View Full Version : Question: How do you dispose of old NASA space equipment?
Answer: You throw the International Space Station into the ocean.
NASA to dump ISS into the Pacific Ocean
“NASA says it plans to extend operations of the International Space Station until 2030 after which it plans to retire the station and crash it into a remote region of the Pacific Ocean commonly known as Point Nemo.“
https://www.ktvu.com/news/international-space-station-to-retire-in-2031-crashing-into-the-pacific-ocean
Diamondback
02-02-22, 23:51
What a waste! Wouldn't they get more mileage out of starting the replacement before then and moving salvageable modules over?
Better yet, why the hell haven't we started building smelters and manufacturing facilities so we can recycle space junk into new useful satellites and such already?
The Soviets/Russians have been dumping junk and deorbiting things into the Pacific for a long time.
Here's what they did with MIR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT2xmO23LtU
What a waste! Wouldn't they get more mileage out of starting the replacement before then and moving salvageable modules over?
Better yet, why the hell haven't we started building smelters and manufacturing facilities so we can recycle space junk into new useful satellites and such already?
Because it's not as easy as most think. Only the most recent stuff can be guided, everything else is just in a decaying orbit. Also it's probably gonna be pretty cooked (useless) by the time it reaches the ground.
I remember when Skylab came down, most people were happy it was mostly an ocean event.
They wanna start space rides for civilians, so turn it into a motel with a souvenir store and a bar/restaurant.
Ultimate mile high club (for rich peoples)
Diamondback
02-03-22, 00:46
Because it's not as easy as most think. Only the most recent stuff can be guided, everything else is just in a decaying orbit. Also it's probably gonna be pretty cooked (useless) by the time it reaches the ground.
I remember when Skylab came down, most people were happy it was mostly an ocean event.
I mean building facilities on-orbit with scoops and tugs to bring it in, amigo. :) ISS's solar array alone would be a huge jumpstart... or Lacos's suggestion with some refuel and refurb and maybe a couple added modules could be a good asset-reutilization too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-22, 00:53
Reduce, re-use, recycle, re-enter?
It does seem, that the cost of building and lifting that material that there would be SOME use for it. Hell, look at B52s…
The backbone seems like it would be usable. Even if you took the modules and used them for nothing but debris protection. Just throw your trash in them to add mass.
I have to think by 2030 someone like Musk will raise their hands and find something for it.
Space Elevator. We have to be damn close to being able to actually do it.
What a waste! Wouldn't they get more mileage out of starting the replacement before then and moving salvageable modules over?
Better yet, why the hell haven't we started building smelters and manufacturing facilities so we can recycle space junk into new useful satellites and such already?
spot on not to mention, we can't create artificial reefs off the cost with junk cars etc due to epa bs but it's ok to dump a space station in the ocean?
spot on not to mention, we can't create artificial reefs off the cost with junk cars etc due to epa bs but it's ok to dump a space station in the ocean?
Yeah, the EPA needs to pull their head out. We could easily sterilize most cars, town them out and sink them. We could create massive artificial reefs which would support so much ocean life it wouldn't be funny. But instead we overfish supply and do nothing meaningful in terms of conservation.
Diamondback
02-03-22, 03:06
Space Elevator. We have to be damn close to being able to actually do it.
SE, if memory serves the barrier is less technology than budget. We could build it, but can't AFFORD it.
SE, if memory serves the barrier is less technology than budget. We could build it, but can't AFFORD it.
I'm no expert, but when it comes to moving cargo, it has to be cheaper than flying it into space. We could literally send the entire Ikea store up there and build as needed.
Diamondback
02-03-22, 04:01
On the backend, yes; it's the front end costs that are the killer on Beanstalks and other such megaprojects, even things as relatively simple as TAVs like the Orient Express concept.
Yeah, the EPA needs to pull their head out. We could easily sterilize most cars, town them out and sink them. We could create massive artificial reefs which would support so much ocean life it wouldn't be funny. But instead we overfish supply and do nothing meaningful in terms of conservation.
I've actually seen the EPA using lead bricks as doorstops. Just kicking them around on the concrete. Leaving smears of lead dust all over the place. I didn't realize lead bricks were an actual thing until I saw an EPA facility.
I really wanted to steal them all to make shotgun slugs, and leave em a bunch of rubber wedge doorstops. You know, for the ENVIRONMENT!
I really wanted to steal them all to make shotgun slugs, and leave em a bunch of rubber wedge doorstops. You know, for the ENVIRONMENT!
That right there is Funny!
As far as dumping car bodies to make artificial reefs go, there isn't that much real steel in them to last. I'm picturing a husband and wife fish checking out the newly deposited artificial reef.
Husband Fish: "Look honey, check out the new "Affordable Housing" development."
Wife Fish: "I ain't living in no damn Section 8 housing project. You got that?!!"
Husband Fish: "Ten Four Sweet Cheeks. Let's check out that development off Cuba. Now those bodies were built to last."
If only there was something totally vast, with absolutely nothing in, for light years in every directions, where someone could dump something into by pushing it in any direction except down.
Scott Manley has a video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5lidnLtO7c
Space Elevator. We have to be damn close to being able to actually do it.
SE, if memory serves the barrier is less technology than budget. We could build it, but can't AFFORD it.
Using what material? I don't think there is anything yet made that is strong enough. If that's true throwing money at the problem is no assurance that it can be solved.
If only there was something totally vast, with absolutely nothing in, for light years in every directions, where someone could dump something into by pushing it in any direction except down.
If there's concern about polluting the universe (though polluting the Earth seems ok), then send it towards the Sun. If they'd like a bit of a math challenge, they can send it towards Sagittarius A*.
If there's concern about polluting the universe (though polluting the Earth seems ok), then send it towards the Sun.
Where are you going to get the delta-v?
Additional engines could be utilized. Solar panels and other useful components should be removed and re-used, reducing the mass.
Diamondback
02-03-22, 14:12
Additional engines could be utilized. Solar panels and other useful components should be removed and re-used, reducing the mass.
Heck, keep the truss/solar farm and just scrap the non-refittable modules.
Exhibit A in why we need "Shuttle 2.0"... this time with better safety measures and powered-flyback abort capability, as once planned for the original but never put in because of piss-sucking corner-cutting beancounters.
You guys are talking about reusing things that have a finite service life. Okay, so you reuse a solar array from the ISS and install it onto a new station, people are up there and it fails. Now what? This isn't like reusing an alternator from a junkyard in your 2001 Escort. All of these components have a specific service life after which it can no longer provide a safety factor acceptable for use in a manned space vehicle.
I don't know if all the components have reached the end of their service life but I am betting dollars to donuts it's cheaper to dump them into the South Pacific and make new ones than it is to go up there and get them back.
ViniVidivici
02-03-22, 14:52
That's my thinking, all parts of this thing are getting beaten by micro-meteoroids and cosmic rays, at all times.
Re: space elevator, last I heard we don't have a material light enough/strong enough to do it. Also presents some pretty unique construction challenges.
I have no idea of the age or condition of the space station components.....and I don't recall anyone suggesting that it's suitable for primary usage on a new manned station.
Another option is to put a "Free" sign on it so that space hijackers can salvage from it whatever they need. It'll be picked clean in no time at all. haha
Not everything on this forum needs to be a serious discussion. It's not like NASA is reading this thread for ideas.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-22, 16:32
I think you also have to realize that reusing this stuff reduces the jobs and the money put into lift capacity down here. There really is no reason not to use this stuff like I said if nothing else then for ballistic protection, or as people have mentioned as sacrificial wear to micro meteors.
Something like $1000/kg to put something into low earth orbit… maybe that will come down in 10 years.
teufelhund1918
02-04-22, 05:48
Start a landfill on the moon like Musk is doing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60148543
Cagemonkey
02-04-22, 06:34
Doesn't anyone remember SKYLAB from the late 70's; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab How history repeats its self.
You guys are talking about reusing things that have a finite service life. Okay, so you reuse a solar array from the ISS and install it onto a new station, people are up there and it fails. Now what? This isn't like reusing an alternator from a junkyard in your 2001 Escort. All of these components have a specific service life after which it can no longer provide a safety factor acceptable for use in a manned space vehicle.
I don't know if all the components have reached the end of their service life but I am betting dollars to donuts it's cheaper to dump them into the South Pacific and make new ones than it is to go up there and get them back.
This, Space flight is hella expensive. I work for an Aerojet Rocketdyne contractor and we are doing a lot for the SLS and revamped RS-25 engines, and way before my time we worked on the ISS project. Each SLS launch will cost a couple billion dollars.
Adrenaline_6
02-04-22, 08:45
I was thinking instead of a hard wired elevator per se, more a wireless power source is needed. Then all that energy needed to obtain terminal velocity is a moot point. The transport vehicle can go as slow as it wants.
spot on not to mention, we can't create artificial reefs off the cost with junk cars etc due to epa bs but it's ok to dump a space station in the ocean?
Just shut off electrical service to certain classes several weeks each year to counter the ecological damage.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.