Bids For ISS Demolition Rights Are Now Open, NASA Declares 102
Jude Karabus writes via The Register: NASA has confirmed it will ask American companies to duke it out for the opportunity to deorbit the International Space Station -- quietly releasing a request for proposals last week. The specs, which appeared on U.S. government e-procurement portal SAM.gov, are for a vehicle the agency has dubbed the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle (USDV), which will be focused on the space station's final deorbit activity. According to NASA, it will be a "new spacecraft design or modification to an existing spacecraft" that must function on its first flight (yep, important that), as well as have "sufficient redundancy and anomaly recovery capability to continue the critical deorbit burn."
NASA is getting in well ahead of the 2030 deadline, by which time the agency is hoping to have "seamlessly transitioned" to commercially owned and operated platforms in low Earth orbit (LEO). The vehicle will take years to develop, test, and certify. The request for proposals (RFP) is a confirmation that the agency is going to go with the second option it floated in March, saying a private contractor would cut costs down from a predicted $1 billion.
NASA is getting in well ahead of the 2030 deadline, by which time the agency is hoping to have "seamlessly transitioned" to commercially owned and operated platforms in low Earth orbit (LEO). The vehicle will take years to develop, test, and certify. The request for proposals (RFP) is a confirmation that the agency is going to go with the second option it floated in March, saying a private contractor would cut costs down from a predicted $1 billion.
A job for the Space Force! (Score:3, Funny)
Let them use it for target practice.
Kessler raises its head. (Score:5, Informative)
While funny, it's also a bad idea because of Kessler syndrome.
Basically, if you blow up the ISS, all that shrapnel will stay in orbit for an extended period in various orbits, and be a risk to other orbital stuff.
It's already so bad that there are development plans, research projects, on how to "sweep" the orbitals of various bits of junk left up there over time. The ISS occasionally has to dodge something.
Thus the complexity of having to deorbit it. Part of that being that the ISS is big enough to hit the ground, which means that you need a strong deorbit burn so that you have a reasonably good idea of where it is going to hit.
Re: (Score:3)
While funny, it's also a bad idea because of Kessler syndrome [wikipedia.org].
Basically, if you blow up the ISS, all that shrapnel will stay in orbit for an extended period in various orbits, and be a risk to other orbital stuff.
The instigating event in the movie Gravity [wikipedia.org] when the Russians destroyed a presumed defunct spy satellite.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's mix that with Space Cowboys: find an old Russian spy / nuke satellite (there's bound to be one), and without making it mad attach it to ISS, orient the whole lot to point out of the ecliptic plane and set off the boosters. After a month of thrust and drift, set off the nukes.
Or don't, and leave it as a booby trapped surprise for alien civilisations to discover as it travels through interstellar space. There's enough Star Trek storylines about crap coming our way to kill us all, so why not preemptively
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that was the entire basis for the original Star Trek movie.
Our crap, being returned to us.
That's why...
Re: (Score:2)
Better (as in more fun) idea, point it towards another planet.
a) The Moon, probably a bad idea, but a future moon trip could find the remains of the ISS to explore
b) Venus, let's see how long it survives Venus's atmosphere
c) Mercury, It'll melt
d) Mars, we can find it later like we find ship wrecks.
e) one of Jupiter's moons like Io
f) one of Saturn's moons like Titan
g) just attach a rocket to it and send it towards the intersteller medium.
Like in all reasonable sense, blowing it up or de-orbiting in Earth's o
Re: (Score:3)
a through g: Not enough dV. The ISS is actually in a pretty low orbit, and it's heavy.
Deorbiting is actually the cheapest way - it's going to happen anyways, you just want extra to make sure it lands around where you want.
And while big, it wouldn't hit with the "force of a small nuclear weapon" because it isn't a rod from god, it isn't designed to survive re-entry intact, it isn't aerodynamic to keep the energy level from falling that far, etc... It was designed with the minimum structural strength neces
Re: (Score:2)
And while big, it wouldn't hit with the "force of a small nuclear weapon" because it isn't a rod from god
For that matter, the "rod from god" concept does not hit with the force of a small nuclear weapon. If you do the math, they would release energy on the same order as if the mass of the rod were conventional chemical explosives. Best case scenario about 2X that, but more likely on parity with explosives or below. Given the nature of such a rod, most of that energy will be expended into the ground. Maybe good if you need something to penetrate a bunker, but there isn't really a practical way to get an airburs
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, the damage expected would be more along the lines of 'small plane crash', not anything "big". Note: As retired military, my definition of 'WMD' is substantially different than the police's. It take more bang than a hand grenade to count under my books.
But yeah, a rod from god concept is generally around that of a smallish munition. The proposed advantages is the ability to target just about anywhere (up to a certain latitude) in an almost arbitrary amount of time.
And if you make the rod from
Re: (Score:2)
There would clearly still be some potential military uses. It's just very common for people to claim yields in the range of small nuclear weapons and that very clearly isn't true. Obviously it couldn't have any more energy than a fraction of the energy in the rocket that launched it in the first place, so that one has always been a bit of a pet peeve for me. There are other issues like the probable lack of maneuverability. To make pinpoint strikes on a bunker, you have to be able to hit somewhere near the b
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC calculations showed that if the rod were hollow and filled with a heavy liquid like mercury you would get a more explosive effect. Without actual tests it was difficult to to say how close to reality that was.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how that might distribute the energy outward better. IT would not increase the overall energy though. I have no idea what it would do for explosive qualities like brisance, etc. That's the other thing about high explosives. A ton of TNT can do a lot more damage than a quantity of gunpowder with equivalent energy to a ton of TNT. The TNT can do more damage with the same amount of energy released. It's not clear how well that would work with a hypersonic solid or liquid-filled rod.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's mix that with Space Cowboys: find an old Russian spy / nuke satellite (there's bound to be one), and without making it mad attach it to ISS, orient the whole lot to point out of the ecliptic plane and set off the boosters. After a month of thrust and drift, set off the nukes.
If your plan is to get it far, far from Earth and then Nuke it, you should probably follow the plan from Space Cowboys more closely. That is to say, don't nuke it, crash it into the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Have the Russians said anything? They built half of the ISS, those modules belong to them. There was talk about re-using them for their own space station, and they are unlikely to be invited to participate in future international ones.
Demolishing it could be tricky if key modules that provide vital functionality have to be removed.
That said, it would be nice to push it into a higher orbit and preserve it for posterity.
Re:Kessler raises its head. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Muscovian part is physically separate [wikipedia.org] and could be detached easily. However, unlike that Austrian painter they try to emulate, they not only don't [wikipedia.org] have their own engineering talent -- real [wikipedia.org] creators [wikipedia.org] of their empire's space program came from real (pre-name-steal) Russia [wikipedia.org] -- and for some reason these folks refuse to participate in a program whose products land mostly in orphanages.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be one more humiliation for Putin. Unable to maintain Russia's part independently, force to let it de-orbit with the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Unable to maintain Russia's part independently
Apparently you're unaware that until very recently we had to rely on the Russians to carry personnel to the ISS, and most of the supply missions have launched on Russian boosters. The reason the Russians were originally invited to participate (over Congressional objections) was because they were the only country with experience actually maintaining a space station in orbit over a period of years (Skylab lasted less than six months). Baikonur has launched more
Re: (Score:2)
Right now though I think Russia would struggle to build and launch the parts needed to keep their parts of the ISS flying. They would also have financial issues, since they wouldn't be getting paid to deliver supplies and crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe the propaganda from the State Department, the Russian economy is doing fine in spite of, or perhaps even because of, the US/EU sanctions. Their economy is growing faster than ours, they're running their highest-ever trade surplus, and they exported more petroleum last year than ever before. Over 2/3 of the population of the planet live in countries that are ignoring the sanctions (which by the way are illegal according to several accords that the US and other NATO countries have signed).
The
Re: (Score:1)
> the Russian economy is doing fine in spite of, or perhaps even because of, the US/EU sanctions.
Economies don't "do fine" when sanctioned. If sanctions created only a little strain they'd be handed out every time in international relations there's a spat between 2 countries over some bullshit. As it stands, even something relatively minor to a industry specific trade tariff is a big deal on what happens to a country's economy compared to a general economic sanction.
Still when propaganda is in play why n
Re: (Score:2)
they'd be handed out every time in international relations there's a spat
Are you not aware that the US has sanctions against over 40 countries and a shitload of individuals, industry segments, and companies?
Re:Kessler raises its head. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder. It's been joined to the rest of the ISS for about 25 years. That's plenty of time for mechanisms to seize up, seals and elastomers to become less resilient, lubricants deteriorate or evaporate...you can even have solid-state diffusion between metals (i.e., room-temperature welding and galling). There's a decent chance that if you tried to separate the Russian part of the ISS, you'd either 1) break something, 2) wouldn't be able to seal off the connections between modules, and/or, 3) wouldn't be able to re-join it to anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the US, your tax dollars over-engineered the ISS to an incredible degree. There are many other considerations that make a separation both ill-advised and moot.
Russia doesn't want it back. They plan to bail early. NASA wants it to understand how it decayed. Many components onboard are actually ancient given the predicted useful life of components. Tens of thousands of orbits, each with solar radiation from the sun, and constant solar wind exposure, will teach a lesson once the ISS is de-orbited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have the Russians said anything? They built half of the ISS, those modules belong to them.
Not all of them. Zarya is owned by the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the complexity of having to deorbit it. Part of that being that the ISS is big enough to hit the ground, which means that you need a strong deorbit burn so that you have a reasonably good idea of where it is going to hit.
Disclaimer: I'm not a rocket scientist, but I HAVE played way too much KSP...
The station already has provisions for maneuvering in order to dodge debris, probably just not strong enough or having enough fuel to deorbit - especially, as you pointed out, to do it fast enough to predict the impact point reliably.
However... What if instead, you simply fit extra fuel tanks to the existing system, then take all the time you need to raise the apogee to a point where a relatively small delta-v maneuver would cause
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.space.com/space-st... [space.com]
I have also played way too much KSP. This is a bit like expecting to get to the Mun by using RCS thrusters.
The trick here is that the ISS needs to be reboosted occasionally, just to maintain orbit (unlike in KSP,IRL low orbits degrade over the course of weeks/months/years). They use their cargo craft engines to do it.
So the engines get 'refreshed' whenever a new cargo mission happens.
So one possibility, rather than a new craft, is to simply fill the payload of the latest c
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe just magnetize the ISS and let it sweep up the debris. Hold on while I write up a grant proposal for this, collection the $1 billion, then move to Thighland and go into hiding....
Re: (Score:2)
ISS is low enough that it needs periodic orbit boosting, otherwise it will reenter atmosphere. Any debris resultant from exposion will be subject to the same atmospheric drag. The problem isn't Kessler syndrome, it's "how do you blow up something as big as ISS, in vaccum which won't transfer shockwave, and make sure no chunk big enough to survive reentry remains".
While the ISS is in a pretty low orbit, it's not that far off from the orbits of a huge number of other things in low Earth orbit. An explosion su
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that they'll need to cut it into manageable pieces first, which would require multiple "deorbit vehicles". Makes me want to cry.
It seems an enormous waste. I'm not clear on why instead they don't just attach a low thrust engine to it and boost it into a parking orbit to leave there as a museum or for parts for future usage. It's not like the Soyuz, which the Kremlin insisted needed to be deorbited so that "the enemy" wouldn't learn some phantasmagorical secrets from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be nice to be able to keep it for the future as a museum or a monument or something, but we are talking about getting a lot of thrust up there to boost its orbit. It would probably be a pretty costly project. Maybe far less so if we get really heavy lift vehicles like starship. Actually, given the size of starship, with a diameter more than twice as wide as an ISS module, you could, in theory, carry 8 or more ISS modules back down to Earth on one trip. So you could potentially bring the who
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame China's bids would be rejected IMHO. They would surely be the cheapest bidder and they would take it out of orbit rather quickly, cutting down on costs in worrying about where it falls. Then, we can simply blame China if it hits someone or cause damages.
Re: (Score:1)
There's actually a proposal to use Starships as space stations themselves. The fuel tanks could be turned into living quarters, and multiple starships could be connected together to make a space station. No need to carry up modules, the starships are the modules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet Elon Musk could do it next week for a fraction of the price...
PS: Why do they have to bring it down? Can't they send it up into space? Give it a big nudge then wait a few years for it to drift away...
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; No.
It's designed to orbit roughly where it is now. If you push it to a higher orbit the batteries won't last through the "night" when it's eclipsed by Earth and the thermal systems will struggle to keep it cool during the longer "day". It would also take a huge amount of delta-V, ~3 kilometers per second, to push it out to the moon, geostationary, or solar-centric orbit. On top of that, it's not desi
Re: (Score:2)
They usually remove the occupants and switch off the lights before de-orbiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Understood. In this case the parent asked about sending it up into space, i.e. giving it a big nudge and waiting for it to drift away. I was trying to show that wasn't realistic. Any reasonable amount of Delta-V you could give it would leave it somewhere between LEO and GEO where you'd have to keep it online in some fashion.
Re: (Score:1)
I bet Elon Musk could do it next week for a fraction of the price.
The rest of the fraction is made up in subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA isn't a private company.
ISS on ISIS (Score:2)
There are bonus points in the selection process for a solution that drops ISS on ISIS . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Lessons learned from Mir? (Score:2)
Wanted to read up on how Mir de-orbited and WP didn't have it, but it did have something else of interest:
> In the 1990s samples of extremophile molds were taken from Mir. Ninety species of micro-organisms were found in 1990, four years after the station's launch. By the time of its decommission in 2001, the number of known different micro-organisms had grown to 140. As space stations get older, the problems with contamination get worse.[citation needed] Molds that develop aboard space stations can produ
Re:Lessons learned from Mir? - correction (Score:1)
Nevermind: WP has a whole article on the deorbit of Mir.
Re:Lessons learned from Mir? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shoving towards the sun, as you mention, is a no go. The north or south poles are no goes for the same reason - energy. You'd need to spend a lot of reaction mass to alter the orbit to be that steep. Too expensive, and wouldn't help. Might even hurt.
That said, I wouldn't worry about the molds. That they've grown on the ISS for that long means they're adapted to ISS conditions. Take them out of that, they will promptly be outcompeted by the organisms optimized for earth.
Re: Lessons learned from Mir? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the Arctic, but shipping things to Antarctica is problematic because of concerns [cambridge.org] over ecological contamination. Possible contaminants include "Plant pathogens, such as, fungi, nematodes and mould [antarctica.gov.au]".
Re:Lessons learned from Mir? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.universetoday.com/... [universetoday.com]
So you wonder if they won't just use a resupply craft, or a lightly-modified one where the cargo is just extra fuel, then orient the whole thing at earth before the boost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to thrust in the opposite direction of motion to slow yourself down, which will then lower your periapsis (which is on the other side of the Earth) to inside the atmosphere.
The problem becomes controlling the descent from there so that the portion that survives re-entry lands/impacts where it will cause the least harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I say we take off and nuke the entire station from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Let 'em keep it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Stick it in a low orbit over Baltimore. Put word out that it's made from Hennessy and shoes. Nobody knows how, but it'll be gone in hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let 'em keep it? (Score:2)
Also a good choice!
And so the US ends up with no space station (Score:1)
as private investors like Bezos think their achievements are evaluated based on the amount of lawyers they hire.
Such a waste... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand why it cannot be kept modular. Unplug the oldest modules and deorbit them, add new ones to keep the whole thing up to date.
NASA is accepting proposals right now.
If you were to show up with updated international treaties from all of the other governments involved, and a plan with the money to safely keep it up in space and under control, it is highly likely you'd get your wish.
Think about all the things that don't wear out (much): tons of solar panels, telescopes, etc...
Most of the equipment of that nature will have been removed from service and returned to earth long before the deorbit happens.
The solar panels will be "worn out", in so far as beyond their expected lifespan. While not "full of holes" exactly, they put th
De-orbit Russian modules first, denied no services (Score:2)
updated international treaties from all of the other governments involved
We would only need treaties with nations we want to continue working with. Ie unplug US, EU, etc modules that have some life left in them from the Russian modules and plug them into a new set of non-Russian core modules. If it's all about to be de-orbited then detach them all, de-orbit Russian modules first, then change our minds about the remaining salvageable units, and then de-orbit the remaining unsalvageable. That way we denied the Russian modules no services why their modules existed.
Re: De-orbit Russian modules first, denied no serv (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly the thinking of a moron, ...
LOL, your response proves a different participant in this conversation is the moron.
... and is exactly the reason why we can't have peace here.
Great, someone figured out how to make the world live in peace. Thank you. Please start sending out your newsletter.
Try to think im the long run, not short-term.
Like think practically, logically, not philosophically. Look at it from a scientific and engineering perspective rather than political perspective. Hint: That's what I did.
Why keep thinking with such closeminded thoughts of ficticious borders, which have all come about through war.
Clue: I was not thinking of a fictitious border. I was thinking of a government entity that is using war to re-establish an empire. A liter
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the orignal panels are worn out and have been replaced with new ones to generate power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why not keep as an emergency shelter? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are several issues with that.
First, the orbit is constantly decaying, so every few months the station has to be boosted to keep it in orbit. This requires continuous visits by spacecraft capable of boosting its orbit. Currently I believe only Progress freighters can boost the orbit. A future version of Dragon might be able to.
Second, orbital mechanics. You can't simply change orbits, especially dramatic changes in inclination. The ISS orbit is what it is because it allows Russian vehicles to reac
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't it be a good idea to keep it ready to be an emergency shelter?
Orbital mechanics means catching up to an emergency shelter and docking with it is nearly impossible unless that is where you were intending to go into the first place. Sometimes it can take 2-3 days to get to the ISS, and that's when you launch for that specific destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, we had the same idea. I think you're onto something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot it to the moon (Score:2)
I can understand if they are wanting to preserve parts of the station, but it seems like sending a rocket up to grab it and shoot it to the moon would be useful. Later the materials that end up on the moon could be re-used for small construction projects there without there.
Are all the modules end of life ? (Score:2)
Could we build a new core to replace the Russian modules and attach some of the existing modules?
Re: Are all the modules end of life ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why russian modules? US and European modules are just as old or older and worn.
Some yes, not just the Russian modules may be past their end of life. But some may not. However the Russian modules are the most troublesome and have been a safety hazard for years.
Opps! (Score:2)
Sorry Putin I did an oopsie and accidentally de-orbited the ISS onto your mansion!
Has to work on the first flight? (Score:2)
Boeing is officially out of the running.
Boost it to higher orbit (Score:5, Interesting)
Boost it to higher orbit. Keep it as a museum piece.
Putting it into the Van Allen belts could serve as a materials study on the effects of radiation.
Eventually it will lower orbit and probably succumb to micrometeorites, but there is also a chance that we could see development of inflatable habitats that could one day encompass the ISS.
This station has the potential to serve the science research communities long past it's operational life. It's also an amazing accomplishment that deserves better than to be plunged into the fiery depths of the atmosphere only to sink in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Boost it to higher orbit. Keep it as a museum piece.
This is why we invented words, so we don't have to keep junk laying around. We could describe it with words and not leave several tons of materials moving at high speeds around our planet. Its orbit WILL change and putting off dealing with it is a mental issue most humans have. Deal with it now and write all of the words you need to about it. Don't worry, we can fit all of your words on a floppy disk.
What do you think we will find out putting it in the Van Allen belts? (side note: I was told in school that
Re: (Score:1)
It's not designed to handle that. Not that it couldn't be done.
IMHO, I think I'd disassemble it and set it up in parallel pipes. Effectively zip tie them together, strap a rocket on the bottom, and push it up into a higher orbit. Not the radiation belt area though. Then it's a matter of cutting the zip ties and reassembling it. The problem is you'd always be missing a nut or bolt or two.
The other problem is the age. I think we're at the effective end of life. It has been pelted with micro meteors, paint, an
Calling Andy Griffith... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sanford and Son.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm comin' Elizabeth, darling!"
Where are they going to get the next station? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where are they going to get the next station? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Where are they going to get the next station? (Score:2)
SpaceX has this in the bag... (Score:2)
Musk has shown a recent penchant for bringing down successful and well-established enterprises.
Sell/Donate to someone to take over? (Score:2)
Why destroy it?
There's only one contender (Score:2)
Cost to boost it to deorbit in to the Sun? (Score:2)
Could it's orbit be altered so that it would fall in to the Sun, or head out of the Solar System, or crash on the Moon?
Re: (Score:2)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Currently it is at the 250km orbit in the bottom left part of the graph.
To crash it into the moon requires 2440+679+145+676+1721 = 5,661m/sec of delta V. While it may seem more then the 9,256m/s of going to Earth a lot of that can be gotten for free by atmospheric drag.
Fall into the sun requires 2440+679+93 +280+2085+15743+178107+440000 = 63,9427 m/sec
Out of the soalr system rquires 2440+679+93+388+923+379+3+297+1099+987+650+629+117+33+17+109+200+30 = 9,073m/s
Migrant workers (Score:1)
Just pull up to a Home Depot in Central Florida, grab 5-6 migrant workers sitting in the parking lot, send them to Cape Canaveral... stick them in a rocket, send them to the ISS and put them to work dismantling the ISS and pay them a few hundred bucks cash a piece.
Easy.