Trouble in space as Boeing's not going, and China's back from the Moon

It's been a busy time for space, with Boeing's test pilots stuck (at time of writing) on the International Space Station due to a faulty capsule, and then being forced to take shelter from debris. The trash came from RESURS-P1, a decommissioned Russian satellite launched in 2013, which broke up into more than 100 observable …

[HuBo]

Schools (not prisons)

Quite the spiritual Kettle here, channeling Gene Roddenberry for inspiration of a world where our knowledge of physics (and math) enables us to boldly go (as opposed to "worriedly go", in trial and error). Here's to hoping for the needed nurturing environment to be set up, that allows young minds to more fully develop the relevant knowledge, for us all to overcome our gravitational, temporal, and positional restraints, more elegantly than is possible today, by neatly folding the space-time continuum, Houdini-style!

[bombastic bob]

Re: Schools (not prisons)

I think that kids learn best when NOT being indoctrinated, whether it's Chinese COMMUNISM, CRT, DEI, or guilting them into being socialists. Similarly, they learn best when NOT DRUGGING the kids because they're smart (calling it AD[H]D or autism to justify it).

Just sayin' - since the WRONG kind of schools might LEAD to prison!!! Or, being COMMUNISTS...

[Alistair]

Space, the messy frontier

I've been, lets say, a space junkie since I watched Neil A plop down from the lander.

Apollo started as a dream, but in the end was nothing more than an investment in bankrupting the USSR, along with the atomic weaponry and massive military investments.

I was a massive fan of the Shuttles as they were rolled out, and at the time I had a bit of an edge on them as a relative was involved in the oversight committee. I've rather liked where SpaceX was going from the get go, and had high hopes for the "commercial" space program(s) launched by Virgin, and Besos at first. Boeing has devolved below where even McDonnell Douglas ended up, but despite that have managed to get from A to B a few times, despite the terrible paths they've taken. ArianeSpace was an awesome competitor for a while but it seems they've lost the urge to one up anyone. There are now at least a dozen "micro rocket" companies out there, who may well bring interesting improvements to the overall field of endeavour. Space exploration (most notably on Mars) has been remote, robotic and rather effective. We've bounced off a couple of asteroids and managed to bring stuff back (even if it took 18 months to open the box).

The future for ISS is inevitable, it must come down. This is truly sad, but as much as it has been a triumph of engineering, technology and global cooperation (even if that only lasted 20 years or so) it is time for humanity to move on, to make the next jump. What we should be aiming for is the terminus station for an elevator. Technology tells us right now we *do not* have the material technology to complete a space elevator, *BUT* if we are to develop that, we need a GEO based space station, with the required shielding, recycling technology, observation capabilities, staff accommodation, research technology and facilities to *develop* that materials technology. Yes, that might seem like an unreal expectation, but in the end I think we humans can accomplish that. Perhaps not in *my* lifetime but I suspect within my youngest's lifetime.

We need to *stop* spending billions to put things on another planet, where most of that spend is to develop the tech to push those things out of our gravity well. Efficiency is efficiency. Lets start working on that ......

All that said, I will always marvel at SpaceX putting the twin boosters down on the pads, seconds apart, in what looks like nothing less than ballet with huge metal poles. I will always support pushing the limits of what we can accomplish, be it NASA, JAXA, the Chinese or Indian equivalents (Hey guys, you didn't mention India in the Kettle), and I even hope that Roscosmos gets it back together and starts putting (non Putin pumping) stuff back to work.

We have no more territory here on earth to move to. We will need to move out there for humanity to continue to grow, not just in size, but in our knowledge, tolerance, and grace. Be it hiding inside massive asteroids or on or below the surfaces of other planets.

[Chris 239]

Re: Space, the messy frontier

May I be the first to upvote your comment. (I was).

Only thing I slightly disagree with is "it must come down", IMO a better option would be to safe it in the same way they do dead satellites (venting or removing anything that could cause it to violently disintegrate, including its air) then boosting it to a safe high parking orbit. that may even be easier technically.

That would avoid depositing a lot of possibly harmful stuff in the atmosphere when it burns up or in the ocean when bits of it survive re-entry, it would also be either a useful source of raw materials or an historic artifact to our future space faring civilization.

[Scene it all]

Re: Space, the messy frontier

Yes on the reboost. The cost of getting all that mass up there was greater than the cost of the materials in it, and once people figure out how to do Aluminum smelting in zero-G it can be turned into useful things.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Space, the messy frontier

If you need gravity, think "2001 a Space Odyssey"

[Alistair]

Re: Space, the messy frontier

I get the "leave it there or park it higher" folks. And in all honesty I'd *love* that, but please put on your risk analysis hats for a little while. And think honestly about the risk levels of putting it into an orbit in which we *cannot* spend time on it (due to lack of shielding that it currently gets from the portion of our atmosphere currently above it), where we will have to rely on what immediately becomes unreliable electronics (again, shielding) to manage its current station/orbit. Someone mentioned Kessler.

I'm sorry, unless we have the modules built and ready to launch in the next 3 to 5 years with which to substantially upgrade the station, it *MUST* come down. Or we risk seriously *never* again being able to launch anything outside of that orbit, due to the mess it leaves behind.

Yes, I'm being paranoid. But *seriously* contemplate the risk analysis of that much material, at that orbit, with that much scatter value. It becomes truly terrifying VERY quickly.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Space, the messy frontier

Low tech space junk solution: a big bucket/dustpan

* rocket goes up with half full fuel tank(s) to assist boosting the fuel tanks and rocket into orbit

* fuel tank(s) emptied, upper half swings open on a hinge to form 2 "buckets"

* rocket with buckets flies around 'catching' space junk

* full buckets then de-orbit into safe place.

"Operation dustpan"

[Pete 2]

Wouldn't blame them

If l was faced with the prospect of flying home from the ISS in a Boing capsule, I might be tempted to invent the odd fault, just to delay the inevitable. Maybe accidentally smack into a helium valve and cause a leak or such.

Though maybe the capsule doesn't need it's occupants to create any more problems.

[AlastairBlakey]

"Instantaneous 'Lithospheric Resistance' Deceleration"?

"Boing"! ... The noise that bits from a certain aerospace manafucturer's vehicles _do_ _not_ make when undergoing instantaneous "lithospheric resistance" deceleration...

I kinda hope the Elon will be using the "Instantaneous 'Lithospheric Resistance' Deceleration" technical term within a week!?

[drankinatty]

What about a transcript?

"For those who prefer just audio, the Kettle is available via RSS and MP3, Apple, Amazon, and Spotify."

What about those that prefer just -- reading?

[anonymous boring coward]

It's Boeing in a nutshell: Send it up, and hope for the best. Never learn from previous mistakes.

[xyz]

What about towing....

The ISS into a moon orbit and use it as a life boat for future lunar missions that go crack at the wrong moment?

[eselig]

In the video the panel essentially says they will have to break up the station before deorbit. I disagree with that. Would you prefer to track one giant track of debris or 6-7? The contract SpaceX was awarded talks about being able to supply the sufficient thrust for deorbit with a 30 minute time period. This sustained and ongoing thrust will allow the ISS partners to be reasonably accurate with their targeting of the landing zone. If it's really thought to be necessary to break it up to ensure a more complete burn-up there are a large variety of interceptor warheads that could be launched as it was on it's final re-entry.

For those saying just push the ISS into Lunar orbit, it would take 775 Tons of fuel to do so and would require additional launches to add additional radiation shielding, etc. While the idea of moving it to Lunar orbit or even high orbit sounds nice, it would literally be cheaper to build something new from scratch and send it up. Additionally, the ISS is massive. If it were to have an impact that broke it up, the debris field would be massive (Kessler Syndrome anyone?). Even the idea of using it as raw materials for future space development sounds good, but we are MANY years away from being able to disassemble and recycle large quantities of material in orbit. The better way of looking at this, I feel, is to have a garage sale. Axiom Space's plan to essentially build their new space station while attached to the ISS gives a chance for any still useable or useful tech to be sold to them to make the construction of the new station more efficient and profitable.

[MachDiamond]

"Would you prefer to track one giant track of debris or 6-7? "

It's a big question whether they could bring it down in one piece. If they try and it turns out that it breaks into several parts, those parts won't have any propulsion that can guide them to a safe crash point. They could wind up with a bunch of pieces they didn't plan for. It went up in segments that were bolted on and commissioned over time and that might be the best way to bring it back down.