NASA plans to de-orbit ISS by 2031

[FakeATF]

 

Summary

Recently, NASA announced their plans to retire the ISS in ten years by 2031. The plan going forward is for the Private sector to take over.

 

Quotes

Quote

 “NASA has released details of the International Space Station's transition plan, including destruction of the structure in 2031, and research goals for the interim and the future.

The ISS will deorbit in January 2031 before crashing into an uninhabited area of the South Pacific Ocean near Point Nemo, which has been called a "spacecraft cemetery," according to theupdated plan that NASA released Monday.”

”By the early 2030s, NASA plans to purchase crew time for at least two -- and possibly more -- NASA crewmembers per year aboard commercial CLDs [Commercial low-Earth orbit Destinations] to continue basic microgravity research, applied biomedical research, and ongoing exploration technology development and human research, informed by the first several Artemis lunar landings," the report said.

"After the end of ISS, NASA plans to continue to provide support for research in LEO based on the successes and lessons learned of the ISS National Laboratory," it said.

In December, NASA announced it has signed deals with three U.S. companies to develop designs of new space stations and other commercial destinations in space, including Blue Origin, of Washington state, for $130 million, Nanoracks, of Houston, for $160 million, and Northrop Gunman Systems, of Virginia, for $125.6 million.

 

My thoughts

Wow. That came out of the blue for me. When I think about it, the thing is 20 years old and really starting to show its age and limitations, so of course it makes sense that it’s going to be retired in ten years. Most big budget government projects like that usually see similar service lives. I’m excited to see where space travel will go when the private sector really gets going. The idea of many, continuously inhabited space stations really excites me. Just waiting on space trucking and square hogs to become a thing next.

 

Sources

 https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578543main_asap_eol_plan_2010_101020.pdf
https://www.upi.com/amp/Science_News/2022/02/01/nasa-international-space-station-transition-plan-January-2031-destruction-future-microgravity-research-commercial/4131643739879/

[da na]

Wonder what will happen to the over 100 laptops on board? Just gonna be chilling on vacation in the least inhabited place on earth and ThinkPads rain from this burning space station falling through the atmosphere? 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

10 minutes ago, Mel0nMan said:

Wonder what will happen to the over 100 laptops on board? Just gonna be chilling on vacation in the least inhabited place on earth and ThinkPads rain from this burning space station falling through the atmosphere? 

theyd probably send a slavage boat to the crash in the ocean.

i mean, the thinkpads will still work ofc, they never break

[da na]

1 minute ago, Helpful Tech Wiard said:

theyd probably send a slavage boat to the crash in the ocean.

i mean, the thinkpads will still work ofc, they never break

I expect to see "rare ISS thinkpad STILL WORKS NO RESERVE" on ebay in a decade

[Levent]

I know it was inevitable but it will be sad to see ISS go. It is one of the humanities greatest achievements.

19 minutes ago, FakeATF said:

space trucking

Space Shuttles were exactly that.

[FakeATF]

5 minutes ago, Levent said:

Space Shuttles were exactly that.

Your local trucking industry must be in a sad state if it’s comparable to the space shuttle. How often do trucks detonate leaving the truck stop or pulling into the distribution center?

 

/s

[RejZoR]

And I thought MIR was still up in the orbit when it was already long gone and replaced by ISS lol. That was many many years ago already...

[tikker]

They've been saying this for a while now if memory serves me right. Sad to see it becoming concrete now.  I really hope we'll make an updated version, but I fear it will be a slim chance and a long time if so.

[Mihle]

I am not surprised they will end ISS, I am more suprised it wasn't sooner, as ISS is already overdue for what it was designed for. And the fact that it's been talked about quite a bit.

 

I am also curious how it will go going the private company route instead of doing stuff on their own/with partners.

[SimplyChunk]

26 minutes ago, Levent said:

Space Shuttles were exactly that.

yeah wern't those things initially designed to be making multiple trips a year?

[RejZoR]

26 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

yeah wern't those things initially designed to be making multiple trips a year?

Reentry into atmosphere is a bitch. Until we really figure that out, we'll never be doing quick repeating trips. Rockets are currently somewhere on the "first bicycle made by human" level of technology when it comes to space travel.

[IPD]

30 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

yeah wern't those things initially designed to be making multiple trips a year?

Yes.  But it was an inherently flawed idea.  You don't want an empty cargo bay coming back from orbit.  You want a minimum sized vehicle for crew re-entry, and that's it.  Whatever payload you need to carry to space, you want housed in a disposable shroud.  Something that sits on top of the last rocket engine section, and immediately below the crew module.  There's a reason why we're back to using rockets for most things....

[Needfuldoer]

The oldest modules of the ISS are seven years older than Mir was when it was deorbited.

 

I wonder if Russia still plans to operate their half separately after NASA decommissions the western segment.

  

1 hour ago, SimplyChunk said:

yeah wern't those things initially designed to be making multiple trips a year?

The whole Shuttle program was oversold to justify seeing it through, and to get some of the costs paid for through DOD contracts. (It was supposed to be able to deliver payloads to polar orbit.) Just look at the concept art of a Shuttle getting dusted off in an empty airplane hangar between flights as its "refresh process", compared to the complex rebuild work that was actually necessary in practice.

 

At one point it was supposed to be the vehicle for launching nearly all American space payloads. That can make sense for satellites like the Hubble, which needed service or assembly in orbit, but not for deep-space probes like Magellan or Galileo. Those actually went up with Inertial Upper Stage solid fuel boosters attached in the Shuttle cargo bay, which were released and fired in LEO. Why? There was no reason to endanger seven humans when an expendable rocket could accomplish the same task just as well.

[Quackers101]

so they are finally bringing down IS, I mean ISS.

Seeing that china and others that want their space stations and is more recent. Having something a bit more modern could help, so long its not shot down by... someone like the not too long ago emergency evade they had to do.

2 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

The oldest modules of the ISS are seven years older than Mir was when it was deorbited.

 

I wonder if Russia still plans to operate their half separately after NASA decommissions the western segment.

Would hope that everyone are still accepting to be partners for a new ISS, unless WW or some other things get in the way or they make deals with china and their space station? Else it would be a lot cheaper for them to I guess, let SpaceX launch a lot of the payloads

[thechinchinsong]

I guess another 10 years give NASA, ESA, and other space orgs enough time to plan and start production on the next gen space station. I can't see China ever getting invited so I'm imagining their just gonna do their own thing with Tiangong. ISS is old, but seems like they can keep it working for another decade.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, FakeATF said:

I’m excited to see where space travel will go when the private sector really gets going

The bit that scares me though is that the contracts being awarded to the private sector have been granted to blue origins...who hasn't even achieved orbit yet despite getting a bunch of funding already to do exactly that (along with the fact their BE-4 engines which were suppose to be completed in 2019 to replace the retiring Atlas-V rocket hasn't even had a flight test yet).

 

It really does make me worry that we are putting our faith in companies and their timelines that are incapable of accomplishing the work.  Overall it -might- become cheaper than if NASA did it themselves (although not sure, ISS currently costs $3-4 billion a year).  Really think though if they keep going with companies like Boeing and Blue Origin they will be burning the taxpayers money for things that will not be made (or will be dangerous).

 

Examples of the private sector's Competency

Boeing - SLS $21 billion and still no test flight.  Started in 2011, expected launch at 2016.  So already twice the time.

ULA/Blue Origin - $202 million meant to help with the Vulcan rocket (replacement of Atlas-V)  [As above no working final proof engines have been loaded onto a rocket yet]...Atlas-V's are sold out, so not having a Vulan rocket is a big miss.

Blue Origin - New Glenn.  Expected first launch 2020, [2019 got gov't funding], launch delayed to 2021 and now 4th quarter 2022 (2 years late)

Boeing - Starliner [meant to doc with the ISS] 2010 start point expected in 2015, with a bit of funding to get it going (but when the $4.2 billion was awarded in 2014 it was expected for 2017 launches).  2022 and no successful launch (First attempt at launch in 2019...it failed badly nearly lost control in space software and hardware issues)

SpaceX - Similar deal to Boeing's starliner...except in 2014 awarded $3.1 billion instead of $4.2 billion (Still delayed, but only by about a year...so still not exactly "on time")

SpaceX - Starship Oribital flight.  Aside from delays, it's been delayed for the last like 6 months waiting for the FAA to clear the environmental assessment (if it fails, the project will be set back years...as they effectively will have to move the base to somewhere else and wait for another environmental assessment)

 

 

So yea, by 2031 I am willing to bet that there won't be any private ISS's out there (and I'm willing to bet that SpaceX will eventually be awarded a contract in like 2027 when it's realized the "competitors" are no where close to being done)

[bigmug]

I just hope they'll develop a de-orbit module with either a modified Soyuz module that has extra fuel for a long, hard burn. Or a one-off module with a big solid-propellant rocket motor, like some kick stages.

That way they can properly take it out of orbit and really dump it into the ocean, with no risk of a prolonged, uncontrolled re-entry that spreads parts over South America or even farther afield...

 

[Distinctly Average]

5 hours ago, IPD said:

Yes.  But it was an inherently flawed idea.  You don't want an empty cargo bay coming back from orbit.  You want a minimum sized vehicle for crew re-entry, and that's it.  Whatever payload you need to carry to space, you want housed in a disposable shroud.  Something that sits on top of the last rocket engine section, and immediately below the crew module.  There's a reason why we're back to using rockets for most things....

Not really. As an experiment it worked. If the plans for mining asteroids etc are to work then we need vehicles capable of repeatedly carrying a payload. The shuttle, while flawed, proved it can be done. What needs to change are drive systems. Re-entry as slow speeds are energy intensive but if we can figure that out it should make more sense.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Distinctly Average said:

Not really. As an experiment it worked. If the plans for mining asteroids etc are to work then we need vehicles capable of repeatedly carrying a payload. The shuttle, while flawed, proved it can be done. What needs to change are drive systems. Re-entry as slow speeds are energy intensive but if we can figure that out it should make more sense.

You can't just re-enter slower.  It would burn too much fuel.  It's not about even figuring it out...it's just a matter of constraints.  You have a mass of a spaceship traveling at something like 7.6km/second, ultimately that is a lot of energy it is carrying and if you don't want to burn it up in orbit (slower speeds) you would need to pack on a huge reserve of propellant to do so...given that as it stands you need a massive amount of propellant mass to get to orbit (for the payload size) it is not feasible.

 

Really I don't think the shuttle proved too much, other than the fact that reusable shuttles needed to be better designed for re-usability.  I agree with @IPD the shuttle was inherently flawed idea.  Had they actually intended to keep doing large satellite launches for the defense maybe, but there was so much wasted mass on it.  The key with space travel is to try getting the least amount of mass and packing it into the most efficient volume as possible for a given project.

 

Lunar mining is a very very far and distant future, and asteroid mining even further...but I can bet that the approaches for return will remain very similar.  Creating a cargo hull that will not burn up on entry and can hold as much as possible. 

[Distinctly Average]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You can't just re-enter slower.  It would burn too much fuel.  It's not about even figuring it out...it's just a matter of constraints.  You have a mass of a spaceship traveling at something like 7.6km/second, ultimately that is a lot of energy it is carrying and if you don't want to burn it up in orbit (slower speeds) you would need to pack on a huge reserve of propellant to do so...given that as it stands you need a massive amount of propellant mass to get to orbit (for the payload size) it is not feasible.

 

Really I don't think the shuttle proved too much, other than the fact that reusable shuttles needed to be better designed for re-usability.  I agree with @IPD the shuttle was inherently flawed idea.  Had they actually intended to keep doing large satellite launches for the defense maybe, but there was so much wasted mass on it.  The key with space travel is to try getting the least amount of mass and packing it into the most efficient volume as possible for a given project.

 

Lunar mining is a very very far and distant future, and asteroid mining even further...but I can bet that the approaches for return will remain very similar.  Creating a cargo hull that will not burn up on entry and can hold as much as possible. 

They probably will go minimal mass. As I said, we need to figure out a different system rather than propellant. There have been plenty of ideas and research into them but we are still a long way off.

[tim0901]

10 hours ago, IPD said:

Yes.  But it was an inherently flawed idea.  You don't want an empty cargo bay coming back from orbit.  You want a minimum sized vehicle for crew re-entry, and that's it.  Whatever payload you need to carry to space, you want housed in a disposable shroud.  Something that sits on top of the last rocket engine section, and immediately below the crew module.  There's a reason why we're back to using rockets for most things....

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Really I don't think the shuttle proved too much, other than the fact that reusable shuttles needed to be better designed for re-usability.  I agree with @IPD the shuttle was inherently flawed idea.  Had they actually intended to keep doing large satellite launches for the defense maybe, but there was so much wasted mass on it.  The key with space travel is to try getting the least amount of mass and packing it into the most efficient volume as possible for a given project.

The problem with Shuttle was never that it was wasteful with its big empty cargo bay. After all, Shuttle re-entry was a passive process - it was a glider - and so the mass penalty was not particularly significant.

 

In fact, the cargo bay was one of Shuttle's biggest strengths - the equipment it was able to carry such as Canadarm was absolutely crucial for many of its missions. Canadarm was heavily utilised in the early stages of ISS construction, as well as for missions like the Hubble servicing missions, and in total was used during 2/3 of all Shuttle missions. Even today we have no replacement for those sorts of missions at all. While we are able to perform resupply and refuelling missions to the ISS with capsule based craft, we now lack the capability to repair/refuel orbiters such as Hubble or JWST should something happen to them, despite having that ability 20 years ago. At the end of the day, while many of the use-cases Shuttle was designed for never panned out (eg satellite recovery due to the fall in satellite costs), it was also simultaneously the only craft capable of performing many of the missions it did fly - at least at the time it performed them.

 

No, the biggest problem with the Shuttle was it was an unsafe, unreliable craft that required extensive renovations between each flight. Each of the RS-25 engines had to be removed and thoroughly inspected between flights - a costly and lengthy process - as did each of the 35,000 unique thermal protection tiles. Shuttle was designed to have as many as 55 launches per year, but this level of maintenance dropped that number to a theoretical maximum of 12 launches per year, with each renovation taking 2-3 months on average. These extensive renovations made Shuttle much more expensive to fly than expected, bringing it out of competition with commercial launch providers for cost/kg.

 

The idea behind Shuttle - a large reusable orbiter with a big cargo bay - was never flawed. After all, if this were true then why would Musk be trying it again with Starship? No, the flaw in the Space Shuttle program was the decision to build it using early 70s technology, with design decisions such as reusable main engines that made huge compromises to the safety and reliability of the craft. Roscosmos's reusable launch vehicle - Buran - had a much more sensible design in many ways, but unfortunately it only ever launched once before the program was abandoned shortly after the collapse of the USSR.

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

No, the biggest problem with the Shuttle was it was an unsafe, unreliable craft that required extensive renovations between each flight. Each of the RS-25 engines had to be removed and thoroughly inspected between flights - a costly and lengthy process - as did each of the 35,000 unique thermal protection tiles. Shuttle was designed to have as many as 55 launches per year, but this level of maintenance dropped that number to a theoretical maximum of 12 launches per year, with each renovation taking 2-3 months on average. These extensive renovations made Shuttle much more expensive to fly than expected, bringing it out of competition with commercial launch providers for cost/kg.

 

The idea behind Shuttle - a large reusable orbiter with a big cargo bay - was never flawed.

Tbf, didnt they just use what was available to them, even things that had to be designed specifically?

 

i mean its true, it failed at what it was meant to accomplish (largely) but that seems mostly down to bad decisions and cost cutting measures.

 

i think the heatshields for example were just poor, they could have had better solutions, but too expensive.

 

basically it was a good idea, at the wrong time due to lack of materials and knowledge/research.

 

[tim0901]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Tbf, didnt they just use what was available to them, even things that had to be designed specifically?

 

i mean its true, it failed at what it was meant to accomplish (largely) but that seems mostly down to bad decisions and cost cutting measures.

 

i think the heatshields for example were just poor, they could have had better solutions, but too expensive.

 

basically it was a good idea, at the wrong time due to lack of materials and knowledge/research.

 

Exactly. There was nothing inherently bad with the idea, it was just far too ambitious for the technology available to them at the time and was a victim of far too much political interference (on both NASA and Congress's sides).

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, thechinchinsong said:

I guess another 10 years give NASA, ESA, and other space orgs enough time to plan and start production on the next gen space station. I can't see China ever getting invited so I'm imagining their just gonna do their own thing with Tiangong. ISS is old, but seems like they can keep it working for another decade.

If you want to see a an anime about some kids trapped on a commercial (inflatable) space hotel built by a company that is clearly intended to be google, look up "The Orbital Children". 

 

My opinion overall is that the government should be funding space research, and all governments should be involved if we are to do anything beyond sending a handful of people into space. While I understand western governments reluctance to allow China (due to IP theft) to play, I think we're also trying to solve the wrong problem there. 

 

Why not build a commercial space station, (donut shaped), and just have each country contribute a culture module (basically isolating each countries own projects) that can be attached or detached as they are built. That just leaves a question of who is responsible for building the main structure, and how big it can be. The ISS is basically a series of modules that fit inside the NASA space shuttle, with a few pieces being launched on rockets.

 

But I think deorbiting it as a whole is a bit of a mistake. What we should be doing is building a "new" station at the end of the old one, and then deorbiting the old parts piece by piece as the new station is built to save fuel. Building a new station from scratch is going be expensive without the tools already in orbit.

[Falkentyne]

My question.

Why deorbit it?

 

Why not just thrust it out of orbit and fly it towards Venus or the Sun, for science?  Wouldn't that be a lot less difficult?  It's not like it would reverse course and turn back towards Earth.  Plus they can probably get some nice research data in the process.  Or would that require too much energy because it would just get sucked back towards Earth anyway?