Spaceflight

677 readers

25 users here now

Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.

All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).

Other related space communities:

Related meme community:

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

llamacoffee

NASA has a fine plan for deorbiting the ISS—unless Russia gets in the way (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by llamacoffee to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25502187

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grue 20 points 2 months ago (14 children)

I still don't understand why they can't just replace the oldest modules as they wear out and keep the station as a whole flying indefinitely.

[–] MotoAsh 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Bio contamination is my guess. Even the ISS is getting quite a few gross spots that are becoming mini ecosystems. Of course the experiments are on purpose, but there is a lot of astronaut filth and other basic growth. Much like how an old house cannot be kept up to date by making additions and rennovations for ever, the ISS cannot go on for ever. At least not without something akin to a serious rennovation, but at that point...

[–] grue 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Much like how an old house cannot be kept up to date by making additions and rennovations for ever

FYI, houses do not work that way. They can, in fact, last forever as long as you keep up with the maintenance. The main reason they don't is that people either abandon them or want to build something else in their place (i.e. they become functionally obsolete).

Now, if you want to argue that the ISS is functionally obsolete, I could see your point... but then again, it's hard to argue that a thing is obsolete when nothing exists to replace it. Even if the engineers aren't thrilled about trying to interface new modules with the decades-old stuff, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to throw away the entire existing thing and start over from scratch.

[–] MotoAsh 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Depends. Not even many stone buildings last many centuries. Wooden structures tend to be much less, and humanity has seen many stone structures slowly turn uninhabitable.

Besides, in space, there is much, MUCH more space. There is only a little need to fight over orbital space, let alone literal adjacent space. We don't need to rennovate the ISS to reclaim ideal space.

Whether or not you know about them, there are also several plans ongoing for replacing the ISS, too, so your inability to grasp this is... kinda' weird.

[–] grue 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Besides, in space, there is much, MUCH more space. There is only a little need to fight over orbital space, let alone literal adjacent space. We don’t need to rennovate the ISS to reclaim ideal space.

What? Room inside a space station is incredibly expensive because we have to design, build and launch it!

Whether or not you know about them, there are also several plans ongoing for replacing the ISS, too, so your inability to grasp this is… kinda’ weird.

Key word: "plans." I.e., things that aren't actually built yet and in fact might not ever get built.

Throwing out the ISS before we have at least part of a replacement in orbit is an excellent way to risk failing to have a space station completely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Throwing out the ISS before we have at least part of a replacement in orbit is an excellent way to risk failing to have a space station completely.

I agree. We are not doing that though. Haven-1 is scheduled to launch NET 2025, the Axiom orbital segment is NET 2026, Orbital Reef is targeting 2027, and Starlab is targeting 2028. Even if these schedules slip a couple years, they would still be ready in time for the ISS deorbit in (or after) 2030.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)