draco thrusters could provide the necessary thrust (and incidental control) for a good de-orbit.
Yeah, I suppose they could arrange multiple Super Draco engines such that throttling could provide control of the net thrust vector. But whether that is good enough is beyond me.
I wasn’t suggesting that that’s what they use. just that NTP could be effective at deorbiting stuff. Actually I think you would need only 250mps of delta V to get a controlled reentry ( from space shuttle manual with 100 mps added for the extra mass) a pebble bed type NTP can manage that with 200mps to spare I’m not certain about burn time but it should be acceptable, if you have ever seen a military NTP they all are planned around pebble beds.
Ps if I was home I’d do the math but I don’t have the book with the good NTP preform numbers and I can’t find anything substantial online.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 944
Here's where I display my ignorance of orbital mechanics. In what direction does one point a "de-orbit burn"?
Ok so if you’re traveling along a line then there’s 2 different ways to face
Prograde, your “front” think of looking out a windshield in a car
Retrograde your “back” think of looking at your rear view mirror
If you burn with your nose facing retrograde then the lowest point in your orbit gets lower and vice versa.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
The direction that causes deceleration. Decelerate = fall towards Earth, Accelerate = move further away. My description is really basic but its how it was explained to me, there are probably lots of really complicated manuevers as well.
Similar threads
