posted by
martyb
on Wednesday September 07 2022, @08:18PM
from the ask-Taco-Bell(?)-to-float-a-sign-in-ocean? dept.
from the ask-Taco-Bell(?)-to-float-a-sign-in-ocean? dept.
NASA issued a Request For Information (RFI) "to assess industry's capability to design, develop, manufacture, launch, and provide the on-orbit operation to enable a controlled re-entry and the safe deorbit [of] the ISS." The general plan lays out possible steps in the deorbit process, ending with "the final reentry burn resulting in a controlled reentry of the ISS within a pre-defined, uninhabited entry corridor." The RFI and its attached presentation slides are very interesting reading, even if you're not preparing for an eventual proposal.
This discussion was created by martyb (76) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NASA RFI Asks for Industry Input on ISS Deorbit
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 11 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2022, @09:39PM (10 children)
The only non-disgraceful way to do this is to load modules into a Starship, take them all back to Earth intact, and ship them to the National Air and Space Museum.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:43PM (5 children)
How much weight can a Starship carry back? Gotta wonder what it would cost to fire up a Shuttle again...
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday September 08 2022, @12:32AM (4 children)
I believe 50 metric tons (50,000 kg) was put out as a return mass once. But the design of Starship has changed a lot over the years in the direction of adding more performance.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52178.0 [nasaspaceflight.com]
The entire mass of the ISS is about 450 tons and some of that is not returning to the U.S. For example, Russia wants to use its modules to form a new station.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:01AM (3 children)
I suppose I could have looked it up earlier. Wiki says return payload for shuttle is: 14,400 kg, so that's not very helpful even if it was still flyable. Not an aero engineer, but I wonder if larger wing would allow for greater return payload.
Regardless, I kind of get that it's not feasible, and probably not financially justifiable to try to bring much of it back intact, but I like that Nasa is looking into it and asking for brainstorming.
I wonder how much humanpower would be needed to dismantle things and store them in Starship. IE, would it require two or more trips? Maybe send up 2 rockets, maybe a Dragon and a Starship?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @03:38AM
You don't have to be.. Generally, a larger vehicle can carry a larger payload. I mean, that's the way I see it
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday September 08 2022, @03:56AM (1 child)
From reading the RFI, it doesn't sound like they're thinking about getting it back intact at all.
If it ended up requiring 10 Starship launches, I doubt the cost would be very much compared to the annual operational costs. This would also likely be happening around 2030*, and while Starship is unproven, NASA is already betting Starship will work for landing people on the Moon.
* "Although nominal ISS EOL is late 2030, the Government requires that this deorbit capability be available as soon as possible to protect for contingencies that could drive early re-entry and beyond 2030 in the event of further ISS mission extensions."
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Thursday September 08 2022, @05:07AM
I quite agree. I added the recovery concept, thinking that they could plan later missions to include returning some things to earth, possibly just to recover anything that might still have value. But also to lessen the total mass, especially anything dense enough that might not burn up.
All that said, again, not an aero engineer, but maybe a more dense ISS would have a more predictable deorbit path? And maybe that should be part of the plan- to collapse things so it's less of a floater that could bounce off the atmosphere unpredictably before finally coming in. Just thinking out loud here...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @03:49AM (1 child)
Might be cheaper to push it up to a higher orbit where drag isn't a problem and turn it into a motel, or a piano lounge. I'm sure Chuck Yeager would approve
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday September 08 2022, @04:06AM
It has superfungi, old shit, and impact craters. Just make a new one, with inflatable modules and decades of design improvements and lessons learned.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @06:01AM (1 child)
Meh. Fill it with H2 and O2 then a spark and watch the show.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Thursday September 08 2022, @06:17PM
Do you want to trigger Kessler Syndrome? [space.com]
Because that's how you trigger Kessler Syndrome.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin