I still don't get the arguement of "raising the orbit is impractical because we'd have to justify still using it". Raise it high enough that we don't have to maintain it's orbit for another 100+ years, and stop maintaining the station itself? It can be dead up there. Then 50-100 years in the future maybe we'll have developed a large enough orbital economy that it can be easily moved to geostationary and turned into a museum exhibit. The big thing is to save it for posterity. So that our grandkids' grandkids can float around it on a class field trip and be amazed at the relatively simple space stations we had back in our day that were considered state of the art.
@@frasercain that's a valid question. As it is now, the ISS can be repositioned slightly if we can anticipate a potential collision. Wouldn't a parking orbit up near geostationary also mean that at least for orbital debris there's not a lot of speed anymore? So the big concern then would be primarily things we couldn't anticipate but at that point all of our orbital infrastructure has similar concerns. Either way, the implication there is ongoing costs would need to be incurred for it to stay in low earth orbit because people would need to track and avoid collisions, and have either something docked that could perform maneuvers or the station still operational, both which are expensive options. That leaves it with a "push it up a ways and cross our fingers" or pay even more to push it out to geostationary orbit. Regardless, I do think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to try and save it if Starship or similar could be used to do so at a reasonable cost. With all the useless bits of human history we seem to be good at preserving I think this is one of the more valuable things from a heritage perspective.
@@kvs13156 I think it wouldn't be too hard to calculate given specific impulse and such of the vehicle used to boost it and knowing the mass of the ISS. Someone who knows a whole lot more about orbital mechanics and the most efficient ways to raise an orbit could also be able to tell how much thrust would be needed.
@@frasercain space is big ^^, we can push it very far even if it take years... I had the same museeum idea :) Idea 2 slowly push it toward the moon (could take years) then crash it on the moon surface at a precise location : tons and tons of high quality salvageable parts to potentially build a permanent moon base...
I dont understand how someone who follows a channel like this can make such an illogical statement. 80% of aviation accidents are because of human error. There are a great deal of people alive today because of the way those planes have been designed and improved over the years. It's widely known every incident ultimately makes aviation safer. Then you consider the sheer amount of Boeing planes out there. This is due to them being among the safest and reliable and efficient aircraft around. But according to you hundreds of them should be falling out of the sky every day, but they aren't, are they?! Every aircraft manufacturer has made it's fair share of mistakes. You simply can not avoid everything in mass production. And in saying that, any aircraft from any manufacturer, could have a fatal flaw in any system at any time just waiting to happen. You dont know these things until they happen then they can be identified and fixed. Sometimes they happen in development, sometimes to until well after release. So, get wise, you know? It doesn't take much. Dont reduce yourself to a cheap dig for fake internet points.
@abumohandes4487 I never claimed it was. I also never denied that corners were cut. I am debating the claim that "Boeing are good at crashing planes" and calling it out for what it is. Pure misinformation.
@@NomadUniverse It's ok, I'm also afraid Boeing might kill me if I criticize them. Stay strong! In all seriousness, over the last few years, Boeing has consistently failed in their duties to the public in every respect. Nobody is claiming that the engineers or designers are to blame. But the executive management diverts all the funds that should go into things like manufacturing, safety, and maintenance, and turn it toward themselves. They were once a great company. Now they're a bad company. I can't PROVE that they killed two whistleblowers, but there are two whistleblowers who are now mysteriously dead. Why do you feel compelled to defend this obviously evil organization?
I thought it would be cool to send the station off around the solar system for future space historians to visit like an old ship wreck. Something tells me it wouldn't survive a raptor burn lol
I appreciate the spirit of the comment. I wonder if there is a physics solution that would make it feasible. While physics is an alien world to me, I do think that it’s fun to consider how the space station might be slowly pushed into a heliocentric orbit. I wonder if anyone could join the convo and add something that could help teach me if it’s physically possible or not. Teach me!
@@crowlsyong Starship could tow it by the trusses, but modules may snap off even with a single throttled raptor, so modules would need to first be secured to the trusses by cables or belts. There's a car flying around the solar system right now, and it will still be orbiting when Earth's oceans are boiled away.
@@NeonVisual Unless it hits something first. We were having a talk about that a few weeks ago and someone sim'd its orbit and in like 80 years it might hit some thing but we have those talks with 5ths of whiskey too and I do not remember.
From what I understand, it would take more fuel to put it in a permanent parking orbit than it would take to launch dozens of new ones. The rocket equation is a bitch.
@@richierich8555 That's using pathetic Russian capsules to move it. Starship is volumetrically bigger than the entire ISS, it would be a genuine tow with a burn long enough , rather than the Soyuz trying to push an elephant up a hill. Starship will be putting 150 tons into orbit. An orbital refilled starship would have no problem moving a 450 ton space station out of orbit into deep space.
I get depressed about deorbiting the ISS already 😢. Seems like it's still in it's teenage years. But with wild temperature swings every 45 minutes, it's amazing it can survive this long.
@@biomechanique6874 It took nearly 100 shuttle launches to get all the parts up there, and to move it would need more than 100 starliner launches, with the first few staying as power modules, and then each getting 15 refills, to get enough fuel to raise orbit to the point it can do lunar transfer. yes you can probably do it using a few ion engines, so the fuel will have to be Xenon or Argon, to get some decent thrust, and you will need to probably quadruple the solar collector area to get the power, and it will not be habitable going through the Van Allen belts (but as a bonus it will be pretty much sterilised there, seeing as it might take 15 months to gain enough altitude to transit them), so you can probably get it into an orbit for free return, and have a 2 body orbit for it. However earth rendezvous will be harder, as it will be doing a lot more than current orbital speeds, and your spacecraft will only have very narrow launch windows to intercept it. Plus return will be so much harder, you will need to use ablative shields, as nothing currently in use will survive it more than once without damage.
It's 25 y/o, which is middle age for a spacecraft. Kepler lived 9 yrs and Cassini lived 20 yrs. Hubble and Voyager will probably live 47 yrs and 56 yrs respectively.
🤔...Joking aside some variant of Starliner was probably the best option to deorbit ISS. NASA choosing SpaceX now maybe be foreshadowing Starliner is finished. I mean raising ISS's orbit was a real selling point for Starliner. Raising the orbit and deorbiting are basically the same job.
@@carltonlittle2613you do understand that it is too far fetched right. Not just in time but in distance. IIRC the nearest blakchole, BH-1 is about 1500 ly or so.
What is sick is the Government gave NASA 11 Billion dollars to build the American Space Station. NASA talked all the money away. The Government gave them 11 Billion more. Still not ONE piece of hardware was built and launched. 22 Billion Dollars spent and absolutely nothing built or launched. Nobody when to Prison for theft and corruption. Then it became the INTERNATIONAL Space Station. And everybody had a dime in it!
@@frasercain that either will happen or would be the best way to keep astronauts safe. Boeing couldn't fix the Starliner on Earth or even detect these problems on Earth. Fixing it on ISS will be far more difficult. Even if they appear to fix the known problems, what unknown or undisclosed problems still lurk in it? Boeing has been so careless and deceptive lately that the lives of astronauts shouldn't depend on Boeing's claims of safety anymore.
@@deep-fried-zombie699 Regretfully, China may be our only hope of a sample return mission. I say that in jest. The current $11B is way too much for congress. I think the original price was $2B. If we are struggling with a sample return, I don’t see any way we could ever do a human landing on Mars. A bit Sad
I honestly hope NASA will greatly insure their odds of a safe return using Dragon... Let Starliner come back on Autopilot to get the rest of the test data that they need...
It would be extremely disappointing if Starship's first use was de-orbiting the ISS. I am hoping they have it working long before then. Seems like you are anticipating years of delays.
Nice thing about being a pessimist is if you're wrong, you get rewarded for it. If you're right, well at least you have that to carry. I don't understand the thought process of sending a starship all the way up to ISS and just not bringing at least a piece of it home for the museum. Honestly a crime against humanity tantamount to demolishing a historic site.
NASA cannot inhabit space without russia or china. The space race is and was about low earth orbit. Nasa can't put up its own station. czcams.com/video/tHdGv6qhDb4/video.htmlsi=vbqRiOmVCXSYWtdv
I initially thought that the section on stars at 5:13 was a sponsored segment; "..and that's where today's sponsor can help. Introducing Starfinder 3000.." 😛
Seems like we should always say that a lot of the work on the space station is cleaning. And a lot of what they do when they are not cleaning, is just living. It's harder to do everything, and you still need to exercise, eat, sleep, bathe, etc. It's a very busy time even if you don't do much science.
Hey Fraser, do you think they could make Starliner return alone, without the astronauts? I don't know, but I think it would be safer... And they could return with a dragon, for example. Anyway, thanks for the news! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
We put a huge amount of effort into getting the ISS into orbit and assembled. I sorta like the idea of shoving it into orbit around the moon so we have a safe, equipped starting point for more exploration there.
Wouldn't it be cool if we got a starship perspective of the ISS reentering? Have starship just follow above/below/circle around the ISS as it breaks up. Doesn't matter if either of them hit each other. Would be such a cool thing to watch in 4K.
@@realmstupid-on8df Would have to put a few in protective capsules, along with some batteries for that, which will probably have to float as well after landing, to give an accurate position. doable though, and those probably will have to communicate via starlink as well for real time, but you really want to recover them for the full video.
SpaceX should use the money to launch several cargo Starship missions as well as Crew Dragons and/or crewed Starships, and disassemble the station the way it was built. Then they can take the modules back down from space, like the opposite of what the space shuttle did, and put the parts in museums and or sell them to collectors and businesses. They could probably do that for the cost of the contract should the starship be developed sufficiently by 2030.
Yeah that was last week, you could've had Still stuck liner, or I wouldn't hire them to fix my car, liner, or Need more underwear liner I'm betting they didn't pack many pairs, and thats a long time to go turning pairs inside out! I wouldn't want to be there when they do return, stifling stink liner!
Would it not be possible to save some of the iss and return it to earth safely, for a museum for example. Surely for 849m spend on de orbiting it, sone of it can be kept for future generations to admire
Iss is just under 420 tons just break a piece of and use a refueled starship to take it to... Any where else but fire the problem is as he mentioned it has minimal radiation protection as it was to remain in Leo it would be a museum but still interesting for sure for the dyson swarmers or moon tourists. Also the water that's up there has to have some value...
There are already a couple of capsules docked at International Space Station. Those would be a better choice to use to get those two Astronauts back Home.
Hi Fraser, great channel. I have a few questions, if you could answer any of them that would be great. 1. Why can't we directly image objects in our solar system in high resolution with our current equipment without a mission like New Horizons? 2. What kind of attitude does the astronomy community have toward simulation theory? How could it explain dark matter? 3. If so many dark matter-containing galaxies appear to have very evenly distributed rotating mass and it's DM that keeps these galaxies together, does that not mean that DM interacts with objects and shouldn't we be able to detect it especially if it has has such a profound influence?
It may not have anything to do with "primordial" black holes specifically, but I do believe black holes as a whole are involved in the dark matter phenomenon. There is still so much we don't understand about what is happening inside. Exotic particles and crazy rule-breaking magic the universe must contain behind an event horizon.
I am pretty sure SpaceX will manage the ISS de-orbit by purchasing some Starliners from Boeing. They seem like very capable spacecrafts, and SpaceX would want the very best equipment for such an important mission.
Salvage some modules from ISS and boost them to attach to the Lunar Gateway. If nothing else they can be used as storage closets. But they likely could also add some utility. Boosting to the moon from low earth orbit is much less fuel used than boosting from the ground.
I hope these plans change before the actual deorbit, I have still been holding out hope that starship might be able to bring down the ISS piece by piece to be reassembled in a museum
I would assume that all the working solar arrays will be salvaged. The old labs are are showing their age, systems failing, all the parts are OLD and out of production. Deorbiting the outdated modules and the worn out solar arrays only, makes sense.
how in the world do you think they would salvage them? let them aimlessly float around at 120km above earth and then try to catch them 10+ years later to assemble them (in space!) onto a new station? or should they spend 5x as much money as the solar arrays cost on building a system to safely bring them back down? makes a lot of sense if you aren't used to having any
@@mistaajones The axiom people are building out off the existing station. taking the working arrays and the trusses with them while deorbiting the outdated and leaky modules should be possible without too much effort.
I have a question for the Question Show. In Doctor Who the Gallifreyans force their star to become a Black Hole unnaturally in order to provide the power for unlimited Time Travel. So my question is, How could a Black Hole possibly provide more power than an active star? and just how much more power could it generate?
Hey Fraser, a question for the next QNA. I am seeing a lot of slap test that SpaceX is performing with its chopsticks. Early on SpaceX wanted to make all of its rockets with carbon fibre tanks and all. But abandoned it for a more speedy prototype approach. Can't they do that with the chopsticks? Since it is not part of the rocket and does not have a lot of iterations. Would probably save them some time during reinspection. What do you think?
I suspect Starship is a bit overpowered for deorbit of ISS. even 1 Raptor at 50% is likely going to be too much if they want to keep ISS together until it hits atmosphere. That would be about 1/4 G which due to the strung out nature of the ISS is likely going to break bits (big bits) off.
When I first subscribed to Astronomy & S&T Magazines in 1981, this was the news we voted on: 1. IRAS to Launch Soon! Nowadays, I can't begin to keep track of it all. I don't know how Fraiser keeps track of it all 😊.
Here's my plan 1) Put docking adapter on the nose of a Falcon 9 second stage 2) Launch with Falcon Heavy to maximize onboard propellant 3) Connect to docking port on ISS 4) Start up second stage engine 5) Splashdown!
Wouldn't work, iss is way too heavy even for starship. It has to be sectioned off. In to say 100ton cargo pieces and than a refueled starship can deorbit that or take it to the moon. But if a perigee is made to land in Pacific we could possibly move larger parts slower. Also to do all of it at once would take months to a year, then boil off comes into play for reignition burns and navigation to do iss all at once with a starship. So they could probably do it, it just depends on how safe we want to be so... Its no problem, not expensive.
@@monkeynomics8995 it actually wouldnt take much to deorbit the iss. Roughly 90 m/s change in deltav to do it safely. The issue is doing a slow gentle burn so the iss doesnt break up from the acceleration. Starship is MASSIVE. An expendable starship has a payload of roughly 250 metric tons to LEO. More than half the total mass of the ISS. Launching starship empty it would have plenty of available deltav to deorbit the ISS in 1 launch.
If I heard you right where at 60% of mapping out star systems withing 30 light years distance of earth, with 40% to go. Now we need to be able to travel at 1/3 of the speed of light to get there within 100 years. (not joking) Maybe if there was an exo - planet that we could do something with (something better then Mars) and we used a generational ship, it would be possible . Thanks for that information, very helpful in rounding out my knowlege of physical universe we live in.
As sad as it is, the ISS would have to come down eventually. It's been up there since 1998! That's a major success story. And not only that, but it was done in the spirit of international collaboration, which can't always be said of other space projects. 🙄 Looking forward to China sending those moon samples to researchers and nations across the world.
@@wally7856 They have already committed nearly a billion to it ... Maybe they can attach a trailer hitch to it and Elon can drop it off on the way to Mars.
the ISS is a very high mileage vehicle currently. There's just a point where maintenance will become too much and too dangerous for people. Parts have lifespans and some not so easily replaceable. Sad to see it go but unfortunately it has to happen at some point.
After many lives lost, vast amounts of resources wasted and many unplanned disassembles my Kerbals decided on a blatant copy of the Gateway station from the Alien franchise. It's really cool and has deck chairs outside on a perilously vertigo inducing platform just because it also looked cool.
Fraser :) Why do you never acknowledge the wonderful support you receive from highly skilled and dedicated journalists in the weekly newsletter. It strikes me not just as a misrepresentation but also profoundly ungenerous. Name them, promote them. Universe today is not a one man show. It is a community of us all thousands of people. Shared value and shared hopes for the future :) xxx
I write the text in the newsletter, and then link to the writer's original story on Universe Today. I put the credit for each person with each story. And then their name is at the top of the story on Universe Today.
While the ISS is still in use, how does the crew keep it clean enough to avoid nasty pathogens or moulds from building up in the hard to access crevices of the spacecraft? It's hard enough on ships, in space it must be very tricky.
Am I crazy or isn't this thruster issue with Starliner similar to the issue Neil & Dave had on the Gemini 8 mission in '66? God bless Amy Shira Teitel, sure miss Vintage Space! lf it hadn't been for Neil's quick thinking, he and Dave would have been toast! Thruster problems are VERY serious!
OK, this is a long one. The speed of light is the "speed limit" of the universe. In reference to what? If 2 objects are heading exactly 180° from each other at half of the speed of light each, are they limited? Which one is experiencing time dilation? They are going the same speed, so is time running the same speed for them? What about something at the central location between them? Since time is relative and everything in the universe is moving at different speeds, time is different for everything in the universe. Stars at the edge of the universe are moving nearly the speed of light away from us. Compared to our time, is their time dilated to near a stand still compared to ours?
Recent studies have suggested aluminium particulates left behind by deorbiting satellites could activate processes which harm the ozone layer? Has that potential deleterious effect been modelled regarding deorbiting the ISS?
It seems unlikely that mere black holes could account for the relatively fixed rotations of visible matter in their orbits around galaxy centers that maintain their spiral arms. This rotation would depart from the rules of Newtonian physics without the gravitational influence of the invisible dark matter whose existence we've inferred from it.
The way I look at ISS and Hubble is: If we wanted to build an exact replacement for them today, how much would it cost compared to the cost of boosting the orbits, updating and repairing the components? It seems like a tremendous waste of original design time, build time, precious materials and energy already used to put them in orbit just to let it all burn up in the atmosphere. We seem to be carrying our unsustainable, throwaway patterns with us wherever we go, even to space.
Hi Fraser, I have a question. Is it ever possible to see the ISS or other satillites in broad day light? Sometimes a air plain will catch the sunlight on a window and glint very brightly for a second or two, does something similar happen with satillites? Hope you enjoy your summer!
For the Titan mission, need one of those hydro foils that you get up on step on by pumping up and down with your legs, I don't have a clue on how you would automate that or make it work, but that would be neat to see.
Question, you said they have plenty of supplies for quite awhile, but if i remember correctly, didn't they change the original cargo of Starliner to add more water instead of a previously planned cargo? And is that something that is still being taken into as consideration? What if they hadn't taken up extra water? Thank you for any response! I'm just curious.
were there any viable plans to fragment or purposefully breaking up the ISS on re-entry to minimize the amount of debris that would make it to Earth(Ocean Graveyard)?
I keep thinking about putting Shuttle bay doors on the Starship and try to salvage the ISS. Can this whole process be done remotely from the ground, as drones work in space?
I really hope you add the bear to the poll... I'm definitely picking the bear 🤣🤣 Usually I have an insanely hard time deciding which topic is my favorite... but I would 100% pick the bear this time lol
Hello Fraser. (Another Frazer here.) Canadian. Pardon this lengthy post. I find your cast, tube and web energixzing and very very smart. I have been watching and learning about space since I was 6. That is a very long time ago. Watched the boys walk on the moon live when I was 13. What you do is absoolutely invaluable. Guess I'd better step up. 8-) ISS Deorbit. In my opinion, watching it all over 60 years; I believe it would be foolish to kill the ISS. Unless there is an over-riding engineering or orbital problem....pump money and get her up to snuff. Let the Russians go. They have said they were abandoning it before. I am quite sure the Japanese would love the option. So would we. Money is not the problem. The will is. And let us stop talking about Gateway. It is right there. Overhead. Ready to spawn another station. Deorbit? Nope. Nope. Nope. B52's were first built in 1955. They are still patrolling the skies as a force of nature. A-10 Warthogs? The bane of any enemy on the ground. Built in 1975. The US would be absolutely foolish to bring down the ISS. I will tell you, until the NASA fantasy of working and planting people on the moon permanently is real, (It won't be for 25 years) --- because people are now chickens...... we need that station. What. Are you just going to leave the Chinese station up there by itself? DUH. I cannot emphasize this enough.... Kennedy empowered NASA to put men on the moon in 9 years. They did it. Many times. America is now so weak they have to beg China for deep regolith samples from the far side of the moon. Again DUH. Side note. Stop talking about Blue Origin. Other than putting some rich people in space for 3 minutes, New Glen still sits. Useless twaddle. How many years now and BILLIONS from NASA to Bezos. Gotta say. SpaceX has kicked their arse 12 ways from Sunday with much less 'free government money'. They have accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful and will not. Bezos has accomplished nothing other than grabbing free money. Same with Boeing. Gotta love this Starliner debacle. (Not). I worry abdt Suny and Butch. At least the rest of the crew will come home in Dragon. Tried, tested and true. Just ask Bob and Doug. And let us all thank Gwen Shotwell. The real hero and boss of SpaceX.
The problem is that ISS has a constantly decaying orbit. So they'd need to launch regular flights to keep it going, which means ongoing funding from Congress, which isn't there.
If I had the money (which I most definitely don't 😢) I would buy the ISS, strip off all the outdated labs and computer equipment, add a newer control unit, an orbital construction system and boost it into a higher orbit to use it as an automated orbital construction and refueling facility. But that's just me.
Hi Fraser, if the CMB is as at the edge of how far we can see (and how far back in time) how come we think the universe may be much larger? Isn't the CMB the edge / beginning ?
How precise does the de-orbiting need to be? Clearly we need to avoid satellites in lower orbit that we still care about, and avoid land and shipping lanes, but there is a LOT of space between satellites, so why not time and direct an explosive decompression with the atmosphere already on the station? Is there just not enough delta-V that you'd get for that massive a station, or do they need to start by getting a totally different orbit first?
The problem though is that if you fell off your surfboard you'd immediately sink, because the density of liquid methane is much lower then the density of water (which is close to human density, which is why you can float) - Of course, you can't breathe the atmosphere of titan anyway and you'd need a space suit so I suppose it wouldn't matter that much, lol.
2:41 I would have liked the starship to grab the modules from the ISS. And the deorbit them. It would have been sick to see them in the museums around the world.
I still don't get the arguement of "raising the orbit is impractical because we'd have to justify still using it". Raise it high enough that we don't have to maintain it's orbit for another 100+ years, and stop maintaining the station itself? It can be dead up there. Then 50-100 years in the future maybe we'll have developed a large enough orbital economy that it can be easily moved to geostationary and turned into a museum exhibit. The big thing is to save it for posterity. So that our grandkids' grandkids can float around it on a class field trip and be amazed at the relatively simple space stations we had back in our day that were considered state of the art.
What if it gets impacted by space debris? It would make a horrible mess for the entire region and the debris would last for hundreds of years.
@@frasercain that's a valid question. As it is now, the ISS can be repositioned slightly if we can anticipate a potential collision. Wouldn't a parking orbit up near geostationary also mean that at least for orbital debris there's not a lot of speed anymore? So the big concern then would be primarily things we couldn't anticipate but at that point all of our orbital infrastructure has similar concerns.
Either way, the implication there is ongoing costs would need to be incurred for it to stay in low earth orbit because people would need to track and avoid collisions, and have either something docked that could perform maneuvers or the station still operational, both which are expensive options.
That leaves it with a "push it up a ways and cross our fingers" or pay even more to push it out to geostationary orbit.
Regardless, I do think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to try and save it if Starship or similar could be used to do so at a reasonable cost. With all the useless bits of human history we seem to be good at preserving I think this is one of the more valuable things from a heritage perspective.
@@cavemaneca I am curious to how much fuel would it take to go to 2500 km or so?
@@kvs13156 I think it wouldn't be too hard to calculate given specific impulse and such of the vehicle used to boost it and knowing the mass of the ISS. Someone who knows a whole lot more about orbital mechanics and the most efficient ways to raise an orbit could also be able to tell how much thrust would be needed.
@@frasercain space is big ^^, we can push it very far even if it take years...
I had the same museeum idea :)
Idea 2 slowly push it toward the moon (could take years) then crash it on the moon surface at a precise location : tons and tons of high quality salvageable parts to potentially build a permanent moon base...
I'm surprised they didn't contract Boeing to deorbit the ISS. Crashing aircraft is the one thing they know how to do.
I assume NASA wants it done on time and on budget though.
@abumohandes4487 fair
I dont understand how someone who follows a channel like this can make such an illogical statement. 80% of aviation accidents are because of human error. There are a great deal of people alive today because of the way those planes have been designed and improved over the years. It's widely known every incident ultimately makes aviation safer.
Then you consider the sheer amount of Boeing planes out there. This is due to them being among the safest and reliable and efficient aircraft around. But according to you hundreds of them should be falling out of the sky every day, but they aren't, are they?!
Every aircraft manufacturer has made it's fair share of mistakes. You simply can not avoid everything in mass production. And in saying that, any aircraft from any manufacturer, could have a fatal flaw in any system at any time just waiting to happen. You dont know these things until they happen then they can be identified and fixed. Sometimes they happen in development, sometimes to until well after release.
So, get wise, you know? It doesn't take much. Dont reduce yourself to a cheap dig for fake internet points.
@abumohandes4487 I never claimed it was. I also never denied that corners were cut. I am debating the claim that "Boeing are good at crashing planes" and calling it out for what it is. Pure misinformation.
@@NomadUniverse It's ok, I'm also afraid Boeing might kill me if I criticize them. Stay strong!
In all seriousness, over the last few years, Boeing has consistently failed in their duties to the public in every respect. Nobody is claiming that the engineers or designers are to blame. But the executive management diverts all the funds that should go into things like manufacturing, safety, and maintenance, and turn it toward themselves. They were once a great company. Now they're a bad company. I can't PROVE that they killed two whistleblowers, but there are two whistleblowers who are now mysteriously dead. Why do you feel compelled to defend this obviously evil organization?
I thought it would be cool to send the station off around the solar system for future space historians to visit like an old ship wreck. Something tells me it wouldn't survive a raptor burn lol
I appreciate the spirit of the comment. I wonder if there is a physics solution that would make it feasible. While physics is an alien world to me, I do think that it’s fun to consider how the space station might be slowly pushed into a heliocentric orbit. I wonder if anyone could join the convo and add something that could help teach me if it’s physically possible or not. Teach me!
@@crowlsyong Starship could tow it by the trusses, but modules may snap off even with a single throttled raptor, so modules would need to first be secured to the trusses by cables or belts.
There's a car flying around the solar system right now, and it will still be orbiting when Earth's oceans are boiled away.
@@NeonVisual Unless it hits something first. We were having a talk about that a few weeks ago and someone sim'd its orbit and in like 80 years it might hit some thing but we have those talks with 5ths of whiskey too and I do not remember.
From what I understand, it would take more fuel to put it in a permanent parking orbit than it would take to launch dozens of new ones. The rocket equation is a bitch.
@@richierich8555 That's using pathetic Russian capsules to move it. Starship is volumetrically bigger than the entire ISS, it would be a genuine tow with a burn long enough , rather than the Soyuz trying to push an elephant up a hill.
Starship will be putting 150 tons into orbit. An orbital refilled starship would have no problem moving a 450 ton space station out of orbit into deep space.
I get depressed about deorbiting the ISS already 😢. Seems like it's still in it's teenage years. But with wild temperature swings every 45 minutes, it's amazing it can survive this long.
It's also peppered with space junk impacts + micro meteors.
I see this as more signs of a known cosmic event coming showing we won't leave people and large objects in space during disaster.
@@litttoe Crews can already scramble into a Faraday Cage type capsule. Protecting them from dangerous Solar Flares.
@@biomechanique6874 It took nearly 100 shuttle launches to get all the parts up there, and to move it would need more than 100 starliner launches, with the first few staying as power modules, and then each getting 15 refills, to get enough fuel to raise orbit to the point it can do lunar transfer. yes you can probably do it using a few ion engines, so the fuel will have to be Xenon or Argon, to get some decent thrust, and you will need to probably quadruple the solar collector area to get the power, and it will not be habitable going through the Van Allen belts (but as a bonus it will be pretty much sterilised there, seeing as it might take 15 months to gain enough altitude to transit them), so you can probably get it into an orbit for free return, and have a 2 body orbit for it. However earth rendezvous will be harder, as it will be doing a lot more than current orbital speeds, and your spacecraft will only have very narrow launch windows to intercept it. Plus return will be so much harder, you will need to use ablative shields, as nothing currently in use will survive it more than once without damage.
It's 25 y/o, which is middle age for a spacecraft. Kepler lived 9 yrs and Cassini lived 20 yrs. Hubble and Voyager will probably live 47 yrs and 56 yrs respectively.
Or push the ISS into a higher orbit and recycle the reusable materials. Save $$$ and launches.
Saving any money is not an objective of the monetary system. Money needs to circle for that system to work.
Nope. Higher orbit needs more power than even the extended Dragon can provide. More power, more money, you save nothing.
its really just 849M to deorbit the starliner. :|
Oh, I can't believe I missed that joke. You just won the internet.
😂 👍
@@frasercain apparently a Russian satellite just tried it for Boeing
Russia put up the iss. Joe maddox channel called out his lies.
🤔...Joking aside some variant of Starliner was probably the best option to deorbit ISS. NASA choosing SpaceX now maybe be foreshadowing Starliner is finished. I mean raising ISS's orbit was a real selling point for Starliner. Raising the orbit and deorbiting are basically the same job.
All that effort to get the ISS into orbit an then destroy it? insane.
That's space x.
The ISS has always been an icon of inspiration for me. I hope they do an 8K video fly-through of the station before deorbit occurs.
It would be cool if they sent it in the direction of the black hole. Make some interesting study one day.
@@carltonlittle2613you do understand that it is too far fetched right. Not just in time but in distance. IIRC the nearest blakchole, BH-1 is about 1500 ly or so.
now china is gonna be the only country with a space station
@carltonlittle2613 they can't even get it to the moon. How would they ever get it to a blackhole?
@@citizen_or_civilian 8k video of before during and after the fall. 3 or so cameras documenting the entire re-entry event
Watching the iss burn up in the atmosphere is going to be sick.
What is sick is the Government gave NASA 11 Billion dollars to build the American Space Station. NASA talked all the money away. The Government gave them 11 Billion more. Still not ONE piece of hardware was built and launched. 22 Billion Dollars spent and absolutely nothing built or launched. Nobody when to Prison for theft and corruption. Then it became the INTERNATIONAL Space Station. And everybody had a dime in it!
It doesn't reach the level of valiant sci-fi spectacle unless someone is onboard sacrificing themself for the greater good of others as it does so...
@@maxhirsch7035 my vote is for musk and bezos, with trump as 'honoured' guest
Honestly, just de-orbit the ISS with the starliner attached.
Imagine if it's still attached in 2030. :-)
@@frasercain that either will happen or would be the best way to keep astronauts safe. Boeing couldn't fix the Starliner on Earth or even detect these problems on Earth. Fixing it on ISS will be far more difficult. Even if they appear to fix the known problems, what unknown or undisclosed problems still lurk in it? Boeing has been so careless and deceptive lately that the lives of astronauts shouldn't depend on Boeing's claims of safety anymore.
Lol!
Wouldn't Boeing be a more suitable contractor for crashing the ISS? It seems to be closer to their specialty.
Good one. OUCH! That's a sizzler. But fair since it appears they brought that shame upon themselves.
If I know China - they're going to be working on scaling up that sample return for Mars ASAP. They're great at that kind of scale-up work.
Who is really doing the work?
NASA needs to contract China for the Mars sample return.
@@oldmech619 is impossible if the “Wolf Amendment” still exists. As planned, China will get Mars samples returned in 2028.
@@oldmech619hahahahahahahaha hell no
@@deep-fried-zombie699 Regretfully, China may be our only hope of a sample return mission. I say that in jest. The current $11B is way too much for congress. I think the original price was $2B. If we are struggling with a sample return, I don’t see any way we could ever do a human landing on Mars. A bit Sad
The question I have is, will Starliner have anyone onboard when it comes back?
And if it does, will they retain all functionality by the time they get to the ground? 😬
After all the trouble they've been having with it, I would personally rather wait until a Dragon capsule as available for the return trip...
@@trevinom69 Possibly safer to walk home than use the Starliner. /jk
I honestly hope NASA will greatly insure their odds of a safe return using Dragon... Let Starliner come back on Autopilot to get the rest of the test data that they need...
They have pressure suits and a manual override, so would _probably_ be okay.
I'd imagine SpaceX will carve up the ISS with the secret laser death rays built into every Starlink... 🤣
Starting a war, with weapons in space!
It would be extremely disappointing if Starship's first use was de-orbiting the ISS. I am hoping they have it working long before then. Seems like you are anticipating years of delays.
I'm prepared emotionally for years of delays.
Anticipating years of delays from the company who was already supposed to be landing people on Mars by now?
Nice thing about being a pessimist is if you're wrong, you get rewarded for it. If you're right, well at least you have that to carry.
I don't understand the thought process of sending a starship all the way up to ISS and just not bringing at least a piece of it home for the museum. Honestly a crime against humanity tantamount to demolishing a historic site.
NASA cannot inhabit space without russia or china. The space race is and was about low earth orbit. Nasa can't put up its own station.
czcams.com/video/tHdGv6qhDb4/video.htmlsi=vbqRiOmVCXSYWtdv
Russia put up the ISS. You conspiracy theorists
Hats off to the Chinese for that very complicated mission. Really impressive.
Move the ISS into moon orbit with starship
Before de-orbiting the ISS, SpaceX should fill it up with artists and push it around the moon.
That would be epic troll for Mizaki 😂😂😂
Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand orbital mechanics AT all 😂😂
Would be cool af if they could do that but I’m fairly sure it wouldn’t really be possible nor cost effective. But I get what you’re saying.
@TheHeavenman88 Would be easier to boost it then send crew, could also justify it by more of it burning up given it would have more energy.
@@TheHeavenman88 spoken like someone who is less interested in enjoying a joke than telling everyone they understand orbital mechanics
With that intro, THATS SOME TASTY BITES!!!!
Satellite watching the Pacific: “Hi Grandpa, are you having a drink?”
Starliner is going to get discarded like the malfunctioning doorplug that it is.
I initially thought that the section on stars at 5:13 was a sponsored segment; "..and that's where today's sponsor can help. Introducing Starfinder 3000.." 😛
Thanks for this one, Frasier
Seems like we should always say that a lot of the work on the space station is cleaning. And a lot of what they do when they are not cleaning, is just living. It's harder to do everything, and you still need to exercise, eat, sleep, bathe, etc. It's a very busy time even if you don't do much science.
I am so old I remember when Skylab was de orbited!
I remember Gemini. And I heard Sputnik on a ham radio:)
Hey Fraser, do you think they could make Starliner return alone, without the astronauts? I don't know, but I think it would be safer... And they could return with a dragon, for example.
Anyway, thanks for the news! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Will starliner de-orbit before the ISS.
We put a huge amount of effort into getting the ISS into orbit and assembled. I sorta like the idea of shoving it into orbit around the moon so we have a safe, equipped starting point for more exploration there.
That is what the deep space gateway will do.
Wouldn't it be cool if we got a starship perspective of the ISS reentering?
Have starship just follow above/below/circle around the ISS as it breaks up. Doesn't matter if either of them hit each other.
Would be such a cool thing to watch in 4K.
ISS is already fitted with IP cams. U think spaceX would miss an opportunity for advertisement as to not live stream!
@@realmstupid-on8df Would have to put a few in protective capsules, along with some batteries for that, which will probably have to float as well after landing, to give an accurate position. doable though, and those probably will have to communicate via starlink as well for real time, but you really want to recover them for the full video.
Yeah I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to go to space on anything with Boeing written on the side of it...
I LOVE the sensationalism title. "SpaceX will destroy the ISS!!"
Totally accurate
SpaceX won't deorbit the ISS!
*_Physics will!_*
SpaceX should use the money to launch several cargo Starship missions as well as Crew Dragons and/or crewed Starships, and disassemble the station the way it was built. Then they can take the modules back down from space, like the opposite of what the space shuttle did, and put the parts in museums and or sell them to collectors and businesses. They could probably do that for the cost of the contract should the starship be developed sufficiently by 2030.
more like stuck liner, amirite 😏
Yeah that was last week, you could've had
Still stuck liner, or
I wouldn't hire them to fix my car, liner, or
Need more underwear liner
I'm betting they didn't pack many pairs, and thats a long time to go turning pairs inside out!
I wouldn't want to be there when they do return, stifling stink liner!
The luna gateway looks cool and all, but rendering it with Starliner? I'm not sure the Starliner will be read by then...
Would it not be possible to save some of the iss and return it to earth safely, for a museum for example. Surely for 849m spend on de orbiting it, sone of it can be kept for future generations to admire
i think starship could at least soft'ish land the pieces with a refuel
Iss is just under 420 tons just break a piece of and use a refueled starship to take it to... Any where else but fire the problem is as he mentioned it has minimal radiation protection as it was to remain in Leo it would be a museum but still interesting for sure for the dyson swarmers or moon tourists. Also the water that's up there has to have some value...
@@CR-iz1od
Don't need to refuel, if it goes up empty, it should have plenty of fuel left to land with cargo.
There are already a couple of capsules docked at International Space Station. Those would be a better choice to use to get those two Astronauts back Home.
Not sure they have the right space suits for the return.
You stopped with the background music. Thank you!
Hi Fraser, great channel. I have a few questions, if you could answer any of them that would be great.
1. Why can't we directly image objects in our solar system in high resolution with our current equipment without a mission like New Horizons?
2. What kind of attitude does the astronomy community have toward simulation theory? How could it explain dark matter?
3. If so many dark matter-containing galaxies appear to have very evenly distributed rotating mass and it's DM that keeps these galaxies together, does that not mean that DM interacts with objects and shouldn't we be able to detect it especially if it has has such a profound influence?
thumbnail is very "THIS IS THE VOICE OF THE MUSKIVONS. WE WILL DESTROY THE ISS"
So who gets to be Captain Scarlett?
I like the idea of using Starship to deorbit ISS. It would make for some exciting imagery. Good test of the hardware and poetic as you said.
When I first saw the title picture for this video I read,"SPACEX will DESTROY the ISS" and in my mind I heard a voice continue,"With FACTS and LOGIC"
It may not have anything to do with "primordial" black holes specifically, but I do believe black holes as a whole are involved in the dark matter phenomenon. There is still so much we don't understand about what is happening inside. Exotic particles and crazy rule-breaking magic the universe must contain behind an event horizon.
I am pretty sure SpaceX will manage the ISS de-orbit by purchasing some Starliners from Boeing. They seem like very capable spacecrafts, and SpaceX would want the very best equipment for such an important mission.
Salvage some modules from ISS and boost them to attach to the Lunar Gateway. If nothing else they can be used as storage closets. But they likely could also add some utility. Boosting to the moon from low earth orbit is much less fuel used than boosting from the ground.
I hope these plans change before the actual deorbit, I have still been holding out hope that starship might be able to bring down the ISS piece by piece to be reassembled in a museum
Shouldn't be hard. And not even expensive. The only issue is disconnecting the modules, they were probably not designed for that.
I would assume that all the working solar arrays will be salvaged.
The old labs are are showing their age, systems failing, all the parts are OLD and out of production. Deorbiting the outdated modules and the worn out solar arrays only, makes sense.
how in the world do you think they would salvage them? let them aimlessly float around at 120km above earth and then try to catch them 10+ years later to assemble them (in space!) onto a new station? or should they spend 5x as much money as the solar arrays cost on building a system to safely bring them back down?
makes a lot of sense if you aren't used to having any
@@mistaajones The axiom people are building out off the existing station.
taking the working arrays and the trusses with them while deorbiting the outdated and leaky modules should be possible without too much effort.
13:34 freeze frame in the window of the capsule. I'm not saying it's aliens, but that's definitely a battle with aliens. 🤨😆
I have a question for the Question Show.
In Doctor Who the Gallifreyans force their star to become a Black Hole unnaturally in order to provide the power for unlimited Time Travel.
So my question is, How could a Black Hole possibly provide more power than an active star? and just how much more power could it generate?
As always great stuff
Can't a space program send old space junk on a trajectory to the sun?
Hey Fraser, a question for the next QNA. I am seeing a lot of slap test that SpaceX is performing with its chopsticks. Early on SpaceX wanted to make all of its rockets with carbon fibre tanks and all. But abandoned it for a more speedy prototype approach. Can't they do that with the chopsticks? Since it is not part of the rocket and does not have a lot of iterations. Would probably save them some time during reinspection. What do you think?
I suspect Starship is a bit overpowered for deorbit of ISS. even 1 Raptor at 50% is likely going to be too much if they want to keep ISS together until it hits atmosphere. That would be about 1/4 G which due to the strung out nature of the ISS is likely going to break bits (big bits) off.
If SpaceX has to go get the astronauts off the ISS, wow.
It would be cheaper to land the ISS on the Moon... At least it could be an emergency back up for any service built there!
Sure hope they get Starliner out of there before the deorbit begins. lol
When I first subscribed to Astronomy & S&T Magazines in 1981, this was the news we voted on:
1. IRAS to Launch Soon!
Nowadays, I can't begin to keep track of it all. I don't know how Fraiser keeps track of it all 😊.
Best push the ISS out of orbit and into deep space, hopefully that we would find it again one day.
Here's my plan
1) Put docking adapter on the nose of a Falcon 9 second stage
2) Launch with Falcon Heavy to maximize onboard propellant
3) Connect to docking port on ISS
4) Start up second stage engine
5) Splashdown!
Wouldn't work, iss is way too heavy even for starship.
It has to be sectioned off. In to say 100ton cargo pieces and than a refueled starship can deorbit that or take it to the moon. But if a perigee is made to land in Pacific we could possibly move larger parts slower.
Also to do all of it at once would take months to a year, then boil off comes into play for reignition burns and navigation to do iss all at once with a starship. So they could probably do it, it just depends on how safe we want to be so...
Its no problem, not expensive.
@@monkeynomics8995 it actually wouldnt take much to deorbit the iss. Roughly 90 m/s change in deltav to do it safely. The issue is doing a slow gentle burn so the iss doesnt break up from the acceleration. Starship is MASSIVE. An expendable starship has a payload of roughly 250 metric tons to LEO. More than half the total mass of the ISS. Launching starship empty it would have plenty of available deltav to deorbit the ISS in 1 launch.
If I heard you right where at 60% of mapping out star systems withing 30 light years distance of earth, with 40% to go. Now we need to be able to travel at 1/3 of the speed of light to get there within 100 years. (not joking) Maybe if there was an exo - planet that we could do something with (something better then Mars) and we used a generational ship, it would be possible . Thanks for that information, very helpful in rounding out my knowlege of physical universe we live in.
As sad as it is, the ISS would have to come down eventually. It's been up there since 1998! That's a major success story. And not only that, but it was done in the spirit of international collaboration, which can't always be said of other space projects. 🙄 Looking forward to China sending those moon samples to researchers and nations across the world.
Push it to the lunar surface ... Instant Lunar Base. Even if if fails you could salvage usable debris from the surface for future lunar construction.
That "push" would have to be 4,100 m/s delta V (9,200 mph freedom units).
@@wally7856 I will not even pretend to know what that means ... but I'm guessing that is an unobtainable amount of thrust.
@@avstryker It's about half the energy of what it took to get it there in the first place. Not impossible but very expensive.
@@wally7856 They have already committed nearly a billion to it ... Maybe they can attach a trailer hitch to it and Elon can drop it off on the way to Mars.
best show on yt!
the ISS is a very high mileage vehicle currently. There's just a point where maintenance will become too much and too dangerous for people. Parts have lifespans and some not so easily replaceable. Sad to see it go but unfortunately it has to happen at some point.
After many lives lost, vast amounts of resources wasted and many unplanned disassembles my Kerbals decided on a blatant copy of the Gateway station from the Alien franchise. It's really cool and has deck chairs outside on a perilously vertigo inducing platform just because it also looked cool.
Fraser :) Why do you never acknowledge the wonderful support you receive from highly skilled and dedicated journalists in the weekly newsletter. It strikes me not just as a misrepresentation but also profoundly ungenerous. Name them, promote them. Universe today is not a one man show. It is a community of us all thousands of people. Shared value and shared hopes for the future :) xxx
Literally every single story in the newsletter is attributed to its author with links and everything. What are you talking about?
I write the text in the newsletter, and then link to the writer's original story on Universe Today. I put the credit for each person with each story. And then their name is at the top of the story on Universe Today.
While the ISS is still in use, how does the crew keep it clean enough to avoid nasty pathogens or moulds from building up in the hard to access crevices of the spacecraft? It's hard enough on ships, in space it must be very tricky.
Am I crazy or isn't this thruster issue with Starliner similar to the issue Neil & Dave had on the Gemini 8 mission in '66? God bless Amy Shira Teitel, sure miss Vintage Space! lf it hadn't been for Neil's quick thinking, he and Dave would have been toast! Thruster problems are VERY serious!
OK, this is a long one. The speed of light is the "speed limit" of the universe. In reference to what?
If 2 objects are heading exactly 180° from each other at half of the speed of light each, are they limited? Which one is experiencing time dilation? They are going the same speed, so is time running the same speed for them? What about something at the central location between them?
Since time is relative and everything in the universe is moving at different speeds, time is different for everything in the universe. Stars at the edge of the universe are moving nearly the speed of light away from us. Compared to our time, is their time dilated to near a stand still compared to ours?
Recent studies have suggested aluminium particulates left behind by deorbiting satellites could activate processes which harm the ozone layer?
Has that potential deleterious effect been modelled regarding deorbiting the ISS?
Should be easy to do. Send up thrust units that can use the docking mechanism with engines that can also vector.
I've never seen your question page but bringing rocks from the far side of the moon was the thing of the week or month.
Question- when we're looking at the sky can we tell if an object is seen through a gravitational lens? If so, how?
It seems unlikely that mere black holes could account for the relatively fixed rotations of visible matter in their orbits around galaxy centers that maintain their spiral arms. This rotation would depart from the rules of Newtonian physics without the gravitational influence of the invisible dark matter whose existence we've inferred from it.
The way I look at ISS and Hubble is: If we wanted to build an exact replacement for them today, how much would it cost compared to the cost of boosting the orbits, updating and repairing the components? It seems like a tremendous waste of original design time, build time, precious materials and energy already used to put them in orbit just to let it all burn up in the atmosphere. We seem to be carrying our unsustainable, throwaway patterns with us wherever we go, even to space.
How about a batch of Ion thrusters? It would make a great test vehicle.
Hi Fraser, I have a question. Is it ever possible to see the ISS or other satillites in broad day light? Sometimes a air plain will catch the sunlight on a window and glint very brightly for a second or two, does something similar happen with satillites? Hope you enjoy your summer!
For the Titan mission, need one of those hydro foils that you get up on step on by pumping up and down with your legs, I don't have a clue on how you would automate that or make it work, but that would be neat to see.
I would use the old ISS as a workstation for building its replacement before disposing of it.
Are they gount to deorbit while the ISS is fully assembled, or will they deorbit then separate the the modulars?
Question, you said they have plenty of supplies for quite awhile, but if i remember correctly, didn't they change the original cargo of Starliner to add more water instead of a previously planned cargo? And is that something that is still being taken into as consideration? What if they hadn't taken up extra water? Thank you for any response! I'm just curious.
Excellent stuff bro
Thanks!
Congratulations to all the scientists and engineers who help get to the Moon and back!
Could they use StarShip to bring the ISS modules home and put them in a museum?
How did they get the depth info for the pillars of creation? Is the parallax big enough for that level of detail?
of the two spent stations and the future ones, it was possible to do something that was constantly in orbit
If you are only seeing from one relative point in terms of observing does that not in some way introduce an unknown error in what is measured?
According to Musk on Tim Dodd's video, starship would be harder to dock with a station and easier to dock with itself.
Starlink ship.
were there any viable plans to fragment or purposefully breaking up the ISS on re-entry to minimize the amount of debris that would make it to Earth(Ocean Graveyard)?
I keep thinking about putting Shuttle bay doors on the Starship and try to salvage the ISS. Can this whole process be done remotely from the ground, as drones work in space?
I really hope you add the bear to the poll... I'm definitely picking the bear 🤣🤣
Usually I have an insanely hard time deciding which topic is my favorite... but I would 100% pick the bear this time lol
Man, the design of that Chinese lander looks oddly familiar
It looks like the Soyuz capsules. But they've got way beyond those initial designs.
Hello Fraser. (Another Frazer here.) Canadian. Pardon this lengthy post. I find your cast, tube and web energixzing and very very smart. I have been watching and learning about space since I was 6. That is a very long time ago. Watched the boys walk on the moon live when I was 13. What you do is absoolutely invaluable. Guess I'd better step up. 8-) ISS Deorbit. In my opinion, watching it all over 60 years; I believe it would be foolish to kill the ISS. Unless there is an over-riding engineering or orbital problem....pump money and get her up to snuff. Let the Russians go. They have said they were abandoning it before. I am quite sure the Japanese would love the option. So would we. Money is not the problem. The will is. And let us stop talking about Gateway. It is right there. Overhead. Ready to spawn another station. Deorbit? Nope. Nope. Nope. B52's were first built in 1955. They are still patrolling the skies as a force of nature. A-10 Warthogs? The bane of any enemy on the ground. Built in 1975. The US would be absolutely foolish to bring down the ISS. I will tell you, until the NASA fantasy of working and planting people on the moon permanently is real, (It won't be for 25 years) --- because people are now chickens...... we need that station. What. Are you just going to leave the Chinese station up there by itself? DUH. I cannot emphasize this enough.... Kennedy empowered NASA to put men on the moon in 9 years. They did it. Many times. America is now so weak they have to beg China for deep regolith samples from the far side of the moon. Again DUH. Side note. Stop talking about Blue Origin. Other than putting some rich people in space for 3 minutes, New Glen still sits. Useless twaddle. How many years now and BILLIONS from NASA to Bezos. Gotta say. SpaceX has kicked their arse 12 ways from Sunday with much less 'free government money'. They have accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful and will not. Bezos has accomplished nothing other than grabbing free money. Same with Boeing. Gotta love this Starliner debacle. (Not). I worry abdt Suny and Butch. At least the rest of the crew will come home in Dragon. Tried, tested and true. Just ask Bob and Doug. And let us all thank Gwen Shotwell. The real hero and boss of SpaceX.
The problem is that ISS has a constantly decaying orbit. So they'd need to launch regular flights to keep it going, which means ongoing funding from Congress, which isn't there.
If I had the money (which I most definitely don't 😢) I would buy the ISS, strip off all the outdated labs and computer equipment, add a newer control unit, an orbital construction system and boost it into a higher orbit to use it as an automated orbital construction and refueling facility. But that's just me.
Hi Fraser, if the CMB is as at the edge of how far we can see (and how far back in time) how come we think the universe may be much larger? Isn't the CMB the edge / beginning ?
Congratulations 👏👏🎉
Ya all got rocks from the moon
How precise does the de-orbiting need to be? Clearly we need to avoid satellites in lower orbit that we still care about, and avoid land and shipping lanes, but there is a LOT of space between satellites, so why not time and direct an explosive decompression with the atmosphere already on the station? Is there just not enough delta-V that you'd get for that massive a station, or do they need to start by getting a totally different orbit first?
What exactly did the iss achieve and what was its total mission cost ? Looks like a big willy waving project .
The problem though is that if you fell off your surfboard you'd immediately sink, because the density of liquid methane is much lower then the density of water (which is close to human density, which is why you can float) - Of course, you can't breathe the atmosphere of titan anyway and you'd need a space suit so I suppose it wouldn't matter that much, lol.
2:41 I would have liked the starship to grab the modules from the ISS. And the deorbit them.
It would have been sick to see them in the museums around the world.
Your video looks so sharp,well lit and the color is so deep and rich. If you don’t mid I would love to know your setup.