Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX Chosen To Develop Space Station Deorbit Vehicle

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.

Perhaps. I could also see ramped up lauch cadence allowing for design with standardized components or interfaces, as they know a service mission can go up every couple of years, so using a cheaper standardized component...

And to your point, that's not salvage.... but it wasn't mine either... it's more of "serviceability"
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
Perhaps. I could also see ramped up lauch cadence allowing for design with standardized components or interfaces, as they know a service mission can go up every couple of years, so using a cheaper standardized component...

Yes, for sure.

Hyperbolic hypothetical: One battery maker could have a single modular battery that every satellite uses. That single battery might last a full mission for low-demand one off satellites. You might need a few of those batteries for a 4-5 year Starlink-like LEO, and maybe that battery set craps out after half life. A bunch of those batteries might only last 1-2 years on a higher orbit satellite [that's in a worse space environment]. Because of the production volume that battery would be mad cheap and readily available and predictable, and so one can imagine a scenario where its actually a better deal to keep replacing these lower-spec-than-necessary-but-crazy-cheap modules rather than every satellite using a [somewhat] bespoke full-mission-life battery design, as is done today. One could further imagine (as has more or less been suggested here already) that used modules with life/performance left in them could be reused on lower demand satellites. It sounds fantastic. Kittens and rainbows.

The main point is that bringing even individual parts of that hypothetical to bear requires clearing many fundamental roadblocks...many of those will take so long to clear that they could very well be OBE'd by other variables in The Big Equation (like decreasing launch cost).

A great thought experiment on that one is Tesla batteries. One could imagine a scenario where Tesla could repurposes degraded long-range batteries into standard range vehicles. Or, one could imagine a scenario where Tesla over-currents battery technology such that the user gets higher acceleration/charging without a larger/heavier pack, but the battery requires replacement every 10k miles. There's plenty of knobs to turn there, but it's worth trying to noodle-out the actual value proposition to Tesla for those kinds of scenarios. They're not easy to close, nor are they easy to see a path to ever close.

In the context of this thread, Space Stuff is similar.


IMO, the primary focus in the near and mid-terms (= for the next few decades) surrounding this topic at large is going to be safe disposal rather than equipment salvaging/re-use or serviceability/swapping. With Starlink, SX has step functioned both the problem and the v1.0 solution here: They're of course hucking up an unprecedented number of satellites, but they're also taking the unprecedented step of making them all fully demisable (part of that is genuine good-stewardship, and part of that is simply a function of meeting the statistical requirements for human casualty). v2.0 IMO is going to better address longer term risk of satellites turning into space rocks and Kessler-ing the whole party, as well as the environmental risk of atmospheric disposal. FWIW SS could actually be an enabler in this space where, practical roadblocks aside, it could bring lifed-out mass back down to earth for more controlled and efficient disposal/recycling.
 
The biggest reason to deorbit ISS instead of salvaging parts of it, is the colony of fungus and bacterial living on and in it. Get rid of it and start over. Yes, I said ON it. There are bacteria and fungi living outside on the surface of ISS. All those pesky little creatures are going to be the biggest issue we have colonizing space. We have a huge amount to learn. Especially about which ones we must have around. We rely on bacteria to survive. Colonies will develop their own biomes and people moving about will transfer them. We'll need to learn how to clean ourselves of the bad ones without wiping out the good ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB47394
The biggest reason to deorbit ISS instead of salvaging parts of it, is the colony of fungus and bacterial living on and in it. Get rid of it and start over. Yes, I said ON it. There are bacteria and fungi living outside on the surface of ISS. All those pesky little creatures are going to be the biggest issue we have colonizing space. We have a huge amount to learn. Especially about which ones we must have around. We rely on bacteria to survive. Colonies will develop their own biomes and people moving about will transfer them. We'll need to learn how to clean ourselves of the bad ones without wiping out the good ones.

Hmm.. fungus on the exterior?

You have anything on that to read?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
You have anything on that to read?
It may be a case of bacteria and fungi can survive if they are placed there.

 
It may be a case of bacteria and fungi can survive if they are placed there.


@Eka A is this what you are referring to? When you say "There are bacteria and fungi living outside on the surface of ISS" are you implying that somehow this experiment produced a colony that made its way to the exterior surface of the station?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
@Eka A is this what you are referring to? When you say "There are bacteria and fungi living outside on the surface of ISS" are you implying that somehow this experiment produced a colony that made its way to the exterior surface of the station?
Those studies were done because they found bacteria and fungus living and multiplying outside in the vacuum of low earth orbit in full exposure to the sun's radiation. I first found out about this issue because I was involved with a satellite project back in the early 1980s. A whole group was dedicated to cleaning the satellite so the instruments on it wouldn't be contaminated. At that time it was suspected that some Earth bacteria or fungus could survive in space due to peculiarities in discolorations on the exterior of Skylab. I think that was unpublished inside NASA knowledge at the time. Research for finding out what was causing the discolorations was planned, but the Shuttle wasn't ready before Skylab deorbited on it's own. Actual bacteria and fungus were cultured from samples taken from the outside of MIR. Research for that was published in Russian. Russia didn't believe it was an issue, then they found something aggressively growing on the exterior of one of MIR's windows.

"Life will find a way" has been something I've been saying for decades now. Look up extremophiles. Everywhere we look on Earth we find life. Even miles down in solid rock. I expect we will find life on both the Moon and Mars. The reason I expect we'll find liffe in both places Life will find a way...
 
Ah ok... so it's surmised they are probably there on ISS as well...

Interesting, thanks for that...
It is KNOWN they are there on ISS. ISS modules were redesigned so they can be cleaned because of what they confirmed was happening on MIR. There are so many papers on ISS bacteria found I'm having issues finding the original research.

Life will find a way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scaesare
Is anyone else thinking: "Let's take the ISS covered in radiation muted biologics and sink it into the ocean." isn't maybe the best of ideas?
When the ISS is deorbited and descends through the atmosphere it will be heated to over 2,000F and enveloped by superheated plasma for over 15 minutes. The microbial life forms on the surface of the ISS won’t be able to live through that. Don’t worry about it.
 
When the ISS is deorbited and descends through the atmosphere it will be heated to over 2,000F and enveloped by superheated plasma for over 15 minutes. The microbial life forms on the surface of the ISS won’t be able to live through that. Don’t worry about it.
That same superheated plasma that somehow didn't destroy all the organic chemicals on meteorites?

 
  • Informative
Reactions: zoomer0056
Is anyone else thinking: "Let's take the ISS covered in radiation muted biologics and sink it into the ocean." isn't maybe the best of ideas? Have they not read "The Andromeda Strain"?
The ones on the outside won't survive reentry. Inside, who knows. . .

On meteorites, the outside gets cooked, but it happens so fast the inside can still be quite cold. The cooking is not from friction, but instead from radiative heating from the the highly compressed air in front of it. The air gets so heated from compression it disassociates into plasma. It can heat the surfaces to thousands of degrees.
 
That same superheated plasma that somehow didn't destroy all the organic chemicals on meteorites?
As @Eka A pointed out, those organics were deep inside meteorites so well shielded from the high temperatures during re-entry. The intriguing ISS microbes we are discussing here are on the surface of the ISS. Of course inside the station there are plenty of typical human-related microbes but they won’t survive reentry either, they can only exist within a relatively narrow range of environmental conditions.
 
When the ISS is deorbited and descends through the atmosphere it will be heated to over 2,000F and enveloped by superheated plasma for over 15 minutes. The microbial life forms on the surface of the ISS won’t be able to live through that. Don’t worry about it.
Oh, I think that extremophiles on the exterior of the ISS would survive. The station segments are large, they won't be broken up before reentry, and they won't be forced to tumble. The leading faces will get properly vaporized, but the leeward faces of sections that don't tumble (sufficiently) on their own just aren't going to see significant heating. Even with such heating, I wonder about the depth of the nooks and crannies of the station segments serving to protect bacteria.

Fortunately, in the Andromeda Strain movie, the airborne supercolony was killed off by seeding clouds to wash it into the ocean, so we're good. The station debris is supposed to land in the ocean. Surely nothing will make it to Australia.
 
Oh, I think that extremophiles on the exterior of the ISS would survive. The station segments are large, they won't be broken up before reentry, and they won't be forced to tumble. The leading faces will get properly vaporized, but the leeward faces of sections that don't tumble (sufficiently) on their own just aren't going to see significant heating. Even with such heating, I wonder about the depth of the nooks and crannies of the station segments serving to protect bacteria.

Fortunately, in the Andromeda Strain movie, the airborne supercolony was killed off by seeding clouds to wash it into the ocean, so we're good. The station debris is supposed to land in the ocean. Surely nothing will make it to Australia.
hehe... awesome soundtrack link... haven't seen that movie for years... might be time for another viewing. Maybe a double feature with the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers... in memory of Sutherland.