Elon Musk to destroy the International Space Station – with NASA's approval, for a fee

Elon Musk's SpaceX has won a NASA contract to de-orbit the International Space Station (ISS). The aerospace agency announced the deal on Wednesday, and that it will see SpaceX "develop and deliver" a vehicle "that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas." After …

[steelpillow]

Can't help wondering

If you are going to all that trouble, why not push it the other way - onwards and upwards? It's only one piece of junk, and would be a great source of raw materials to raid for a permanent space presence. You know, a pair of tin snips and a can of mould killer are a lot cheaper to send up than a ton of metal.

Or, who knows, some pirate might put an atomic-powered cloud silo in there and sod the vacuum and fungus.

[Innominate Chicken]

Re: Can't help wondering

The problem is turning ex-ISS parts into anything useful up in space.

Unless you want to send a recycling centre and the factories needed to then manufacture new spacecraft parts, it would have to come down then go back up anyway.

Creating that capability means sending up so much more material than is in the ISS that it would be more economical just to ship a single ISS worth up anyway.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Can't help wondering

> Unless you want to send a recycling centre and the factories needed to then manufacture new spacecraft parts, it would have to come down then go back up anyway.

That all depends upon how optimistic we are about having a long-term presence in space. Push the ISS up enough that we can just ignore it for the next few decades[1] (nothing much will happen to it, who cares if hatches vacuum weld shut if you just mean to cut into it anyway). When somebody can make good use of a truss, even if only to render it down at the focus of a big mirror[2], it will be there for them.

[1] pick your own interpretation of "few"

[2] take one, big, mylar party balloon; add a bit of gas inside; cover outside with self-curing foam; cut in half; give one mirror to a friend.

[Dave 126]

Re: Can't help wondering

@ that one in the corner

Nobody likes waste, we get it. But to get the ISS into a parking orbit would require 900 metric tonnes of fuel.

Additionally, the thing is falling apart, its aluminium subject to fatigue and cracking. You wouldn't want to use it for spare material for any mission critical part.

Have a read if the following article, it makes things fairly clear, diagrams and all:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-will-pay-spacex-nearly-1-billion-to-deorbit-the-international-space-station/

[that one in the corner]

Re: Can't help wondering

> But to get the ISS into a parking orbit would require 900 metric tonnes of fuel.

ok, 900 metric tonnes of fuel *that* is a reasonable thing to argue about - unlike (IMO) the arguments about "we don't have the means to re-use the material in space, *that* means we must not consider boosting. Talking of which:

> the thing is falling apart, its aluminium subject to fatigue and cracking. You wouldn't want to use it for spare material for any mission critical part.

Which is probably why I never suggested doing that - spot the bit about vacuum welding things that ought to open and the reference to one of the concepts for melting the stuff rather than using it as-is - and certainly not expecting to use it as spares? At (hypothetical) point in time I described, aside from the fact that it would be wildly unlikely that the designs were similar enough that anything *could* be used as spares, there isn't any reason to assume that *every* item be "mission critical" (i.e. if that one thing fails, it all fails). Think bigger - and further away in time - than the "barely scraping by" missions that we put together at the moment.

In other words, please don't just ignore my introductory sentence when replying:

>> That all depends upon how optimistic we are about having a long-term presence in space

Ok, you are not optimistic to the point where a boost might be something to consider (i.e. where you'd actually want to discuss whether the 900 metric tonnes of fuel would be worth it or not). But it would be good not to have that be admitted, rather than having to infer it.

PS

Not saying that I am actually that optimistic either, but I would like people to at least *try* to be and consider what that would be like. Personally, I have grave doubts about the likelihood of Artemis over the next decade, but would love to be proven wrong by that mission actually succeeding.

PPS

Thanks for the Ars Technica reference - I don't spend much time on Ars, most of my info about ISS, Artemis etc comes from just reading NASA materials and chats with the real space-heads at the local astronomy groups; it is good to have an article I point the less fanatically interested people at.

[doublelayer]

Re: Can't help wondering

Another cost worth considering is what happens if, after we've put it up there, we decide that's not a good place for it. The potential usefulness relies on a lot of what ifs, but many of those could also lead to it having a negative effect. Either we have to continue to control its movements or something could hit it, causing damage and debris. The lower the debris is, the less time you have to wait for it to clean itself up. Even if it doesn't happen, if we decide that it is too likely and we'd now rather that it came down, the cost of retrieving it from that higher orbit could be a lot higher than retrieving it from where it is now. Orbit isn't just a big empty space where we can leave things, and treating it like that can have some bad consequences.

[david 12]

Re: Can't help wondering

> But to get the ISS into a parking orbit would require 900 metric tonnes of fuel.

So, presumably, crashing it into the Moon would require slightly less, and crashing it into the Sun or Venus would cost nothing -- but would require an impossible path.

I'm sure they've thought about this -- NASA is still announcing newer-better paths for exploration missions, so it's obviously something they are continuing to work on -- but it's something that's fun to consider.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Can't help wondering

So, presumably, crashing it into the Moon would require slightly less, and crashing it into the Sun or Venus would cost nothing -- but would require an impossible path.

Crashing it into the Moon would require significantly more (much higher orbit, basically needing escape velocity) and crashing it into the Sun or Venus would require about the same as crashing it into the Moon (slingshot around the Moon), but crashing it into Venus would require it following a very specifically calculated and timed course.

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

Go and play KSP for a few hours...

[Pascal Monett]

Re: Can't help wondering

The ISS is in a gravity well and it is going down. In order to push it up and away, one would likely need to strap and entire rocket to it to get the job done, which means launching a rocket that's carrying a rocket.

Last time I checked, Humanity doesn't have that capability.

One other solution might be an array of ion thrusters, but that would means dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of spacewalking and, since we've never done that before, a good chance that something might go wrong and the resulting catastrophe would end up sending the ISS down in an uncontrolled fashion. Not acceptable.

I think it is much better to plan for how and when the ISS finally re-enters the atmosphere.

[tony72]

Re: Can't help wondering

... which means launching a rocket that's carrying a rocket.

Last time I checked, Humanity doesn't have that capability.

No. But NASA did have a plan to launch the Space Shuttle carrying a liquid fuelled Centaur upper stage in its payload bay, it was called the Space Shuttle Centaur program. Probably for the best that it never got off the ground though

[Gene Cash]

Re: Can't help wondering

> which means launching a rocket that's carrying a rocket.

> Last time I checked, Humanity doesn't have that capability.

Nonsense. That happens at every single rocket launch. It's known as second and third stages. We've never had single-stage-to-orbit.

Heck, we had Saturn Vs carrying a rocket carrying another rocket that had two spaceships on top.

A one-off stretched Falcon 9 second stage with a docking adapter would do the trick, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the deorbit design.

[imanidiot]

Re: Can't help wondering

Given the required maneuverability for docking, I think a gutted Dragon capsule permanently attached to it's trunk with expanded tanks in the capsule and possibly the trunk for the super draco thrusters is more likely. Dragon is already capable of remote control operation and has all the required RCS systems already. Modifying a second stage is possible but would probably require a lot of work to implement RCS control and a docking mechanism on a stage never designed for such.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Can't help wondering

> which means launching a rocket that's carrying a rocket.

OR (and stay with me on this, it is a bit wacky) launch a rocket and then refill it in orbit, then use that same rocket to boost the ISS up, up and away.

Hmm, why does that idea sound so familiar, and right in SpaceX's bailiwick?

[martinusher]

Re: Can't help wondering

You probably can't just push on one bit because the structure's not designed for that load.

Asking SpaceX for a system to de-orbit it piece by piece is probably the best solution. SpaceX -- not just "Elon Musk", but SpaceX -- has built up a significant capability and based on the recent track record of existing aerospace firms they're the only supplier that's likely to be able to deliver.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Can't help wondering

Asking SpaceX for a system to de-orbit it piece by piece is probably the best solution.

So we can look forward to a Rapid Scheduled Disassembly? They already are experts at the Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

It is designed for that load, and the orbit is periodically raised by that mechanism.

The restriction is that you have push gently...

[Dave 126]

Re: Can't help wondering

> If you are going to all that trouble, why not push it the other way - onwards and upwards?

Because of where it is in Earth's gravity well:

https://m.xkcd.com/681/

[Zolko]

Re: Can't help wondering

https://xkcd.com/681/

It takes the same amount of energy to launch something on an escape trajectory away from Earth as it would to launch it 6000km upward under constant 9.81m/s2 (1g) Earth gravity. Hence, Earth's well is 6000km deep

I think that that's false : in order to escape Earth gravity, it's not the height that matters but escape velocity. If you launch something at 6000km altitude where it reaches null speed then it won't escape but fall down again. Not even if you launch it at 7000km. Heck, geo-synchronous orbit is at 36000km heights and velocity is 3000m/s. And those satellites don't escape (obviously).

Admittedly they don't receive constant 1g acceleration all the way up, but still, there is still a big difference between 6000km with 0m/s and 36000km and 3000m/s , so I'd need some more maths to agree with it (I don't have the time now to do the math)

[imanidiot]

Re: Can't help wondering

"It takes the same amount of energy as". So yes, it's accurate. The statement <u>isn't<u> that launching something on an escape trajectory is the same launching it 6000 km's straight up (under constant 9,81m/s^2 gravity), the statement is that that would take the same energy. Hence earths gravity well is 6000 km deep. That doesn't mean launching 6001 km straight up means you've escaped the well. Just as launching 31m straight up out of an actual well means you've escaped a 31m deep well. You'd still fall straight back down.

[Tom 38]

Re: Can't help wondering

The xkcd image explains how to calculate the depth of a gravity well:

depth = (G * Planet-mass ) / (9.81 m/s2 * Planet-radius)

where G is Newton's gravitational constant, and

9.81 m/s2 is the acceleration rate of a free falling body on earth at sea level (g).

Check out the bottom of Jupiter's gravity well. The depth of the gravity well being X does not mean that at X altitude you will have escaped the gravity well, but that if you had a rocket on Earth at sea level that was capable of reaching X altitude, it could escape a gravity well of depth X.

[Zolko]

Re: Can't help wondering

depth = (G * Planet-mass ) / (9.81 m/s2 * Planet-radius)

I did read that, but is that correct ? According to my understanding the height should be such that the potential energy up there (assuming constant g) should be equal to the kinetic energy at escape velocity. Something like:

1/2 × m × v2 = m × g × h

Knowing the escape velocity v (which I'm ashamed to admit not remembering how to calculate) you can calculate the well depth h.

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

Maybe put in orbit around the Moon or Mars as a resource for when we start looking at building habitats there.

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

Just start off by calculating the energy requirements for that to be an option...

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

@John Robson

A valid point but

- No need to sustain life so time is not of the essence

- Cost of the vehicle to de-orbit 400,000 kg is most likely more expensive

Certainly makes more sense to recycle it into something useable in the future than tear it to bits.

Also no risk to Florida home owners.

[Peter2]

Re: Can't help wondering

Deorbiting it is actually dead simple. Do nothing and gravity will take care of that.

The only tricky bit is getting it to deorbit so the debris lands in the pacific ocean where it's not going to go through somebodies roof. That is going to be many orders of magnitude cheaper than moving the ISS from Low Earth Orbit to GTO and then putting it in orbit around the moon.

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

@Pete2

I guess you did not read the article.

"The aerospace agency announced the deal on Wednesday, and that it will see SpaceX "develop and deliver" a vehicle "that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.""

[MachDiamond]

Re: Can't help wondering

"The aerospace agency announced the deal on Wednesday, and that it will see SpaceX "develop and deliver" a vehicle "that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.""

So, not a big story for the next 20 years of so if SpaceX is still in business.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Can't help wondering

I don't see anything in the quote that contradicts what Pete2 just said- quite the opposite.

Nor, for that matter, do I see anything that backs up your confidently-misguided original assumption that the "cost of the vehicle to de-orbit 400,000 kg [would most likely be] more expensive" than putting the ISS "in orbit around the Moon or Mars".

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Can't help wondering

"The aerospace agency announced the deal on Wednesday, and that it will see SpaceX "develop and deliver" a vehicle "that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.""

You are overlooking the important detail: and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.

Deorbiting it is an automatic, it is already dropping all be it slowly. The problem is doing it in a controlled manner avoiding risk to human life (marine life doesn't factor in the equation).

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

You can deorbit with a modified dragon I expect.

Getting from LEO to TLI and then Lunar Capture and down to a respectably low orbit would take about 6km/s

Getting back from LEO to "prompt" reentry will need somewhere around 100m/s, let's be generous and go for 500m/s for a very well determined reentry.

(The deorbit values here are not well sourced)

That's less than 10% of the momentum change, and ~1% of the energy requirements.

I'm almost surprised they aren't aiming to deorbit it in modules, rather than as one object.

It's possible that a modified starship could be available in the relevant timescale, though I don't know if it could be made to thrust gently enough for raising the orbit to be worthwhile.

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

It seems that the bigger issue is the fragility.

Easy answers to easy questions, son.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Can't help wondering

That condescendion is all the more inappropriate coming from someone who- as we've already seen in this thread- confuses their lazy and incorrect assumptions about how orbital physics work with actual expertise and understanding.

Your attitude reminds me very much of Slashdot back when I still used it. The userbase there skewed *very* heavily towards the IT field, and there was a tendency among some users who were "clever" in that area to assume that this extended to other fields.

In particular, there were plenty of Slashdotters who didn't have a clue about (e.g.) how the legal system worked, but took it for granted that their extrapolation of what it might be- based on quasi-logical extension of their limited knowledge- was actually correct. Or assumed that how they thought it *should* work was how it actually *did* work. (As I pointed out repeatedly, the only way to know what the law says is to actually *know* what the law says).

The same types who- in their Internet Tough Guy fantasy- thought they were going to come into court with some quasi-logical argument and run circles around the judge and the other side, who would be forced to let them off. When it was obvious that in any real-life courtoom run by a halfway competent judge, the first thing he'd do would be to slap down that clever-dick nonsense.

You could also see the lack of expertise when it came to anything approaching a "serious" physics thread and it descended into lame attempts at humour rather than any real insight.

Anyway, yeah. I normally wouldn't take the piss out of someone based on a username that's already self-deprecating, but the arrogant and lazy misplaced confidence in your understanding of orbital mechanics seems pretty much what one would expect from an "IT Hack".

[DropBear]

Re: Can't help wondering

Sounds like the very first mistake is assuming to being able to tell what the outcome of any particular court case will be based on what "the law says". "Justice" is just another word for "Russian roulette, only much worse".

[tiggity]

Re: Can't help wondering

@DropBear, indeed, to quote a Billy Bragg lyric.

And the Judge said, "This isn't a court of justice, son. This is a court of law."

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

Wow.

Thus A. Coward speaks.

Gibberish.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder who the sole downote was from (ahem!)

Funny that no-one else seemed to have a problem with it except the person being called out for their overconfident ignorance, eh?

If you genuinely thought that was "gibberish", then you're clearly as bad at English comprehension as you are with orbital mechanics. ;-)

Also, if you want to bitch about my posting as AC, can we have your real name please? Ta!

[IT Hack]

Re: Wonder who the sole downote was from (ahem!)

The two down votes? Not from me.

But I'm glad to see you're still triggered.

[James Hughes 1]

Re: Wonder who the sole downote was from (ahem!)

Is it impossible for you to accept you are wrong? Which in the field of orbital mechanics, you are, as can very clearly be demonstrated.

Or do you just start insulting people who know more about this subject than you do because that's the best you have?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wonder who the sole downote was from (ahem!)

> triggered

Ironic use of the I'm-fourteen-and-this-is-edgy stock troll response, coming from someone so obviously "triggered" by my post that they had to pretend it was "gibberish" to avoid admitting they clearly understood they'd essentially been called thick and ignorant (with good reason) and had no comeback to that. (^_^)

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Can't help wondering

Just start off by calculating the energy requirements for that to be an option...

Away with your pesky physics!

It's a shame that reality bites because if it were feasible or practical to move it into lunar orbit, it could make for a great space museum. Or just science projects to see how it's holding up after even longer in space.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Can't help wondering

Actually, Lunar orbit would be worse.

The Moon is "lumpy" and there are mascons (mass concentrations) that make most Lunar orbits unstable without active orbital adjustments.

This means all the orbiting Apollo LM upper stages have crashed back into the Moon, which sucks.

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

@Gene Cash

I didn't know that (mascons) they could affect orbits to such an extent.

Thanks!

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Can't help wondering

This means all the orbiting Apollo LM upper stages have crashed back into the Moon, which sucks.

I didn't know that either, and yep, sucks. So Lagrange point instead? Would be nice to preserve examples of our slow climb out of our gravity well. Which I guess could also be an issue with preserving other artefacts, like the Apollo 11 LM, flag, footprints, rover etc. AFAIK there are gentlemen's agreements to do this, but I guess as colonisation increases, there may be fewer gentlemen.

[gryff]

Re: Can't help wondering

Not all of the lunar ascent modules are lost

Apollo 11 ascent module could still be in orbit :

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/part-apollo-11-may-still-be-orbiting-moon-180978352/

or

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10088

Impact sites for most of the rest:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_impact.html

or

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloloc.html

Apollo 16 ascent module is missing an impact location because of loss of control after undocking.

Apollo 10 ascent stage is in heliocentric orbit - recently observed: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/astronomers-might-have-found-apollo-10-snoopy-module/

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Can't help wondering

OTOH what will be the energy requirements for sending the equivalent mass up to those orbits direct from Earth when we finally get round to it?

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

Reasonable - but we should be able to put directly useful stuff into orbit, rather than the fairly nebulous "we might be able to use this later" method that I use to clog up the garage.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Can't help wondering

By the same token, we probably shouldn't apply the "some day I'll donate this ISS to charity" policy.

[imanidiot]

Re: Can't help wondering

NASA has already done the calculations to take the ISS to just beyond GEO. It would take aprox. 900 tons of propellant. The moon or mars would take several hundred tons more. Going the other way and aero- then litho-breaking probably takes a tiny fraction of that. About a ton or 2 of propellant at most if I had to make a guess.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Can't help wondering

"Maybe put in orbit around the Moon or Mars as a resource for when we start looking at building habitats there."

It would be better to just crash it on the moon as a source of refined materials over putting it in a lunar orbit if it were feasible to move it out that far. Threading the needle through all of the other junk going around Earth would be a huge challenge since, in ISS's current configuration, Ion drives would be required to keep acceleration low enough that bits didn't snap off and randomly fall back to Earth as the orbit is raised until it's far enough out of the well to give it a push towards the moon.

[kurios]

Re: Can't help wondering

Because it takes ~4km/sec delta V to put it in a high parking orbit. This translates to a propellant requirement in excess of 900 tonnes, or many hundreds of propellant supply missions. Not affordable.

In contrast, bringing it down under control takes a little less than 50m/sec delta V. Very affordable.

Too bad - I'd love to see the ISS retired to a high orbit, there to serve as a museum in the coming centuries. But we have more important uses for 900 tonnes of propellant meanwhile.

[bazza]

Re: Can't help wondering

At last, some proper energy-related numbers!

It's actually going to be quite an interesting challenge for SpaceX. This thing is going to have to be docked to the ISS (probably not an issue) and operate reliably in space for quite a long time, where "reliable" is effectively "safety critical". Even though it's only 50m/sec, it'll still take quite a long time to get the orbit elliptical and actually point it towards a re-entry at the right place. What SpaceX builds will have to work reliably, all the way down, to deliver the final de-orbiting burn at just the right time. That long(er) endurance safety critical operation is not something that SpaceX has much heritage in...

It'll be interesting to see what reliability requirement NASA has put into the contract, and see SpaceX's justification for how they're meeting it. If that goes wrong, and they end up causing an uncontrolled and undirected re-entry then things could get messy.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that the job sounds like it should cost a bit more than a mere $864million, and there may be differences of opinion between NASA and SpaceX to emerge in the future. But we'll see.I just hope that SpaceX has done more Systems Engineering on the task than merely guestimating how many Raptor thrusters it'd take.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Can't help wondering

It'll be interesting to see what reliability requirement NASA has put into the contract, and see SpaceX's justification for how they're meeting it. If that goes wrong, and they end up causing an uncontrolled and undirected re-entry then things could get messy.

And potentially expensive, pending outcome of the Florida court case with the guy who's house got hit by the battery fragment.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that the job sounds like it should cost a bit more than a mere $864million, and there may be differences of opinion between NASA and SpaceX to emerge in the future. But we'll see.I just hope that SpaceX has done more Systems Engineering on the task than merely guestimating how many Raptor thrusters it'd take.

I've been thinking the same. Also very curious about how it'll be done, and how many crewed flights and space walks it might take. I'm guessing it might be safer to try and dismantle the ISS and bring it down in sections. Or if they'll essentially replace or add vacuum thrusters where the ISS's existing station keeping thrusters are. They're already place to position the ISS & would presumably make the mass/thrust balancing easier, but whether that could safely be done via a module attached to the ISS's docking ports. Then how much thrust and fuel they'll need, especially to deal with any corrections. The last Starship test showed they're getting pretty good at maintaining stability though.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Can't help wondering

"The last Starship test showed they're getting pretty good at maintaining stability though."

That's not really a requirement for HLS which is getting a crew from lunar orbit to the moon's surface and back up again. I do understand that it's a systems requirement for SpaceX's mission architecture, but they could do it with fully expendable vehicles if pressed.

I haven't seen if the booster settled over the ocean precisely where they wanted it to. To get caught by the chopsticks is going to take accuracy well under a meter in all directions. Get it wrong and it has the potential to wipe out the site. Starship was on fire. Sure, it was on fire in a stable way, but those flaps are going to be a bugger to thermally protect. A cylinder will fall back to Earth at an angle by itself. Sorry, not going to show the sims but it's well know. The downside is the lack of control so some sort of control surfaces will be necessary and that's the hard part. There's also the whole issue about using all of the fuel to not get an empty craft to orbit. A craft that Elon is saying will, at best, only be able to take half the payload. Since it's an Elon promise, halve it again and it still might be a tall tale. The job as SpaceX has promised is for Startship to take 100t of propellant(s) to orbit, dock with an orbiting tanker, transfer those propellants, rinse and repeat some unknown number of times. The tankers will be 100t heavier, going a bit faster and really need to be used over and over very quickly. They also need to be recovered on the chopsticks so that's another serious bit of risk that could crash the whole program if something goes wrong (again). They don't want to wind up only a couple of tankers shy of filling up the depot and have a Starship crash into the launch site. All of the propellants delivered would boil off long before the bullet points of what the investigation will cover have been worked out.

[JJF]

Endurance

A quick google search 'longest dragon mission' found this:-

After spending almost 200 days in orbit, the Crew Dragon Endeavour set the record for the longest spaceflight by a U.S. crew vehicle previously set by her sibling Crew Dragon Resilience on May 2, 2021.

[bazza]

Re: Endurance

Hmmm, 200 days is longer than I'd realised they'd managed. I'm not sure that that's long enough, but it's along the right lines.

From what I can gather, because they're having to aim for the South Pacific spacecraft graveyard they're going to have to slowly lower the orbit, but have one last rapid large delta-V burn to definitively push it into the atmosphere at the desired point. Get that wrong by 30 minutes and it's landing on the USA instead (or something). It could take quite a long time from beginning to end. I'm guessing that, left to its own devices, it'd take years for the ISS's orbit to naturally decay.

If they attach some really big thrusters to get all the delta-V needed in one go, they could do it in an afternoon.

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

Meh - throw a modified dragon up there, loads of fuel instead of cargo and just push gently.

Won't take that long to properly deorbit, and it doesn't have to be launched far in advance.

[bazza]

Re: Can't help wondering

Pushing gently at the start is OK, but I think they need a rapid delta-V at the end to bring it down in the right spot. Miss by only a few 10s of minutes and it'll fall on, say, the USA.

Back in the day the US had a big problem persuading the Russians to finally de-orbit Mir. This was done on that station's last gasps of functionality, and they only just managed to aim it at the Pacific. So I imagine NASA are keen to get this one right...

[John Robson]

Re: Can't help wondering

They will want to get it right... I don't think it needs a particularly rapid change in velocity...

Soyuz, for instance, has a deorbit burn at an average of 0.05g for 5 minutes... shedding 120m/s for a pretty well targetted reentry.

https://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-landing.html

A quick search suggests that the iSS boosts are quite gentle:

ISS Daily Summary Report – 05/06/15

ISS Reboost: This morning, the ISS performed a reboost using 58P thrusters to set up phasing requirements for 41S landing scheduled on May 13. Burn duration was 12 minutes, 17 seconds with a Delta-V of 1.34 meters/second.

That's a very much lower acceleration, though it's clearly not anywhere near the limit for the ISS, and we don't really care if the ISS develops a leak during deorbit (indeed we'd might want to ditch the atmosphere in a planned manner prior to the manoeuvre anyway). The limits here seem to be aiming to reduce vibration and to extend part life - neither of which are a particular concern for a deorbit burn.

Since an orbit is on the order of 45 minutes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to take 20 minutes (ten either side of apogee) to shed the required 120m/s, that's a little over 0.01g, though I have no real way to determine if the ISS would handle that well...

[mpi]

Re: Can't help wondering

Because that hunk of junk would be one crash away from turning into a cloud of shrapnel, circulating the Earth at ~8 km/sec, possibly for centuries, ready to cut everything it encounters, including sattelites, future rockets and their crew, into space-confetti.

As long as its in one piece, its relatively easy to get rid off.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Can't help wondering

As long as its in one piece, its relatively easy to get rid off.

Yes and no, it is too large to burn up cleanly, causing problems somewhat lower, especially if it manages to miss point Nemo by more than 1670 miles.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Can't help wondering

That would require somewhat more fuel, enough more that it is not a viable option.

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Can't help wondering

Just attach a couple of boosters and dump it into the Sun.

[James Hughes 1]

Re: Can't help wondering

Boosters with over a 1000 tons of fuel....

Dropping things in the sun requires, approximately, negating the velocity of the earth around the sun, which is 107,000 km/h. That needs lot of fuel for something weighing 400 tons.

[bazza]

Re: Can't help wondering

Judging by the efforts that have gone into getting space probes to slow down enough to be able to get down as far as the planet Mercury, actually hitting the sun looks really difficult!

[Dizzy Dwarf]

Re: Can't help wondering

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf

[IT Hack]

Re: Can't help wondering

That's a pretty interesting read.

Thanks for the link!

[Dan 55]

2029

Did NASA specify if that was 2029 as in the Gregorian calendar or 2029 as in the Musk calendar?

[alain williams]

What a waste of a good film set

It should be sold to the entertainment industry -- think of all the great films that could be made there. Even if they end up burning it up by de-orbiting it that would be a brilliant James Bond plot!

[Dave 126]

Re: What a waste of a good film set

The narrow diameter of the sections would present a challenge to the film crew.

Within a few years, between inflatable orbital habitats or Starship ( its 8m diameter payload bay has a greater volume than the pressurised parts of the ISS), there will be better options for filming micro gravity scenes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What a waste of a good film set

"Within a few years, between inflatable orbital habitats or Starship ( its 8m diameter payload bay has a greater volume than the pressurised parts of the ISS), there will be better options for filming micro gravity scenes."

The adult film industry will be delighted.

[StewartWhite]

It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Given that Elon Musk already looks like a bit like Dr. Evil and he no doubt thinks of himself as Ernst Blofeld, couldn't he just borrow the plot of "You only live twice" (the film, not the book as that's mainly concerned with toxic horticulture) and convert one of his phallo-rockets into one that devours the space station then just say "sorry" afterwards?

[Casca]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Lets tell musk that the ISS would be a great lair and make him move up there. Disable all the antennas of course

[Helcat]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Why stop at Musk? I can think of quite a few political figures I'd love to see move to the IIS... with no way back.

Putin

Jinping

Kim Jung Un

Trump

Biden

Starmer

Sunak

Trudeau

Swinney

And I'm sure there's a lot more who would server the public interest more by being up there than down here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

didn't get to the telephone sanitizers then.

[Helcat]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Telephone sanitisers are useful - just ask... oh, wait, they died out due to an ear infection :p

Not many political types are that useful: Most are in it for the power trip - and the get-rich-quick allure.

Musk... has his uses. Mostly when he throws money at something that's not going to work, but in doing so lets people explore >why< it won't work so they might look at better ways to do something (hyperloop for example). Only down side is all the people who suffer as a result of his tantrums.

Can't say the same for politicians. Well, not all of them - and the ones who are at least half decent never seem to get far. Or... they get caught up with the temptation that power provides.

After all: Power doesn't corrupt, it tempts. It's succumbing to temptation that corrupts. Problem is: The more power, the greater the temptation, and hence the higher the probability of corruption. But that's my spin on that old saying.

[Bebu]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

[ Putin,Jinping,Kim Jung Un,Trump,Biden,Starmer,Sunak,Trudeau,Swinney,... ] :: [Musk] ?

I am reminded of "They never would be missed" G&S "I've got a little list*..." The Mikado°

I believe The Lord High Executioners list is modified in each production to relect the times.

° I linked the local product but the Jonathan Miller 1987 production with Eric Idle https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CWo_3CIcTBQ is brilliant.

_{* "Of society offenders / Who might well be underground^☆ / And never would be missed"}

_{☆ inhumed}

[DropBear]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

No, wait, I know! Why not just ask Tessier-Ashpool whether they might be interested in buying it...?

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

StewartWhite,

Surely the plot Musk should be stealing is from Moonraker. Another film where the plot is completely different to the book.

You Only Live Twice has the torture scene where Bond is sat on top of a geyser that's about to shoot boiling water up his arse - but escapes at the last minute.

Whereas Moonraker is all about Nazis and rockets. Fleming was involved with T Force, which was a British equivalent to the US Operation Paperclip - to get hold of useful Nazi tech and scientists.

Is Moonraker the worst of the Bond films?

My pet theory is that having done a non-Cold War based story arc with Daniel Craig - the Bond franchise should do the old comic book trick of restarting everything. Set it in the 50s, and the Russians can mostly be the baddies again - seeing as Putin has clearly modelled himself on a Bond villain. Moonraker has nukes, Nazis, Soviet submarines and rockets. What's not to like? One of Fleming's alternative titles was 'Mondays are Hell' - so they could use that, Moonraker already being taken.

[StewartWhite]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Fair point. I read Moonraker a while back and enjoyed it but whilst the Live and Let Die film was ok I thought the film versions of the Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me were both pants so have never watched Moonraker.

[Zolko]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

I have a bias because Moonraker was the first Bond movie I saw, but I think that it was one of the best Bond films. The part with the red and blue lasers – very handy to differentiate between the goodies and the baddies – that flew at some reasonable speed was especially welcome. The Shark bad guy with his metal teeth was also a nice invention. Considering the manipulated covid-19 virus it even had a semi-realistic scenario.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

> Considering the manipulated covid-19 virus

Oh, you were going so well, then just had to end with that

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Stewart White,

If you thought the Spy Who Loved Me was bad, you're in for a real "treat" if you ever watch Moonraker. Moore is even older, and less convincing as either a lover or a fighter. The script isn't up to much. And they'd made it as a response to Star Wars making loadsa money - so shoehorned in the space stuff. But clearly hadn't bothered to make the plot make sense or anything.

By View to a Kill, Moore was so old that they have a scene of him running up a half flight of steps, and it's clearly been done by his stunt double.

[bazza]

Re: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission

Moonraker is famous for having got its portrayal of the US's Shuttle, and its launch operations pretty much on the nail (including ascending to orbit inverted). The special effects department also got the SRB exhaust pretty much right (much better than previous efforts of a gas flame obviously aimed downwards...). And they managed this before Shuttle had even flown, so someone must have done a really good bit of research.

The lasering of the poison-filled WMDs was another matter though.

[Andy Non]

"NASA wanted a specialized craft to make sure the job is done right first time."

Oh bugger, didn't want it to land there and kill all those people... come on guys, lets try again. ;-)

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: "NASA wanted a specialized craft to make sure the job is done right first time."

I predict that Twitter is going to get a new feature - location tracking.

This will be sold as the new way to show your tweets by location and to allow you to interact with people who share similar interests and geographical areas.

But actually it's so Elon can build his target list.

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

Re: "NASA wanted a specialized craft to make sure the job is done right first time."

Well, there's always Balladonia Roadhouse.

[DropBear]

Re: "NASA wanted a specialized craft to make sure the job is done right first time."

Donnie Darko has entered the chat and started typing...

[Swordfish1]

The Starliner from Boeing is a pig in a poke, and the that project should be scrapped - complete and utter waste of money and resources.

[Flocke Kroes]

Whose resources?

Boeing have got a little of the $4.2B commercial crew contract money for achieving milestones and get another small chunk if they return Butch and Suni safely. The bulk of that $4.2B only gets handed over if Boeing complete the six operational missions. NASA has actually paid around $600M on Starliner so far and Boeing has stated charges against earnings of about $800M. If Boeing cancel now they make a bigger loss than if they continue - assuming operating Starliner safely does not require another large investment. If NASA cancel without a reason outlined in the contract they owe Boeing money and if problem shows up with Dragon they have to buy rides from Russia.

The good news is that Boeing will not be taking on any more fixed price contracts. The bad news is that Boeing could add an extra $1B/year for SLS and congress would approve funding before NASA got a chance to comment.

[Gene Cash]

Maybe you should tell Boeing, which has taken nearly $2 billion in writedowns on Starliner. They're not happy about it either.

Boeing’s Starliner losses total $1.5 billion with NASA astronauts still waiting to fly

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/boeing-has-lost-1point5-billion-developing-starliner-spacecraft-for-nasa.html

and that was a year ago, before the latest round of write-offs.

[John Robson]

Having two options will be good... starliner hasn't started well, but it might turn out to be a useful option.

[Charlie Clark]

Language

I really despair when the poor language of the press release is parroted in the article: "deorbit"? What's wrong with "remove from orbit" and "retrieval vehicle"? And "masses" as a verb? Even if you want to be scientific and avoid saying "weighs 400,000 kg", you're not being scientific by inventing a new verb: mass is property and not an action. "has a mass of 400,000 kg" is easier to understand and refer to when it comes to discussing the work (acceleration/deceleration) involved in adjusting the orbit of a massive object.

[Dinanziame]

Re: Language

Not sure what you're talking about; "deorbit" has a precise meaning, is in the dictionary and has been used since the 60s.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

Doesn't make it any better because it's not the opposite of orbit.

[lglethal]

Re: Language

And inflammable is not the opposite of flammable. What's your point?

English is a flexible language. Deorbit is a perfectly cromulent word...

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

No, it's jargon.

[John Robson]

Re: Language

Only in the sense that orbit is jargon.

the 'de' prefix is a perfectly reasonable one to use here.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

Okay, so do we now "orbit" satellites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Language

> Okay, so do we now "orbit" satellites?

Ah, I believe you meant to ask:

> Okay, so do we now "enorbit" satellites?

deorbit, enorbit; detrain, entrain

[that one in the corner]

Re: Language

Deorbit? We can do better than that!

Disenorbitize

[MachDiamond]

Re: Language

"Deorbit is a perfectly cromulent word..."

Backyard Starship reference?

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

Flammable, IIRC, is a neologism because, quite understandbly, people got confused by "inflammable" meaning like to burst into flames. But I don't want to inflame your passions with more inflamatory remarks!

The point isn't about negative neologisms per se, see also unheimlich and heimlich, but the lack of thought when using these terms, particularly when they come from press releases. We put objects into orbit by launching (this is the work actually done) them on rockets, we could say we "orbit the satellite", but we don't because it's nonsense. "delaunch" could be used, I suppose, but I'd like to see something that expresses the controlled nature of the induced crash, which is what is actually happens.

Still, looks like I've hit a new record for downvotes, so it's not all bad! ;-)

[Dave 126]

Re: Language

'Weight' too can get converted into a verb, such as 'Weighing in at 19 stone' used by AC/DC in Whole Lotta Rosie.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

"Weight" != "weigh". But, again, you miss the point: to weigh or the weight relate to force of gravity (okay not relativistically speaking) applied to an object, which is why we learn that weight and mass are, scientifically speaking, not the same even if to all intents and purposes, in everyday life they're the same.

[Bendacious]

Re: Language

Are we sure it's not a typo?

"The station masses over 400,000 kilograms"

might be

"The station mass is over 400,000 kilograms"

If it was read out to the author over the phone.

@Charlie_Clark - If it's not a typo then I agree it's grammatically non-cromulent.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Language

You can complain about the usage (though you're wasting your time doing so), but there's nothing wrong with it grammatically. English grammar is almost entirely contextual.

[MJB7]

Re: Language

Any noun can be verbed (in Indo-European languages at least), and we have been doing it (and the reverse) for millennia.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Language

Whoosh… you missed the point. I know what we can and cannot do with words, though I'd dispute the scope of languages that allow such games, if the point is not to use the gravitationally tainted word "weighs", it wasn't a good choice.

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: Language

Verbing weirds language.

[DropBear]

Re: Language

Only in English. For instance, there ISN'T any corresponding term to the verb "to experience" in either Hungarian or Romanian. Any translation of a sentence containing it is a kludge.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Language

Hungarian isn't an Indo-European language so you may be right, but Romanian is a Romance language like French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, which all have that verb, so I doubt you are right about that. And even if you ever were, it will have been adopted by now.

[Zolko]

Re: Language

there ISN'T any corresponding term to the verb "to experience" in either Hungarian

what about tapasztalni ?

[MacGuffin]

Re: Language

“Deplane! Deplane!” Bring back Mr. Roarke’s sidekick, Tattoo..

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Language

Mass is actually a verb but it's not used in the same way as weigh, so not as in TFA. It relates to forming a large crowd, a mass of people.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Language

Prescriptivist bullshit. The word is used as it is used.

[diodesign]

Re: Language

I dunno if you've noticed around here but we tend to bend the language to breaking point, and we kinda enjoy it. It's fun to test the limits and play with writing. Yes, there are rules to follow. Apostrophes, plurals, commas, and so on.

But you're talking about a publication that writes about bonkers boffins, naughty Norks, and enormo electronics slingers. Masses and deorbit are par for the course.

C.

[Pascal Monett]

"make sure the job is done right first time"

Yeah, because Musk has a great track record on that score.

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

If Tesla had put it up there in the first place

It would have been fully self-diving.

[Bendacious]

Re: If Tesla had put it up there in the first place

I am wondering if the plan is to launch a constellation of Tesla cars in the direction of the ISS, until it is in bits small enough to burn up on reentry. There's already one up there.

[TheFifth]

Re: "make sure the job is done right first time"

He has a pretty good record for burning things up in the atmosphere. Recently anyway.

[Dave 126]

Re: "make sure the job is done right first time"

Er, no he hasn't. Both Starship and its booster arrived at sea level at zero m/s second on the last test. There was some burning, but no 'burning up', since that phrase means complete consumption by fire.

[TheFifth]

Re: "make sure the job is done right first time"

It was a joke Dave...

[spireite]

Surely they can give the de-orbiting job to Boeing?

Launch a few Starliners on their inevitable one way trip and they can pull it down by sheer weight of Boeing redundant hardware!

[I ain't Spartacus]

Boeing Redundant Hardware

The problem with that, is that nobody can ever know the mass of any particular Boeing product. In the instant that you weigh it, you know. At least until something falls off. Or it develops a leak. Therefore the BRH rating, required to deorbit any particular object is inherently unknowable. I suppose you could keep docking Starliners to it until it falls from the sky, like a game of orbital Buckaroo. But that doesn’t seem very scientific…

[Roland6]

Nice idea, just that the ISS crew and the Starliner crew, would like to have their feet on terra firma before the Starliner’s begin their suicide mission…

[Anonymous Coward]

Full Self Deorbiting

Should be ready by 2030 or 2039….

[Conundrum1885]

What we need to do

Dismantle it safely, then deorbit the extra parts.

Thought Russia were intending to undock parts of it and make their own mini-ISS.

Last I heard some of the modules might last another decade.

Perhaps ask CNSA if they are interested, fairly sure they would be.

[Andy Non]

Re: What we need to do

Just leave the metal parts at the side of the space lane and a space wagon will roll past before long, picking up any scrap. ;-)

[imanidiot]

Re: What we need to do

The Russians (more specifically the politicos doing the talking) are full of big words about keeping their bit of the station on orbit for longer or going their own way, but the reality is that most of the current worries about the structural integrity of the station relate to the Russian segments and cracking in it's aluminium components. There's no way in heck most of those will last another decade without a lot of maintenance, replacement and accepting an increasing risk of the whole thing going *pufff* into space and killing whomever is inside it rather gruesomely.

As to dismantling before deorbit and bringing it down in segments, NASA looked into that but found that it would require so much work and a whole load of specialized de-orbit vehicles specifically designed for the module to be de-orbited that it would be much easier and cheaper to just bring the whole thing down in one go. Things like the main truss alone would required probably 4 to 6 space walks to disconnect all of it's connections and a specialized vehicle that could connect to it in a way that it could keep control while deorbiting the thing. And then you've lost most power generation and cooling radiators so keeping crew up there to perform the next steps is going to be even more difficult.

[BartyFartsLast]

Elon Tessier Ashpool

Destroy, that seems a waste when he could move off planet for tax reasons.

Please?

[42656e4d203239]

Re: Elon Tessier Ashpool

I find it amazing how much older SF is being used as a reference manual rather than entertaining stories....

Beer cos Friday and Gibson reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

re-Xeet?

"acknowledged the contract award with a re-Xeet"

Please don't do that again!

[Boris the Cockroach]

SpaceX winning a contract...

Whats the betting once the 'de-orbit' module arrives, that muskie re-orbits it to suit himself, adds a few more modules , then takes up residence with his carefully selected genetically superior humans, in order to rule the seething masses below, until they get frozen in suspended animation for 250 years.........

But I suppose Kirk yelling "MUSK!" does'nt have the same ring as "Khan!" ....

[Ribfeast]

Strap an engine to it. Turn it into the International Space Ship. Send it to mars, or moon orbit. Even find a way to soft land it on the moon.

[david 12]

"n deemed unfit to fly"

the Boeing-built Starliner capsule that's been deemed unfit to fly

Wait, what? That's not what the linked article says. Is there new information?

Last I heard, a disposable unit was leaking, and they'd delayed disposing of the disposable unit, so that they could study it. That means they've delayed departure, not that returning craft they want to use for return has been deemed "unfit to fly".

[Catkin]

Re: "n deemed unfit to fly"

Would you want to fly in a Boeing craft without a way to deal with a terror-induced bowel movement?

[Bebu]

Surprised...

The whole article managed to avoid any reference to "customary units" - pounds, feet, tons or miles. Left pondians with any interest in space tech are likely the more rational of their countrymen, I guess.

At 400,000kg I didn't realize this puppy weighs in at 400 tonnes (~70 elephants*) - that unexpectedly dropping in could really rain on your parade.

Based on previous examples I imagine SpaceX will attempt to drop it in the remote southern pacific/southern ocean as the southern hemisphere isn't considered to contain anything worth worrying about (by the nirthern hemisphere.) Perhaps a good time to visit Europe.

I don't know where Skylab was supposed to land but in the event a seriously large chunk ended up in Western Australia.

_{*African bush ekephant, adult male. Air speed? In this context terminal velocity. Or Rego units: 267 skateboarding rhinos. What species black, white, javan? Sex? Age? Abysmal. :)}

[imanidiot]

Re: Surprised...

The goal will probably be to drop it in the spacecraft cemetery near Point Nemo (the "pole of inaccessibility" furthest away from any land mass in the southern pacific)

Skylab was no longer under control when it re-entered and thus ended up scattered across Australia. If it HAD been under control it too would have been aimed at the spacecraft cemetery

[volsano]

Happy landings

Musk probably imagines he can safely land the station using a few Falcon Heavies intercepting it on the way down.

Then sell it intact to Disney.

Profit!

He will continue to fire engineers until they yell him it is possible using Ai-guided rocketry,

[deadlockvictim]

Valerian & Lauréline

I prefer to dream and think of the planet of a thousand cities.

I must go read those comics again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8JpG7Cah-c

[Anonymous Coward]

"and just what was it about Mr Musk's unrivalled track record of blowing up space ships and ditching them in the sea that made you think he was the right man for the job?"

[Hopalong]

Fuel requirements

I would love the ISS to be kept, boosted to to a higher orbit, but alas, not practical for a number of reasons.

To boost the ISS from its current 400 Km orbit to a higher one requires propellant, and due to the rocket equation, a lot.

For a 100 year Orbit lifetime, 640-680 Km orbit - Dv 120-140 m/s propellant required - 19 - 23 Tonnes

For a 500 year Orbit lifetime, 770-810 Km orbit - Dv 190-210 m/s propellant required - 30 -34 tonnes

For a 5000 year Orbit lifetime, 1025-1075 Km Orbit -Dv 320-346 m/s propellant required - 52 - 56 Tonnes

Deorbit - 57 m/s - 9 Tonnes

To make it safe to leave in orbit, every source of energy has to be discharged, all pressure vessels emptied, batteries discharged, solar panels disconnected. Even then there is a high chance of breakup due to impacts etc.

Safer to bring it down in a controlled manner, the deorbit vehicle would reduce is orbit a few Km's at a time, couple of m/s here, a couple m/s there, letting the drag of the atmosphere do a lot of the work, then one final burn to put the ISS into the South Pacific.

[Roland6]

Re: Fuel requirements

The question which isn’t being asked is what is the cost of deorbiting where the majority of ISS reaches the earth largely intact and so be recycled.

Remember we’ve already addressed the problem of it landing on centres of population and the issue of parachutes, so the issue is more of how to reduce the amount of atmospheric burn to maximise the amount of recoverable materials that reach the ground.

[Reaps]

ho FFS

Haven't NASA learned anything about trusting musktwat and his lies.

[Real Ale is Best]

It makes me sad.

As a child, I eagerly watched the first launch of the Space Shuttle, my imagination running wild with the things our species could now do with our new reusable lift to the stars.

Then came Hubble, unlocking so many beautiful images of starscapes previously unimagined; launched by the Shuttle.

Next, the beginnings of the ISS; with it's dreams of space cooperation and progress...

Alas, the cooperation never really lived up to it's potential, and then the Shuttle was retired.

And now the ISS is to come crashing down too, and I do not see anything, yet, to stimulate the young minds of tomorrow's scientists and engineers.

I guess our hopes and dreams now lie in the hands of SpaceX, and those private companies planning on building inflatable hotels and labs.

It still makes me sad that we have to scrap the ISS.

[Locomotion69]

Recently the message came that the burning up of space junk may affect the ozon layer.

Mr. Musk, could you please repair the ozon layer after the ISS has passed? Thank you.

[IGotOut]

I imagine the board meeting.

"Right we need someone that has rockets but is also able to destroy something really big"

"Musk"

"Yes he has rockets but what big thing has he......oooooohhh yeeaaah".

"I'll call him now"

[Michael Wojcik]

It's fine

I still have a few cans of Skylab Repellent around somewhere, and that stuff worked great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious solution

Launch a few hundred unsold Cybertrucks at it to change the orbit. They can finally become useful.