It's Mind-blowing! SpaceX & NASA's big solution to SAVE the ISS. Russia Shocked...

[@sergeboisse]

Instead of de-orbiting ISS at the end of its life, why not RAISING its orbit up to, say 2000 km, so that it could stay there for thousands of years and become a testimony of the achievements of the early 21th century, and maybe, a museum for future tourists in 2200 ? The required delta-v is not enormous and the raising maneuver could be achieved by one or two starships!

[@michaeldeighan8294]

Why the hell would you burn it up? Push it up and use it as the first scrap yard and fuel depot. How many billions are invested in it? We will use it eventually. Not if it’s burnt up in the re-entry.

[@toysoldier8947]

It would make such a decent lightweight collection and parking depot to help springboard assembly of heavy depot for orbital assembly and such. I like the frequency your grey matter is operating on.

[@kevinjones6698]

Wasn't Boeing paid more because Starliner was to be able to do this operation but Dragon was not meant to?

[@alphatech4966]

Dragon so great!

[@rwh1096]

Yes

[@charlesmaurer6214]

I like the Idea of saving the station for an emergency life boat and parts. I would rather when the time comes to crash it into the moon so the moon base rover can make runs for spare parts or to build extra stuff. It cost a lot to get the material lifted to space and it should be recycled there. We need a new station up and running before destroying it too. Once the new one is running raiding the old for supplies could be routine and reduce the later waste. Perhaps the new station could even incorporate the old as an annex. A single collapsing tube to one of the existing ports would not be that difficult to manage if it accepted spacewalk conditions (even just a tether at the most minimal). At a higher orbit attached to a newer base it could even serve as a lab for testing shielding needs and arrangement options for a Mars mission. Things like acceptable damage to supporting plant life or what plants for food and air can be resistant to that damage. Also with the added solar to charge batteries would give some surplus power to any new station. At some point we need a station and ships with gravity through rotation and with that method applied then it would be time to fling whatever is left after being stripped up or down for a burn to Earth or Lunar Crash.

[@mrzoinky5999]

The problem is, because this station was built over many years and different manufacturers, there are leaks in it's cooling system , and other systems are deteriorating, and there is a slow air leak in a Russian module; It is time to let it go - it is getting dangerous to use anymore.

[@oldfrog17]

Skylab had 1/3rd of the current ISS internal volume. It was launched with a Saturn V. The ISS volume is made up of thin tubes based upon the volume of the Space Shuttle, and launch vehicles of the period. None of those tubes are open and every square inch is covered with equipment. As it is, the ISS is obsolete, and aged meaning sections may soon fail and start leaking. I want to see the volume of Skylab, and possibly a spinning section for experiments in artificial gravity. We need to find out if people can tolerate artificial gravity for long term.

[@terryturman8495]

Why doesn’t SpaceX just go ahead and push it out into deep space. By the time it gets to Mars, we might actually have a ship they can get there and back .

[@raymondvanroest372]

boost it using starship and put it into Luna orbit as gateway station!

[@douginorlando6260]

It makes more sense to abandon living in the ISS to eliminate operating cost, use it for power generation and latch a Starship based space station to it. There are a lot of ways to take advantage of all that hardware in space without having to maintain it.

[@alphatech4966]

we need to create new things

[@dianeweaver8379]

Umm...this isn't mind-blowing. What would be mind-blowing would be for SpaceX to move the International Space Station into orbit around the Moon...click bait.

[@g2D1]

that's easy, eject the Russian module. Problem fixed

[@gunlover1955]

I am a fan of saving the station and using it as an emergency stop for now just keep it out there and keep it going somewhat as an Emergency stop over! We need a place to go to if things go wrong at some point in the future! It could also be the start of a fuel dock in space fly some tanks up there and some fuel it seems like a waste to just crash an already flying station without a back up plan.

[@ryanchappell5962]

Seems like you could make a new space station by launching starships and just leaving them up. You could even attach the noses together and spin them for gravity on the lower levels of each of the two ships.

[@patmancrowley8509]

Hmm. I seem to remember reading an article where it declares that there are some serious leaks in the International Space Station (ISS). If that is so then it would be imperative to find and permanently fix them and to determine what it was that caused the leaks. If the leaks were seals in the sectional junctions then it may be impossible to replace the seals or to put in a permanent fix. So why keep it around? Find the leaks, determine the causes, make an assessment and act accordingly.

[@gunlover1955]

Well it seem they need to find ways to fix things when they break it's called learning, something NASA has never known. You have to repair things at some point this is no different.

[@jessiemartinfostersr.6067]

TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THE ISS . AND NO ONE CAN SAVE IT ...????

[@moistsponge8353]

They need to decommission the ISS in the future and replace it with just a whole Starship

[@michaelpettersson4919]

I would prefer if ISS where not deotbited but instead lifted to a higher orbit to be preserved as an historical artifact for future generations.

[@alphatech4966]

That’s a good idea!

[@michaelpettersson4919]

@@alphatech4966 Yes it would be expensive but this is a special case. It doesn't matter if it done slowly. And nope, higher levels of radiation are utterly irrelevant if the station isn't crewed. In fact it should probably be evacuated of atmosphere to halt biological degradation inside so no mold or rot buildup.

[@douginorlando6260]

Tom Mueller’s Impulse space company has developed a high impulse engine with low thrust compared to a Raptor engine. Mueller is the guy who designed/developed the Merlin engine and original raptor engines while at SpaceX. A starship could launch a payload with an impulse space engine and huge 50 ton propellant tanks. It would propel itself to rendezvous with the ISS, latch on, and slowly accelerate the ISS with the remaining 45 tons of high ISP propellant.

[@alphatech4966]

it is a more distant future

[@jv-lk7bc]

Most of the problems with moving the station to a more stable orbit would be solved by the same craft that are going to the Moon. ISS [minus oldest sections] should be sold to private investors, with adequate regulation to ensure it doesn't become a hazard.

[@richardzeitz54]

If its orbit was raised, its speed wasn't increased. Higher orbits are slower. I think you meant to say the ISS's orbit was boosted, not its speed, as you said at the outset of this video. If its speed was increased too much, it would deorbit and reenter. Maybe it's because you must decelerate it to speed it up and accelerate it to slow it down. Weird, huh?

[@alphatech4966]

That is an interesting point. I'll make sure to clarify that in my next video!

[@EdWeibe]

Space X should reinvent the Shuttle

[@patriot6350]

Elon can buy it and list it on Air B&B😂😂

[@keithscott1926]

I’m concerned that the space station won’t break up the way they hoped it would going into the ocean. I think it should be broken up in space one piece at a time in the orbit it might be a lot more safer.

[@juanalarbert]

Can Elon Musk send It to the Moon?

[@alphatech4966]

of course

[@aida_semsosalihbegovic]

Well with cost to get heavy objects to the moon maybe it is better idea. Then you can salvage raw materials.

[@leonidlukashevsky6487]

Not to the Moon..to Moon orbit​@@aida_semsosalihbegovic

[@jessiemartinfostersr.6067]

SO WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL US WHAT SPACE X SHOULD BE DOING ???

[@thomasf-y5w]

Alot of great ideers here but I think the main issue is HOW TO SAFE MILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$$

[@solapowsj25]

A giant step and the drag-ons.

[@charlesvickers4804]

Why aren't they crashing the space station on the moon. ? Spare parts and material for future use.

[@Miekkajakunnia]

every time he said Draco wrong drove me nuts. its pronounced Dray- Co

[@scottfranson4215]

Send it up , keep it . Or put it half way to Mars like a station , like Star Trek, didn’t you’ll every watch Star Trek.. click bait .

[@charlesdaniel2313]

Elon will buy it and make money with it.. Thatz an artifact..!!

[@old-wise-one4473]

Sending it,to the moon would be what I would do. Not to use as is, but to offer the materials for a moon base so the manned parted are lowered into a lava tube and the solar panels used to power the new base.

[@Hackenberg]

Musk should buy out the station. It represents billions of dollars in materials lifted into orbit. Even if he melted it down for challenge coins, it would be better.

[@vec306]

Outdated equipment

[@jv-lk7bc]

Doesn't have to be Musk. Space Adventures, Bigelow, others could do it.

[@jv-lk7bc]

@@vec306 Outdated equipment that costs 10 billion dollars less than launching new. fixer-uppers have a market for good reason. Someone one will be interested.

[@snylypoker3371]

Send it to mars ,what a waste .

[@XCX237]

I don't know why SpaceX would even contemplate an end to the falcon series and dragon 🐉

[@alphatech4966]

can only be Starship

[@SuperJaXXas]

I don't think laurels and rest are in Elon's vocab?

[@XCX237]

@@alphatech4966 that sucks. At this point, dragon is better. Don't get me wrong, I love starship but it's a behemoth. The Falcons can do a lot without the need for refueling. Starship should be a space station until better propulsion systems are available. Re usable is great but really hard on fuel.. I know it's the endgame but I think getting it somewhere is going to be a lot of work yet. Dragon is more versatile.

[@beakytwitch7905]

Let us see an end to zero-gee space stations. Instead make rotating wheel stations to promote health.

[@alphatech4966]

That's great!

[@KenPaulsenArchitect]

"SAVE" in this title means "DESTROY" with the deorbit. (Clickbait)

[@stgeorgeist]

Getting a rocket and controlled thrust with a massive amount of fuel Placeing at a stable point for thrust on the entire iss structure a steady burn should put if fired at perielion into a higher orbit? Taking more modern moduals to eaxtend the station and disgard older parts to deorbit burn up would contuinue the iss as if a living groing evolve to better more stable better place for humans

[@bostonquad2068]

Starship will do it

[@rgloria40]

Yeah, Starship can boost it to an higher orbit sending it on it way to Mars. As for shielding, Sierra Nevada has that inflatable habitat/Shield. In fact, it is up to Space X what they want to do with the ISS as specified by the Federal Contract. Need new younger blood at NASA, look at the failure of Starliner, CST100. SpaceX needs an intermediate Gas Station in Space.

[@Freedom2x462]

Why not crash or send it in the orbit of the moon or the Sun or Mars!

[@AlpineTheHusky]

Mars, near impossible. Sun, Impossible. Moon is possible but not practically doable

[@steveforbes7718]

There is another way, Use a Falcon Heavy or Starship to push the station on a collision course with the Sun. Jettison the solar panels which will burn up in the atmosphere. Then, dock with the station and slowly bring up the engines so as to not have the station fold up. Then set course for the Sun, station, starship and all. It's the best method of disposal in the entire solar system!

[@dudeatos]

Actually getting something to hit the sun is extremely difficult. It isn’t just “push it into a collision course.”

[@stephengunnell5048]

Have you not been paying any attention at all?

[@malcolmmcguinness3709]

Same old bs

[@raystevens687]

SpaceX could make the ISS deorbite. With the Dragon space craft they might have to do a modes but I think it would work.

[@phelansa23]

The only people shocked are those who click on your clickbait bullshit.

[@BackUp-z4t]

Bye.

[@bhamptonkc7]

what if you boosted it every trip, and or electric drive, abandon it on orbit, graveyard orbit.

[@jv-lk7bc]

irresponsible.

[@rogerhammett5295]

Hypothetical, bullshit again.

[@davidwhite5972]

There are no degrees of uniqueness! something is either unique or not unique. Please stop mangling the English language by using terms such as "very unique".

[@DenisShields]

Agreed, unique has a binary status.

[@3D-Companions]

Your proficiency in using the English language is acknowledged. Get a life.

[@rob6255-j4t]

@@3D-Companions i was thinking that. R

[@mikeottersole]

Your comment is very quite uniquely unique.

[@rogerthomas169]

​@@DenisShieldsvery true...gotcha!

[@billstewart6706]

Why is this junk being dragged back to earth?? Get it out of earth orbit and into a decaying solar orbit. The sun don't care. DONE!!

[@Total_Egal]

you dont have any clue about spaceflight. its far more easy and cheaper and less dangerous to deorbit it and burn it in the earth atmosphere as your stunt. the danger having it break apart and decontaminate the whole earth orbit is way to high. also you know you have to put in a LOT of energy into the junk to kust only get this thing out of the earth/moon gravity well. you need even more energy to get it into a death orbit to the sun. and you need even more energy of not doing it the slow way but the fast and direct way and dont get in trouble with maybee a breaking apart in lower as earth to sun orbits. you know that space, orbit routes and so on we need in the future. there is a perfectly fine verry dense atmosphere right next to the station. you take your orbit velocity and burn it on entry and thats it. if you are verry clever you take away some components or construction elements who are known to maybee withstand this. but at the end its better to give that thing a solid push and plum it into the ocean... the little who is left after all burned up.

[@tslashares1082]

It's cheaper. The ISS is 250 miles from Earth, and 92 million miles from the sun.

[@CureInsomnia]

It would break up simply getting to escape velocity and spread into thousands of parts is the answer to your questions.

[@MikeeonYouTube4]

Bull shit

[@rghujjjgtdeee43dhj]

Ilon masc transfer all they company to texas, tomorrow he transfered to china or bangladesh and after this you are really will think that spacex is american company lol. It's ilon's company live with that.