SpaceX Chosen To Develop Space Station Deorbit Vehicle

[zoomer0056]

From NASA:
We have selected @Spacex to develop and deliver the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle and prepare for a safe and responsible deorbit of the @Space_Station after the end of its operational life in 2030.

This seems to be a very interesting project. I can't even begin to speculate on how drorbiting the space station could be done.

As posted on X:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806077416525185486

 

[RDoc]

I find it very difficult to understand why they aren't salvaging parts of the ISS such as the solar array. It's still very expensive to put mass into orbit.

 

[zoomer0056]

I find it very difficult to understand why they aren't salvaging parts of the ISS such as the solar array. It's still very expensive to put mass into orbit.

Good question. They could start another commercial adventure ... a space salvage yard. Maybe the deorbit vehicle could bring some stuff back to earth.

 

[Mike1080i]

I find it very difficult to understand why they aren't salvaging parts of the ISS such as the solar array. It's still very expensive to put mass into orbit.

NASA did evaluate the options, everything from letting the orbit decay to boosting the entire station to higher orbit.
Here is the summary of all those options.

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

 

[RDoc]

NASA did evaluate the options, everything from letting the orbit decay to boosting the entire station to higher orbit.
Here is the summary of all those options.

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

Yes, makes perfect sense (for the "Can't Do" agency).

 

[Mike1080i]

Yes, makes perfect sense (for the "Can't Do" agency).

As much as I'd like to keep the newer hardware on orbit, I've known since the first modules launched splashing ISS into the South Pacific was always going to be how the station program would end. Only difference now is the U.S. will have a capability to do the deorbit instead of depending on a Russian Progress supply ship to do it, which was the original plan from day 1.

 

[bxr140]

I find it very difficult to understand why they aren't salvaging parts of the ISS such as the solar array. It's still very expensive to put mass into orbit.

Salvage is a massively complicated concept that is not at all an obvious solution for space. I personally think we can get there at some point, but it's decades away at best. Some roadblocks to overcome:

• Equipment in space degrades over time; it is basically designed from the off to last the program mission life plus some margin. Things like batteries and solar arrays do often have some performance in them after mission end of life, but for a follow-on salvage-enabled mission there would need to be significant margin baked into those kinds of components. A solar array or a battery might hit beginning of life with a nameplate rating of 1.2 or maybe 1.5 the end of life requirements (eg, a solar array that needs to deliver 1000 watts at EOL would deliver 1500W at BOL). I'd guess for a salvage enabled mission, you'd want 5x or even more--in other words, you'd want to salvage maybe 4x of those used-to-be-1500W wings for the same kind of mission. So...for your one-off satellite, you'd need to find ~four similar satellites from which to pillage wings...and pretty quickly you realize its cheaper and faster and more reliable to just build your own brandy new one. For your 1000 satellite constellation you'd need to find 4000 satellites, which of course doesn't exist beyond Starlink...or you'd have to mix-match a handful of sats with salvaged wings and brandy-new the majority. Again, not a winning trade. And, the 4x wings on your sat requires higher level of inertial control than 1x wing, so you need to at a minimum put bigger reaction wheels and torque rods on those satellites, which means now you need to carry two satellite designs...or if you put those bigger wheels/rods on every satellite, that means you're hacking up unnecessary mass for most of your sats. Again, not a winning trade.
• Equipment in space is very bespoke in design and application; anything leveraging salvaged equipment would basically need to understand the pedigree/deisgn of that salvaged equipment and then use that knowledge to create a bespoke interface. You'd basically spend a bunch of time, money, and mass creating a unique solution to accommodate the salvaged equipment, and today (and for the foreseeable future) that level of effort basically washes out any upside you'd get from the salvaged equipment.
• There's no technology to do mass salvage in space, period, and we're a long way off from technology doing so cost effectively. The major issue is there's no money in it. There's been a smattering of NASA/DARPA funded basic servicing type of stuff over the past 15 years or so, but that's about it. Just about every mega-constellation toys with the idea of an Undertaker satellite to clear out human made Space Rocks, but none of them can ever get to the point of closing the business model. There's a few startups trying to v2.0 the servicer concept (like Starfish); we're all kind of watching with baited breath to see if they can really sell customers on the idea of paying money to control or deorbit their satellites. But...there's nothing even close to actual salvaging.

 

[Watts_Up]

Salvage is a massively complicated concept that is not at all an obvious solution for space.

Unless you can think about using some kind of robots remotely controlled,
astronaut labor costs would be astronomical (no pun intended...).

 

[HVM]

Where is the media? Here I have a headline for them, ready:
Elon Musk is Going to Destroy The International Space Station!

 

[ecarfan]

This BBC article title is close

Musk's SpaceX hired to destroy ISS space station​

 

[JB47394]

There's no technology to do mass salvage in space

The ISS is a unique situation because of the planned Axiom Space station. That's supposed to attach to the ISS, build up to self-sufficiency, then detach and operate independently. It would be an ideal situation to salvage hardware. I assume that it isn't done because of many other considerations, such as bespoke systems, age of hardware, scheduling, as well as political reasons. There may even be laws or international agreements that prevent the hardware from being transferred to private ownership.

 

[scaesare]

Salvage is a massively complicated concept that is not at all an obvious solution for space. I personally think we can get there at some point, but it's decades away at best. Some roadblocks to overcome:

• Equipment in space degrades over time; it is basically designed from the off to last the program mission life plus some margin. Things like batteries and solar arrays do often have some performance in them after mission end of life, but for a follow-on salvage-enabled mission there would need to be significant margin baked into those kinds of components. A solar array or a battery might hit beginning of life with a nameplate rating of 1.2 or maybe 1.5 the end of life requirements (eg, a solar array that needs to deliver 1000 watts at EOL would deliver 1500W at BOL). I'd guess for a salvage enabled mission, you'd want 5x or even more--in other words, you'd want to salvage maybe 4x of those used-to-be-1500W wings for the same kind of mission. So...for your one-off satellite, you'd need to find ~four similar satellites from which to pillage wings...and pretty quickly you realize its cheaper and faster and more reliable to just build your own brandy new one. For your 1000 satellite constellation you'd need to find 4000 satellites, which of course doesn't exist beyond Starlink...or you'd have to mix-match a handful of sats with salvaged wings and brandy-new the majority. Again, not a winning trade. And, the 4x wings on your sat requires higher level of inertial control than 1x wing, so you need to at a minimum put bigger reaction wheels and torque rods on those satellites, which means now you need to carry two satellite designs...or if you put those bigger wheels/rods on every satellite, that means you're hacking up unnecessary mass for most of your sats. Again, not a winning trade.
• Equipment in space is very bespoke in design and application; anything leveraging salvaged equipment would basically need to understand the pedigree/deisgn of that salvaged equipment and then use that knowledge to create a bespoke interface. You'd basically spend a bunch of time, money, and mass creating a unique solution to accommodate the salvaged equipment, and today (and for the foreseeable future) that level of effort basically washes out any upside you'd get from the salvaged equipment.
• There's no technology to do mass salvage in space, period, and we're a long way off from technology doing so cost effectively. The major issue is there's no money in it. There's been a smattering of NASA/DARPA funded basic servicing type of stuff over the past 15 years or so, but that's about it. Just about every mega-constellation toys with the idea of an Undertaker satellite to clear out human made Space Rocks, but none of them can ever get to the point of closing the business model. There's a few startups trying to v2.0 the servicer concept (like Starfish); we're all kind of watching with baited breath to see if they can really sell customers on the idea of paying money to control or deorbit their satellites. But...there's nothing even close to actual salvaging.

Unless you can think about using some kind of robots remotely controlled,
astronaut labor costs would be astronomical (no pun intended...).

Agree with both of these... too little bang for the buck given the age/deterioration, custom design, and cost to salvage.

That having been said, with the cost/access to space going down, and the intent to continue that trend, as well as increase launch cadence, I wonder at what point it will be feasible to start using "standardized" components for some things.

Not everything will become plug-n-play, obviously, but would a couple of standard-sized solar panels that fit into a foldable array frame work? Navigational components like gyros and compute modules?

Sure it might weigh slightly more, but that is becoming somewhat less of an issue. Also, if not everything is a custom design, cost of such modules might go down.

At current volumes, there might not be much advantage, but it seems as if space (both orbital and beyond) is looking to be a growth area...


Oh, and longer article on it in addition to the eXclamation @zoomer0056 posted: NASA Selects International Space Station US Deorbit Vehicle - NASA

 

[scaesare]

Oh, and incidentally, I know NASA has opted to not do an orbital lift for Hubble at the moment, but that's the project I'd really like to see...

 

[JB47394]

I wonder at what point it will be feasible to start using "standardized" components for some things.

This is what I'm waiting for. Instead of everything being bespoke, start to create commodity items. That will require not only less focus on the mass, but also on greater volume of demand. There's not much point in creating a commodity solar panel for space stations if there are only two space stations.

We already see some commodity items going up, such as electronics, but I'm pressed to think of others. A standard habitat module would be nice. One that works in space, on the Moon, or on Mars. Such as an inflatable. Standard rocket components would be nice as well. Once standards are in place, processes, procedures and systems can be based on them.

Beyond the ability to loft lots of mass at low cost, another big step would be spinning habitats to provide gravity. If gravity is in place, then the stuff we design on Earth is more appropriate to the habitats.

 

[scaesare]

This is what I'm waiting for. Instead of everything being bespoke, start to create commodity items. That will require not only less focus on the mass, but also on greater volume of demand. There's not much point in creating a commodity solar panel for space stations if there are only two space stations.

We already see some commodity items going up, such as electronics, but I'm pressed to think of others. A standard habitat module would be nice. One that works in space, on the Moon, or on Mars. Such as an inflatable. Standard rocket components would be nice as well. Once standards are in place, processes, procedures and systems can be based on them.

Beyond the ability to loft lots of mass at low cost, another big step would be spinning habitats to provide gravity. If gravity is in place, then the stuff we design on Earth is more appropriate to the habitats.

It feels like standardization at the module level has happened to some degree for "environments" like the ISS. It would be interesting to see if that could be extended to allow a common module to work both in orbit as well as on a planet surface, etc.. like you mention. And then for the components within the module to become more standardized...

I look forward to building my space station from parts I order online...

 

[ecarfan]

Eric Berger: NASA will pay SpaceX nearly $1 billion to deorbit the International Space Station

"The contract is a single-award firm-fixed-price core with indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, firm-fixed-price task orders," NASA spokesman Joshua Finch told Ars

Wait, I thought Boeing said fixed-price aerospace contracts “didn’t work” for, well, everybody?

Because of the sensitivity of the mission, NASA is likely to require a "Category 3" rocket under the auspices of its Launch Services Program, which are rockets that have a robust launch history. The agency notes that some rockets that fit this category are SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Northrop Grumman's Pegasus and Minotaur rockets. Because SpaceX is the contractor for the deorbit vehicle, it stands to reason that it likely will launch on a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

Makes sense to me.

Some informed speculation about what SpaceX might base the new vehicle on:

Without seeing SpaceX's actual bid, it's impossible to know what the company's plan is. An unmodified Dragon 2 spacecraft would probably not have the propulsive capability to accomplish this task. At a minimum, it would require much larger propellant tanks, perhaps by significantly modifying the trunk.

Another option is the "Dragon XL" spacecraft, which SpaceX is designing to supply NASA's Lunar Gateway station near the Moon. This vehicle could conceivably have the propulsive capability to deorbit the station, and, critically, it is being designed to have the capability to remain docked to a space station for 12 months or longer, similar to the requirement for the deorbit vehicle. Therefore, this seems like the most probable choice.

 

[ecarfan]

Also from the article, information on the bidding process.

Initially, the contract was offered as a hybrid. NASA's original documents said the "design" portion of the contract would be cost-plus and the development portion firm-fixed-price. Then a couple of things happened. Perhaps because there were not that many bidders (one source suggested to Ars that SpaceX did not even bid initially), NASA modified the process to allow flexibility on the contracting mechanism.

I wonder how many bidders there actually were? Apparently that information is not public.

…earlier this year, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson estimated that the US Deorbit Vehicle would cost $1.5 billion. This week's announcement of a contract price came in well below that—indicating that the space agency got a better deal than Nelson anticipated.

The awarded contract amount is $843 million for the vehicle.

 

[bxr140]

Unless you can think about using some kind of robots remotely controlled,

Lol, I guess I assumed that autonomous salvaging has always been the implied method of execution.

I assume that it isn't done because of many other considerations, such as bespoke systems, age of hardware, scheduling, as well as political reasons.

Exactly the point.

Very true that salvaging is a fantastic concept. Also true that today and for the foreseeable future, it is very impractical concept. Its simply cheaper (and faster, and higher performance, and higher reliability) to put a brand new, high efficiency gizmo on your New Thing rather than design, test, build, and launch a salvager to go find some old stuff in space to bolt onto the new thing you're designing and launching anyway.

It even gets down into orbital mechanics--if you're not putting your New Thing in almost exactly the same orbit as the Old Thing, you also have to deal with the cost of delta-V.

...with the cost/access to space going down, and the intent to continue that trend, as well as increase launch cadence...

...all which necessarily decrease the upside of salvaging...

I wonder at what point it will be feasible to start using "standardized" components for some things.

Large constellations using standardized-ish gizmos is probably the leading [theoretical] path to success for salvaging, yes; the roadblocks noted above are still very much in full force.

Planetary bases certainly make for ideal thought experiments for salvaging as well--all the above roadblocks aside, one can imagine something grabbing a bunch of solar arrays and batteries off a constellation in LEO and then transporting them to the lunar surface where a number of orbit-based efficiency requirements don't really apply. (Mass, quantity, etc)

 

[scaesare]

...with the cost/access to space going down, and the intent to continue that trend, as well as increase launch cadence...

...all which necessarily decrease the upside of salvaging...

I wasn't talking about salvage... the last part of my sentence you didn't include asked if those things justified developing standardized components.

 

[bxr140]

I wasn't talking about salvage... the last part of my sentence you didn't include asked if those things justified developing standardized components.

True.

Also true that, in the context of why space salvaging isn't as straightforward as we all wish it might be (which is clearly my drumbeat here), your points about decreasing launch costs and increasing access/cadence are useful to highlight how progress in launch capability works against the notion that space salvaging will become more plausible over time.