NASA and SpaceX Will Destroy the International Space Station After 2030

21 thoughts on “NASA and SpaceX Will Destroy the International Space Station After 2030”

1. The ISS was originally built to see “if we could”. Specific missions, actually ad-hoc experiments were added when thought of, and available. Future stations need to facilitate access to, and staying in space over the long haul. An orbital “dry dock” to construct large space only platforms, and spacecraft makes sense. Very large vehicles and other stations can be built in space that are not practical if launched from Earths surface. Based on size and associated economics.

2. Why deorbit in the first place? Put it further out maybe into some kind of orbit around Venus and use it for target practice with nukes

   • It probably would have been put into a parking orbit if not for the fact that the inside has been destroyed by a crazy woman.

3. And what are the plans to replace the space station with? If it’s anything like the decommissioning of the space shuttle, it’ll be years before anything American replaces it; we certainly can’t count on a Russian partnership this time, and Europe has other problems (with Russia too).
   Meanwhile, China has plans through 2100 and they’ve been meeting their goals pretty much on schedule since the 1940s: https://youtu.be/LGt_-3hLiwY?si=OX3drNz5olFDlsrN. These plans include a permanent space station (done), visit and retrieval of rocks form the Moon’s far side (done), expansion of their own space station (underway), satellites capable of disrupting SpaceX satellites with lasers (in development). NASA has to be better funded to encourage development of alternate atomic rockets for Mars missions, even high payload Moon missions. Refueling Starship 10-15 times just to reach the Moon is ridiculous. We hit peak chemical rocket years ago. China is leapfrogging the U.S. on nuclear power, so that knowledge and other could translate to atomic rockets too.

   • The U.S. has two moon rockets, one operational and the other deep into development/envelope expansion flight tests. China has PowerPoint presentations.

   • Once Starship is flying, replacing the station is almost trivial. That’s been detailed here.

     You can easily take the Starship, and modify it to serve as units in a station. Ditch the features needed for reentry. Expand the tankage, but design it with internal grid floors and walls that can be used once it is empty, with cable pass throughs, ports, and airlocks behind sheets of steel that can be cut away. A abbreviated cargo compartment can carry the needed tools, and equipment that wouldn’t bear exposure to propellant.

     Launched in this mode, you can put more internal space than the entire ISS into orbit in one launch. The next launch can carry up more equipment than the ISS has.

     Two launches and some work in space, an you’ve got a space station that makes the ISS look like a joke, for a fraction of the cost.

     • I have always found using SS as a space station dumb.
       It is FAR too valuable. You want bang for your buck then use inflatables that expand.

     • SpaceX’s long term plans actually require a space station, IMO. They need to know for a fact that humans can tolerate Mars gravity long term, because if we can’t, their plans need serious revision.

       The best way to determine that is a rotating space station, probably bolo style, with sections at Mars and lunar gravity, where long duration health studies can be conducted.

       SpaceX also needs a LEO fuel depot that can steadily accumulate fuel for launches to higher orbit or interplanetary. While that could be a separate facility, it might be more efficient to combine it with the other station, so that all the traffic is going to the same place, and fuel tenders can carry routine payloads to the station.

       Obviously they’d rather be paid by somebody else to build this, but they ARE going to have to build one sooner or later.

     • Exactly.
       Starship will truly take us to the next level.
       A few years ago a youtube channel (spacexvision) posted some awe inspiring renderings of what could happen. They all make the ISS look like crap.

   • Space stations happened for a specific reason, but that reason was long forgotten by the time ISS was built. SpaceX aims to achieve the original goal that building space stations was meant to achieve: long interplanetary expeditions. Manned space station is an interplanetary ship without interplanetary engine, going nowhere in circles at astronomical cost. ISS cost was on the order of $100 per second, and for what? Space gorilla videos made by passengers bored out of their wits? Science experiments that could be done orders of magnitude cheaper, or not at all? Let it burn, preferably in the plume of a SpaceX rocket going to Mars. That would be poetic.

4. And after destroying the space station SpaceX will build another better one! good job Brian.

5. I used the stones to destroy the stones.

6. If things go according to plan, SpaceX should be routinely flying Starship into orbit.
   It seems like it would be feasible to preserve the station. Either boost it into a higher parking orbit or
   bring it back to earth as a museum piece.

   • Bringing it back to Earth is a non-starter even with working Starship. But I agree about boosting it into a higher parking orbit.

     Basically, Nasa is going to spend good money to destroy a valuable museum exhibit.

     Well, it won’t be the first time they spent good money to deliberately destroy something they knew people might want in the future.

     • I thijk it needs to be destroyed. It is a massive debris liability. The largest you can have right now, in fact.

     • Seems like the same or similar hardware (a specialized Starship?) that could deorbit ISS in a very controlled way over an empty part of the Pacific could also boost it up out of the way. This decision could be changed right up until it’s executed so a public campaign might make a difference.

       • No, it’s much cheaper to deorbit delta-V-wise because you’re letting drag do most of the work. You dip the periapsis just enough to start irreversible decay, then basically just use the engines to aim it.

         I’d much rather it were pushed into a high orbit where it could be seen from the whole world, though.

     • Boosting it out of the way could probably be done by the same hardware for the same cost (a modified Starship?). A public campaign to save the ISS might be enough. There isn’t a large constituency for deorbiting it per se, just eliminating the risk it poses if abandoned.

     • Trouble is if it’s abandoned at a higher orbit it represents a bigger Kessler Syndrome risk.

     • I agree that saving a piece of history so unique is worth trying. If someone knows the numbers, it would be interesting to hear how many raptors it would need to take it up to geosync. Maybe turtle it up with an ion thruster?

       • You are all forgetting one little detail: the “I” in “ISS” stands for “international”. Also numbers: a third of its modules, and roughly half by size, belongs to Russia. At the current state of affairs (technically a state of war), they would more likely prefer it to end in fire than linger on as “international space museum”. They can also prevent that – Russian side of ISS is under their remote and crew control, same as US side is under NASA remote and crew control. It can also be detached, crippling the rest of ISS. For the very same reasons, USA would likely prefer ISS to end in fire, and save space at Smithsonian for SpaceX exhibits with USA flag on them. Not that ISS achieved or signified anything anyone wants to remember now. If SpaceX achieves anything on Mars, it will make ISS an insipid footnote in history.

Comments are closed.