Destroying the ISS and Building the Raptor SSTO

How do we bring down the International Space Stations safely?
And can we build a single stage to orbit ship with Raptor 2s?
The Terran Space Academy walks you through what you should consider as you plan your mission, to destroy the most expensive object ever created.
And the use the Chrysler SERV as a model for the first generation of Raptor based SSTO!
Credit SpaceX, ESA, ULA, Boeing, NASA, Hazegrayart
and Armageddon!
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshi...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching, and stay safe!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys
This video contains samples of other video content used under the fair use doctrine. The material is included for purposes such as commentary, criticism, and educational analysis. We believe our use of this content adds significant value through new expression and meaning, and does not negatively impact the market value of the original works. If you have any concerns, please contact us at [e-mail]

[@clydecox2108]

I really hope that when they do bring it down they install cameras all over it so we can get lots of angles of its decent.

[@terranspaceacademy]

If SpaceX does it you know they will :-)

[@TheHatManCole]

Dude, I love all the technical details you bless us with in your videos! I know you don't get as many videos as many other rocket-science-based youtubers, but that is just because a large number of their viewers are casuals. You are the refuge for those of us who want to know more, and do more.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It makes me very happy to hear that. Our goal was to be there for the serious aficionado that wants more than a superficial knowledge.

[@maryellen1952]

Thanks for a other informative space podcast! ❤❤❤

[@SuperDave_BR549]

absolutely love your channel! thank you for your time and expertise.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome!

[@theOrionsarms]

Those plans for using high thrust propulsion for de-orbit ignore the fact that ISS modules are very weak connected, so any high thrust maneuver (even 1g) would break away the station.

[@marksinclair701]

Agreed, closer to 0.02g than 2g.

[@Mycatisinapiano]

something tells me that if 1g can break the station then there's no way astronauts can push off the inside of the station safely

[@theOrionsarms]

@@Mycatisinapiano it's about the connection points strength,if you have a 20 tons modules that is connected with another with a joint that can take only two tons of side force(and the forces are transversale to the joint), you can have only a acceleration of 0,1g , this have nothing to do with humans inside, it's all about the structural strength of the station. P.S. also wouldn't be any human inside when it would be de-orbited, so no need to push off for them.

[@mr.ackermann807]

I would like to think of a space craft with multiple small boosters inside it that would go to each section and burn at the same time to distribute the force evenly to avoid a break up or to us cables to hold them together.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Yes but we can dream! Or use ion...

[@YellowRambler]

It’s a shame that they’re not able to use those new solar panels to power a several Ion thrusters to move the ISS To a geosynchronous graveyard orbit? I wonder if everything was shut down except for what was needed to move the ISS in slow and efficient manner, could it could be done? If not, I hope that people will be allowed to salvage any useful equipment, it seems wrong to burns extra fuel for something that already escaped Earth Gravity well.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's interesting... Put a big Xenon tank and X3 engine and let it climb...

[@vmcprojects]

Not a bad idea! ISS could be turned into an orbital museum for future generations to visit. Knowing Elon, I think he'll be tempted to use Starship to bring back segments of ISS back to Earth, bit by bit, and still make a profit out of that $840m contract. Because if the launch costs of starship are relatively cheap, and you can have it return with ISS segments, why not? I'm guessing they're not even gonna entertain using Falcon 9 for anything. I'll probably end up being wrong on my guesses.

[@dmdrosselmeyer]

Fantastic channel, thank you for the top notch videos!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome!

[@motoman1210]

Another great video, lots of calculations to make my head hurt. I think a one percent fee is more than fair.😊

[@terranspaceacademy]

We would be pleased...

[@menotyou1234]

"De-orbit Starship" does not need flaps, TPS, or landing burn. It could be non-reuseable, thus under 100 mt dry mass.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Sure, but why not let it land if they are capable of it five years from now? No reason to wast one :-)

[@clytle374]

What about a stretched falcon heavy upper stage with a docking ring on the nose?

[@EstorilEm]

I think this is the most likely outcome. Almost all the hardware already exists - simply combine your usual payload mass into tank extensions for the 2nd stage and throw a docking ring on the front of it; they even have that - take the docking ring from crew/cargo dragon and boom, you’re done. It might be worth throwing two Merlin’s on it though. As reliable as they’ve been, having your engine fail to re-light after the initial burn would be catastrophic. If they’re really building a second stage every other day, the cost of this thing could be remarkably cheap. I don’t see any reason they couldn’t recover the side boosters either, we aren’t talking about a very difficult orbit here.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That would work too...

[@popojoeexplode]

What was the point of pouring billions into Starliner and Dragon if we were just going to de-orbit the ISS if the point was to have America to be in possession of a spacecraft able to boost the ISS...

[@simonschaller857]

By then there will be multiple other stations

[@EstorilEm]

The vehicles can be used for a number of different applications, but the largest reason is that Russia was straight-up extorting the US with $85m per seat costs on Soyuz. With crew dragon costing around $55m, each seat saves around 30m bucks. I think we’ve flown around 50 people, so that’s $1.5 BILLION in savings alone. Some of those are astronauts from other countries, which have to pay US for launch services now. Plus you’re not funding Russia in the process, which is also good. Now take that number and multiply it by however many additional launches crew dragon will have before de-orbit, plus existing savings, and that’s your answer.

[@MatthewTortora]

The commercial crew program was wisely devised by NASA to meet their short term needs of crew transportation but the long term need of kickstarting commercial space.

[@RoBear-xo6zw]

Crew Dragon is also part of the Gateway moon missions profile 🎉🚀

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's right...

[@johnwiles4391]

If I had it my way, I'd squeeze putty into all the developing cracks, lower the internal pressure as far as possible, stuff it full of consumables, launch and attach as big an ion engine (or array of smaller engines) as can be supported with the ISS's electric supply and send it off to Mars (probably with several gravity assists of Earth and/or Venus) and there perform a delicate orbital insertion almost certainly to include many apoareion lowering impulses. That would give future astronauts somewhere relatively safe to go while allowing them to regroup and consider their position!

[@terranspaceacademy]

I like it!

[@matfax]

Mir also means "World".

[@terranspaceacademy]

Did not know that.

[@dukenukem001]

Is there any launch pad that would survive 100 raptors ??

[@Codysdab]

Water

[@scottdorfler2551]

​@Codysdab I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX went with deep sea oil rigs as lauch platforms. But knowing SpaceX, they'd probably design and build them in-house, purpose built. There're a lot of advantages with Ocean platform launches. The platforms can be placed anywhere in the ocean, like on the equator. Exclusion zones would be easier to maintain and enforce. If Starship becomes fully operational and successful, a ring of platforms at the equator would allow Superheavy to land at the next platform down range. This would eliminate the need for boost back burns, allowing Superheavy to impart more speed to Starship.

[@terranspaceacademy]

A solid slab of granite somewhere? Probably only a water launch is viable...

[@GrigoriZhukov]

Crazy idea, scale up delta Clipper with mix of raptor 3 vacuum and sea level engines and put it on starship booster.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I loved the Delta Clipper.

[@stevenjones797]

Buran’s jet engines were only used for ferry flights and low speed testing, orbital landings were dead stick.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Here's what I found. That was an “Atmospheric Aircraft” prototype, identified as BTS-002. It had turbojet engines and was used for the Buran’s pilot training. It was not intended for a space flight.

[@withoutstickers]

Buran did not have jet engines The aerodynamic test vehicle was fitted for with 4 jet engines to allow for testing, instead of dropping it from a carrier aircraft like shuttle, but the actual orbiters did not have jet engines.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you! Thought they used them for a powered glide also. Here's what I found. That was an “Atmospheric Aircraft” prototype, identified as BTS-002. It had turbojet engines and was used for the Buran’s pilot training. It was not intended for a space flight.

[@IZ41X]

Timely topic for this lesson doc. Agreed on the 1% consultation fee lol

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@simonschaller857]

I would fear breaking the iss apart by pushing with a raptor on it

[@terranspaceacademy]

Me too

[@andrewgrandfield7214]

0:55 "... humanity's only lasting space outpost"? What about the Chinese space station?

[@terranspaceacademy]

I said lasting... China's only been doing this a few years and nothing has stayed up very long yet.

[@toby-xo6rb]

You really want to acknowledge and promote anything from a militaristic dictatorship?

[@dukenukem001]

also thanks for another great lesson

[@terranspaceacademy]

My pleasure!

[@richardknapp570]

Excellent episode! My brain is suffering but lots of information to digest. There are some modules showing their age and micrometeorite damage. Maybe separating those modules and replacing with updated ones (nice and clean ones like the Chinese modules) may be a good idea...if NASA had any money left over after funding SLS, StarLiner, Orion..... Would it be better to detach modules and bring down separately? Seems like there would be better control and may be able to obtain better incineration on re-entry. How does SkyLab's size/mass compare to MIR?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@PeterJepson123]

Question: Regarding the ISS, would it not be better to tow it to the moon? Given that it cost so much to put it in space and its made of useful building materials, etc. By my abridged calculations, one fully fueled Starship would do it. So, the question is why isn't that the plan? Have I underestimated the challenge of moving the space station to the moon?

[@terranspaceacademy]

You should like the last lesson :-)

[@BrentHasty]

Golden opening comment Boost it up

[@terranspaceacademy]

:-)

[@JeffWusch]

First stage Starship booster with a docking module to deorbit this bad boi. Or just do it one piece at a time...

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's an interesting concept... SHB can only get 15mt to LEO if dry mass is 180mt though. Not enough to get the job done.

[@ReggieArford]

@@terranspaceacademy Stack two Boosters; docking ring on top.

[@revmsj]

So woulf it be possible for F9 or FH entire 2nd stage still holding the cargo capsule to reach the ISS possibly with a bit of propellant to spare to fire off the Merlin engine to assist in deorbiting? It could still use its Dracos to dock to ISS, slow it down quickly with remaining fuel in 2nd stage, either undock again to jettison the stage or rotate the entire station to jettison, rotate back and then use super Draco’s and remaining Draco’s to finish her off. I’ve obviously not done the maths on it but just a thought

[@terranspaceacademy]

The Falcon Heavy could get 63.8mt total up there... That's pretty good.

[@JeffWusch]

With the reduced cost to LEO, there is zero reason this is going to be a single trip mission

[@terranspaceacademy]

But the fun of it!!

[@marksinclair701]

Good stuff, thanks. What’s your guess on Starship versus Falcon/Dragon? I imagine Space would like to use that money on Starship but NASA probably prefers Falcon/Dragon?? Also, I think Starship payload fully expendable is higher, or maybe it detached and re-enters!

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think the Dragon has a proven safety record and NASA will want to go with that.

[@revmsj]

How about 2 F9s? Could that do the trick? If not, how about 3? 4? Or even a couple tricked out, kitted up w/ extra hypergolic tanks as cargo…?

[@terranspaceacademy]

I like it!

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

What would it cost to boost the iss into an orbit where we wouldn't have to worry about it for 20 years or even 50 years?

[@terranspaceacademy]

We will be looking at that question today! :-)

[@rgloria40]

I rather have SPACEX push it to much higher orbit like around the moon. SPACEX can take control and use it a test platform. For example, US NAVY has an exercise called SINKEX where they test, fire and record data on destroying an old ship. I think SPACEX can sell this to the US SPACE FORCE and other military to see if their space weapons work or they can use it just a junk yard to provide resources to the Moon or Mars.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Hitting the ISS with anything in high orbit would trigger a Kessler syndrome scenario... It would need to be in a very low orbit for that.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Space de-conflicted may be an impossible dream.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Almost certainly... It involves humans after all.

[@radhekrishna6483]

Ssto really doesn't work for earth gravity. But i think i cracked the code for ssto rocket 😅

[@terranspaceacademy]

True but on Mars or the Moon it will be great!

[@Goodkiwibloke]

450MT in orbit must have a hugely significant value. It seems like an opportunity for an entrepreneurial company to repurpose into an orbital resort for the super wealthy, and a gateway to the moon and mars At a bare minimum the ISS should be stored in orbit and used as a source of construction materials for future space stations, to avoid the need to lift 450MT back into orbit To just burn it up is IMO a stupid and short sighted idea

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think so too... Even at new prices it would be worth a huge amount.

[@PaulSpades]

0:46 Hahaha.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It's reasonable! Just 1%! come on Elon!

[@scotshermer6711]

I think Elon should instead offer to move to a higher orbit and take over ownership. His engineers could fix the issues presently there and modernize the systems, and then he would have an independent platform under his control for moving out into space. Add a bunch of Bigelow inflatables and it could house a significant technical and support staff.

[@PaulSpades]

The ISS is not NASA property. Or Russian property. You can't really sell the ISS. Not to mention all of the space engineering companies that have intelectual property and patents over systems on the station. Unless the UN, or all of the space agencies that have contributed, decide to invent some new legislation for it: some sort of public propriety for humanity, or natural reservation/protected monument... it's just way easier to scrap it. And even if it was a protected monument, Elon should not be allowed to do anything with it.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Luckily, Elon is not so stupid as to buy 480t of trash. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@Chainsaw-ASMR]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lxI’m not so sure, he bought Twittter after all and that place has always been trash.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It does have a lot of value...

[@scotshermer6711]

@@PaulSpades Everything has a price.

[@venturefanatic9262]

I don't think that NASA is confident the ISS would last long with all of the Trash floating around causing a probable Kessler Syndrome.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed.

[@Wisald]

Boosting the ISS into high orbit is a terrible idea, can you imagine what would happen if it was hit by something and fell apart?

[@terranspaceacademy]

But that's true of anything big that we build... Put it up high enough and there's not much up there. Plus we need debris removal systems anyway :-)

[@JeffWusch]

We have to pull it apart before deorbit...

[@terranspaceacademy]

That would work too.

[@JeffWusch]

Why 'Merica paying for all this return from Orbit when it is called the "International" space station

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good question. Because we control it 100%

[@esioanniannaho5939]

Why Destroy the ISS like Mir it should be landed on the Moon as a museum Piece ?? Think of the Materials Scientific Instruments Habitat et al 😮

[@mr.ackermann807]

Last I remember, it was meant for mucro gravity and not low gravity. To land it in one piece would almost certainly break it apart, but it could be done per module.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I don't think it could survive a landing but lunar orbit would be cool. Better than Lunar Gateway?

[@mr.ackermann807]

@terranspaceacademy orbit does sound nice in order to give it a new life, but the cost to update it and to check everywhere for repairs would probably not make it worth while considering they're also contracting other companies to make a gateway too. And by landing I didn't mean physically like a lander, but rather on some kind of stand to support it weight to ensure it doesn't get destroyed so it could either act as an museum piece or get updated and buried to act as the first temporary lunar base to make things easier.

[@ReggieArford]

@@terranspaceacademy Use some (newer) modules for Lunar Gateway, plus salvageable solar panels. Discard the rest.