Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rocketsocks t1_jc8h3a1 wrote

Reply to comment by ClioBitcoinBank in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee

Yes, that will for sure happen, but in order for it to happen safely we need something with a lot of propulsive capability. The original plan was to use 3 Progress vehicles, but that puts Russia in the critical path.

4

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8j0zn wrote

If only there was a crew to fit the station with such a system and constantly docking resupply missions to draw fuel from, if only.

−4

rocketsocks t1_jc8jpnb wrote

So you're proposing they just build a propulsion system on the station as a DIY project?

The whole purpose of this is to build a system that works reliably. And one can be developed, but not for zero dollars. Very likely this will end up being a variant of a cargo spacecraft (Cygnus or Dragon) optimized for propulsion. None of those vehicles have enough thrust to do the job in one go right now, the station weighs 400 tonnes after all.

6

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8naao wrote

Reliability in demolition is not the same standard of reliability as in construction. This is literally the lowest standard of reliability you could have. Do not waste MY money on a golden wrecking ball.

0

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8kddg wrote

Use a cargo mission with a modified upper stage, grab it with Canada arm, and attach to station, the crew lander can carry extra fuel going up and refill before evac. Not exactly this but something similar and simpler.

−1

rocketsocks t1_jc8kjdz wrote

Glad to see you're onboard with basically what the plan will turn out to be, not sure why you were so resistant to the idea.

4

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8l1cf wrote

They want my money for a ground based solution not a station based solution. What they purpose is wasteful

−1

Anderopolis t1_jc9vc07 wrote

What do you think a ground based solution is?

Because an orbital tug is definitely not ground based.

2

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jcbncm8 wrote

By ground based solution I mean you accomplish 99% of the deorbit construction phase of the mission on the ground instead of sending up parts in the cargo missions and slowly building a deorbiter system or whatever you want to call it. Those same missions could siphon off fuel from the resupply mission upper stages, but a ground based solution might be to send a dedicated vehicle, purpose built for this mission. Imagine your going on a camping trip, you wouldnt assemble the tent and then walk it into the woods, you would take the tent into the woods in pieces, and assemble it there. I like the idea of Nasa sending a simply single mission vehicle to solve this problem, I jsut dont like that it would cost a ton of extra money for what basically boils down to a demolition job, demolition should be the cheapest and least reliably type of mission Nasa has ever conducted, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to cheap out.

1