NASA Just Picked SpaceX To Deorbit The International Space Station

[@PaulMaillet]

Boeing has far more experience making things crash and burn. SpaceX will end up landing the ISS safely in TX.

[@SuperiorDave]

Lol, then have rapid reusable boosters attached and relaunched before the season changes. Lol

[@WebberAerialImaging]

😂

[@jonathanmvkhai]

Lol a good one!

[@NS-tn3th]

“Another first for the SpaceX team.” Watch them make it routine, and have Blue Origin sue them for it 🤣🤣

[@chiaricharlie6608]

❤👍

[@MadJustin7]

But will starliner still be attached to the ISS when they deorbit 🤔🤔🤔

[@vdwhite687]

Lmfao

[@garreth629]

Crew demo still attached.😂

[@Thatonepersonyouheard]

😂

[@redminer8684]

Butch and Suni probably have a safer chance re-entering on a deorbiting space station than on starliner. Just stand at the airlock with a parachute and pray I guess

[@robertmiranda2444]

😂😂😂

[@JontyLevine]

I know recovering the station intact is not an option, but I really wish they could save one little piece of it. The cupola is the ideal candidate for this, as it has the most sentimental value of any ISS module. And they could set it up in a museum with a big-screen projection of Earth behind it so little kids could observe the planet through the very same sheets of glass that real astronauts looked through.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Who knows by 2030, SpaceX might have the capability with Starship to pick off and return components as part of the "deorbit operation". Salvage rights ya' know.

[@cmbaz1140]

They should have tried to land it on the moon or at least let it orbit the moon... regardless the parts could have been useful for future colonies...

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@cmbaz1140 The Moon's gravity is very lumpy, it would not stay in lunar orbit without a lot of constant orbit/attitude maintenance.

[@chpsilva]

​@@cmbaz1140 they are really far away from Moon. Like, a lot.

[@cmbaz1140]

@@chpsilva time is not important just a little push so that in ten years or so it will reach the moon... I know it would require effort since the distance is alot...

[@dillonbledsoe7680]

Wouldn't it be freaking sick if they put livestream cameras up everywhere inside of the station?

[@rolanddeschain965]

With starlink we'll be able to see the whole thing. If you haven't seen the re entry video from starship test flight 3 it's amazing video, and don't miss test flight four.

[@ronjon7942]

YES! Cameras on the inside watching it burn up from the outside in! Wonder if it could work. Would there be too much plasma for the cameras’ signal to get through?

[@Khemani_RL]

I think Boeing would be a better candidate for this mission. Boeing knows a thing or two about destructing things 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

they excel at unscheduled destructions, but I am afraid Nasa favors the scheduled kind

[@SebastianWellsTL]

😂😂😂

[@gamerfan8445]

To be fair SpaceX is also pretty good at destroying stuff.

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

That's going to be one epic fireball!💥💥

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Indeed!

[@NS-tn3th]

Be nice to have a Starship dock with the ISS and offload as much as possible

[@mustang607]

So what would it take to send the international space station to orbit the moon?

[@snapper69996666]

Good question and idea

[@sakshamShukla_]

@@snapper69996666 not a good idea. 450tonnes trans lunar injection capability ( which even the future starship v3 wont have) and all that work just to send an outdated station to the moon.

[@filip3148]

Actually quite doable. ISS weighs 420t and needs 4100m/s to get into Lunar orbit, if we used a starship with its efficient raptor engines achieving 380s of specific impulse, that would mean 8420t of fuel or 7 starship refills. So. Doable.

[@NonBinary_Star]

super fascinating question. since the majority of the habitat payload is already up in space it does seem like a hell of a way to save 💰💰 comparatively speaking (i mean .. the Artemis program is #@!*). ISS has more than proven itself. even if it is older. politics and bureaucracy make me super weary of ALL of NASA's pipeline of new lunar equipment/tools. but, i'm sure they've thought about moving the ISS moon'ward. id be interested in finding out why that wont work. maybe we can get Fraser Cain to interview someone or address this in one of his Q&A sessions 🤔🤔

[@walterhumanolo5586]

​@@NonBinary_Star hab modules are probably dangerously old by then but the struss, radiators and solar panels could still be usable.

[@Mexzot]

Given the cost of putting that much mass into space, why don’t they shove it to the moon!? If there is a moonbase in the future, it will be useful raw materials and perhaps some value in whatever survives.

[@badsamaritan8223]

Makes me wonder if SpaceX could disassemble it, and bring down most of it intact with Starship. Imagine the ACTUAL ISS being at the National Air and Space Museum, and you could tour it?

[@Янус_Ырт]

It is ISS, not ASS. Also russian "Science" modul will not be deorbited with the rest of station.

[@dirtylabrat958]

Why not boost the ISS away from earth for future historians to recover for education and nostalgia?

[@Sven-jx6uv]

This is explained in the video. If they boost it to a graveyard orbit it can still be hit and fall apart and be unpredictable. Loss of control makes preservation a bad idea.

[@lanzer22]

Poor decision. They could had just picked Boeing to build a Starliner Max and load it up with the last MCAS software version. :)

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

🤣

[@lukes6868]

And add an extra door

[@intotron6708]

Actually that could do the trick, but it would be non-controllable all the way along.

[@stanislasflipo7214]

Shhhhsh don't give them ideas

[@chiaricharlie6608]

😂

[@MrGunderfly]

in the original specs for starliner, wasn't is intended to be able to maneuver the iss when attached, and ultimately be able to deorbit iss? part of the design of the detachable service module was so that it could carry more maneuvering propellent and house more powerful maneuvering thrusters than otherwise. maybe i am getting that wrong, or just dreamed it.

[@benstone5650]

Keep sending the starliner up and they might not have to worry about it. “Will starliner still be attached” 🤣😂

[@myvideosetc.8271]

Super heavy today can get the same volume in orbit in one launch, is good to know that having something better up won't take so many shuttle missions like the iss.

[@supermaster2012]

Same mass, not same volume. The benefit of the STS was the cargo hold's shape and location in the spacecraft meaning it didn't have to be symmetrical or cylindrical.

[@myvideosetc.8271]

​@@supermaster2012 Without the shuttle cargo hold limitations you can even have more volume with less mass, Starship pressurized volume is bigger than the whole ISS, if going full skylab is an option, we can see even more outrageous things in orbit wthout the need of years playing lego in LEO and abhorent costs.

[@supermaster2012]

@@myvideosetc.8271 starship is a scam, we're talking about super heavy here which you know, exists and can fly.

[@shaeby8123]

​@@supermaster2012I'm sorry, what. It's fine if you think starship will underperform, that's reasonable enough, but denying it's existence puts you less in the sceptic box, and more in the crazy box. Super-heavy is literally only a booster meant to get starship a boost. Starship has flown more missions super-heavy, including the test landings, and the exact same amount if you don't. Tl;DR What?

[@supermaster2012]

@@shaeby8123 starship hasn't flown a single non-test flight to date, and it exploded in most of those test flights. Super Heavy literally has nothing to do with Starship, they literally share no parts in common.

[@queeg6473]

How long will it be before BO sues nasa for not picking them?

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

Sue Origin!😂😂

[@rocketman475]

Elon should boost it to a higher orbit and refurbish it for trainees to derive educational value from it// as a training facility, a permanent profitable space motel and a standby refuge in case emergencies arise on other space platforms or missions. A space rescue unit with vehicles attached and ready for emergency earth return. A fuel / food/ water storage/ holding facility.

[@RedRyan]

I definitely see SpaceX contacting several museums and states and getting them to pay like 5 or 10% more per contributor and they will get access to the space station once they bring the whole thing down in several starships

[@zaxxon4]

Elon needs to get the Tesla robot ready, and build an orbital manufacturing plant for recycling decommissioned satellites into new ones. The cost of getting this stuff up there is already spent, and most of the mass is metal that the electronics are bolted to.

[@supermaster2012]

So I took the CC from the video and run it through a few interesting websites and the results are: Total websites checked: 7 Websites that say it's AI generated: 6 Websites that say it's human generated: 1

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

huh keep investigating

[@dezzodarling]

Why don't they send it in total - or parts thereof - to the Moon (or Mars) - as a base for more science along the same lines of its current mission outline?

[@jkleylein]

I guess that means SpaceX will be deorbiting Starliner at that time, too . . .

[@georgewashington1621]

Why even de-orbit it instead of pulling it to a graveyard orbit? If something goes wrong during de-orbit maneuvers, large chunks could end up falling on populated areas. If something happens during orbit raising maneuvers, nothing bad happens. Also the orbit could be raised very gradually using ion thrusters and power from ISS's own solar panels, thus it will be weight and cost effective. Also while being on a graveyard orbit, it could be visited in future by private missions for entertainment, kind of like when divers visit sunken ships. Crews could enter modules (most likely depressurized at this point) wearing suits and explore them. And, of obviously, at some point it could be disassembled in orbit and returned to earth piece by piece using Starship.

[@robbybobbyhobbies]

5:55 onwards

[@AdstarAPAD]

Why don't they raise the international Space Station up into a Geo-stationary orbit.. Surely in the future they could use the metals in the station as material that can be used to build new space craft or a station in space.. It must have cost millions to lift all that metal up into orbit .. In the future after being scrapped in space the future space agency will have saved a lot of resources in not having to lift up all that metal to build a new space station? Even if it is only visited by space tourists in the future there has to be a monetary value in the historic value of the ISS?

[@OttoKreml]

At first I read thar you used detroit as a verb. Which was so savage.

[@gaius_enceladus]

This is great news! NASA will be using a partner with very reliable rockets and SpaceX gets even more experience, this time with a mission that is somewhat different to the usual ones.

[@csakamatsu]

There are plans to sell part or the whole do ISS ? It will save money for NASA and other companies that wishes to lift a space station.

[@Gkitchens1]

I think it’s stupid that they don’t just spend the money to expand what they have and bring it up to modern needs, but, what a nice in a lifetime thing to get to hopefully see.

[@sandbridgekid4121]

It should be a reorbit ship that pushes humanities greatest to date space achievement into a higher orbit, and keeps it there until there IS a National Air & Space Mueum annex in orbit.

[@sakshamShukla_]

cool. But maintaining space station at high earth orbit would be much harder and expensive. right?

[@TomDrez]

It just going to hit meteoroid and debris will tear it up without any fix possible, you just want something that will be nothing more than a wreck

[@polishkerbal6920]

​@@sakshamShukla_Yep.

[@cccaaa9034]

Deorbiting of ISS is wrong. It should be sent to a much higher orbit and serve as a point of interest for future explorers similar to decommissioned and sunk ships that divers explore.

[@polishkerbal6920]

Van allen belts make it a bad idea to boost it into a higher orbit.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Too expensive. Scott Manley did a good video on debunking that idea.

[@scottwright8354]

Why don't they decouple the various assemblies and bring them in separately? I'm sure there is a cost difference, yet it seems it would be much safer, and easier to control separate modules than the entire station.

[@rolanddeschain965]

They will be, I think they said 4 phases beginning with the solar array the final being the main body.

[@toplesstattoo4301]

Soo what was the other option?

[@DARisse-ji1yw]

Slowly boost to a permanent museum orbit

[@maxhugen]

It will be a sad day when the ISS is decommissioned. I still watch the ISS on the occasions it's visible in Australia during early evening or morning, and have pointed it out to my grandchildren. ☹🇦🇺

[@panda4247]

They should have given the contract to Boeing to install a new door. That would have done it.

[@johnweiland9389]

What about the russian section?

[@James-zj9ky]

Boeing has fucked up on a Galactic scale 😮

[@efoxxok7478]

Since the plan is basically a controlled crash with the earth Boeing should have gotten the contract. They are expert at making things crash.

[@teslabot5650]

If they can dock a falcon 2nd stage that would work

[@redassi]

Will Starliner still be there?

[@-er-un1wt]

Would love to see it pushed out and abandoned if possible , so one day it could be retrieved.

[@allanchurm]

will land in the ocean ..( bet the whales and dolphins are rally happy about that ) why dont they move it to a moon orbit instead ..

[@ronjon7942]

Okay, I’m jumping on the Boeing-bash train. If Boeing keeps launching Starliners but fails to bring them back, maybe they could be cobbled together into a space station of sorts. Regarding deorbiting the ISS, you can’t tell me there aren’t any engineers at SpaceX dreaming up scenarios to bring it back on a Starship or two. Even if it never happens. I mean, I’m thinking about it, and I’m about as original as wood.

[@AuralioCabal-nl8gi]

Space X Starnan has to comeback and help with the de- orbiting of the ISS, pointing to Earth.👨‍🚀 he says " Starman come home"

[@patricklewis7636]

"Uninhibited?" I think you mean "uninhabited."

[@jonahhekmatyar]

Rip, we should boost it to a higher stable orbit.

[@jonahhekmatyar]

(just think how cool it'd be if in a few hundred years we could have museums with these important pieces of history)

[@greenrocket23]

@@jonahhekmatyar Yeah, it makes me kinda sad seeing something so unique being destroyed

[@yummysatay]

I second this. ISS and Hubble would make great exhibits for future International Space Museum in space. Petition to get NASA to change the letter "D" to "R"eorbit

[@catprog]

Or at the very least bring the cupola back for a musuem.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Have it sent to the moon and land it.

[@xitheris1758]

Probably an expendable version of Starship.

[@Arturiens]

as far as government budgets go $3 billion sounds like a bargain, but lets send another $60 billion to Ukraine.

[@TheBigExclusive]

Maybe they should push the station into higher orbit, and use it to travel to Mars? Just attach extra boosters and fill it with supplies for the journey. The station already has facilities for astronauts to live on board.

[@tech5298]

It stinks pretty bad inside.

[@softwarephil1709]

They shouldn’t wait until 2030. Anything that can be learned from the ISS has already been learned over the last 20 years.

[@laz7354]

... uninhibited??? region of the ocean???

[@billm6774]

So are they going to leave Boeing's Starliner in orbit or crash it with the station? Boeing's had engineers on the ground for months trying to fix their greatest craft ever and now they expect 2 astronauts to fix it whilst in orbit. Sounds like Boeings first words after any of their planes have gone down. "Pilot error"

[@xymaryai8283]

no no no! we can't let this happen! we spend so much more on war and exploitation, this is by far more special and precious! operating it is so important, and if they really can't keep doing it, make it a space museum. don't lose this, its too important.

[@jessicasimplicioreis3824]

Alguém assistindo??😊😊😊

[@nolaspeaker5656]

"... where they purposely de-orbit the station burning up in the atmosphere." Is not a grammatically correct sentence.

[@glennchartrand5411]

Starliner was built to do the deorbit burn. That's why it has so many thrusters. Getting stuck , for several weeks, on the ISS because of failing thrusters must have been the final straw for NASA.

[@obsidianjane4413]

No.

[@aaronkoch3273]

quick comment: You are using the word "uninhibited" when I think you mean "uninhabited."

[@stephenmiller2544]

why dont they want to use Boeing I wonder?

[@maddmarkk1]

Wild my brother just had an interview with Jacob’s engineering for the deorbit vehicle now I’m curious

[@Kyle-xt8ip]

What does it mean when our government is picking Space X in the decommissioning of the ISS.

[@banreactionvideos]

RIP ISS, such a humiliating way to go out - to get turned into burning scrap... By SpaceX...

[@ronjon7942]

Not so. It’s the cycle of life for satellites and stations.

[@lordgarion514]

Getting something to crash would seem to be something right up Boeing's alley.

[@DARisse-ji1yw]

Boost slowly to a museum orbit....

[@bluecreeper9305]

Guys, its going to be Ship 26, the immortal.

[@JD-mq8ej]

Be hilarious if SpaceX sent a starship, recovered it, then put it on display at Starbase. All while only utilizing half the budget.

[@torccchaser6712]

It will be a sad sad day

[@viarnay]

This is not good news..R.I.P ISS 🥺😨😥😢😱😖😣

[@stanstan-m9b]

good decision

[@alfredshort3]

The very first 800 million dollar space tug

[@tompantle3884]

They should have given the contract to Boeing...the ISS would stay up there forever.

[@realvanman1]

How about apply thrust in the other direction- raising the station to a graveyard orbit. Then, someday, folks could go and visit it!

[@arthurhufkens2337]

Did we learn nothing from the Titanic Titanic sub: Titan

[@davidk6264]

i think they should keep the old solar truss system for a new station. perhaps attach to a starship module.

[@larrythompson8630]

Is the cost, risk to have to match volicity, altitude and work worth it?

[@larrythompson8630]

Ok I saw they are building on. So the idea is much better.

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

The solar panels are already heavily degraded... to the point they had deployed the iROSA panels atop the old ones. So it makes very little sense. Especially since modern panels will last longer and have better energy density.

[@larrythompson8630]

@@DrKartoffelsalat I at least caught they said the TRUSS system. The mounting points, hinges, maybe motors to deploy, close. *not sure exactly what*. Of course new pannels. But every pound costs $$$. If it’s in good shape. The framework might be salvagable. A very good idea.

[@johngdoty]

It would be nice to have a new station in orbit before NASA destroys the only one they have. But no.

[@AuralioCabal-nl8gi]

FIRST Space X has to DE- ORBIT the ULA/ Boeing Starliner!, maybe rescue the stuck Astronauts..🤣

[@oneandy2]

If they want to de-orbit the ISS, just leave the Starliner attached to it.

[@donnabell8015]

Congrats Elon, I know you got this.

[@bigginsd1]

If anyone has seen the documentary “Orphans of Apollo” it was about a company called MirCorp that attempted to buy the Mir Space Station from the Russians before it was deorbited. They even paid a former cosmonaut to fly on a Soyuz to inspect Mir after it was decommissioned (probably the most expensive house inspection in history). It would be funny if SpaceX boosted the orbit and sold it privately.

[@echomande4395]

So SpaceX gets to design and build a space tug for NASA. If they get to keep the IP they can then modify the design for their own use or rent ships out for use by others. Hubble servicing and reboost anyone? A much modified Dragon sounds right. As a start in any case.

[@40MileDesertRat]

NASA needs to select SpaceX to de orbit Butch and Sunny.

[@danzstuff]

RIP

[@rador3573]

They'll probably just use a Starship lmao

[@Irobert1115HD]

not shure if spaceX will still be a thing when the ISS is at the end of its live given the current things with elon and the current state of development of the ship.

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

@@Irobert1115HDWhat kinda stupid ass comment is this?

[@louiscypher4186]

​@@Irobert1115HD The current state of SpaceX is that it's making $6.8 billion in profit. It just signed new DoD contracts this year. Musk's ownership has been drastically reduced to the point where he only owns 53%. Even if he died tomorrow SpaceX would still be around in the 2030's.

[@Irobert1115HD]

@@louiscypher4186 on the other hand: the DoD isnt super happy with musk because hes a security risk and the starship isnt remotely ready.

[@LeftOverMacNCheese]

​@@Irobert1115HD coping real hard lmao

[@jimblack6733]

I see yet another Bezos lawsuit!

[@riparianlife97701]

I'd rather see them disassemble and return the modules on Starship, which will be very operational by then.

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

I hope they get the astronauts off first.

[@rustymason3860]

This decision indicates how rotten Boeing has become.

[@joshgrimm8443]

Hey flat earthers... Show me one picture of the earth being flat. I've never even seen a fake one. It can't be that hard right?

[@camoogoo]

Just get CNSA to sort it out. No problems :D

[@obsidianjane4413]

Elon will probably send it to Mars.

[@WilliamBourne-r8i]

Does NASA plan to have the ISS splash down at Point Nemo, in the Southern Pacific Ocean? The orbit of the ISS is shown in their ISS website. You just enter your location and it will calculate the time and orbit inclination for the days of the month in which it will be visible as it passes over. It goes over on schedule and looks like a bright moving light.

[@thilde007]

I think they were just hoping it doesn’t land in a populated area..wait nm that was china’s strategy

[@reubenmorris487]

Throw-away society we are...

[@Blackfox_o7]

o7

[@harbifm766766]

Great, finaly they will deobit this no longer usufuel venture..and also, a company that will add to future space exploration will benefit

[@jroar123]

So can anyone tell me one thing that we learned from the ISS?

[@flagsontheat5269]

That countries that are not ‘friendly’ on Earth, can still work together in Space.

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

Advances in material sciences, medicine (new ways to make drugs, research into bone- and muscle-loss that has practical applications on earth), long-term spaceflight, new water filtration and recycling technology... the list goes on.

[@jroar123]

@@DrKartoffelsalat The list is a mile long and it's going to take thousands and thousands of man-hours of engineering and development to first think of, construct, and re-construct everything.

[@Yosser70]

I like how they’ve just asked SpaceX to do it and not put it out for tender. They know there’s only one company that’s up to the job, so why waste time.

[@Sonnell]

Would it not be an interesting option to not deorbit it but raise its orbit to geostationary? It could still host some interesting experiments, and would be there for future historians.

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

Do you have any inclination how much propellant and delta V is needed to push the friggin' ISS to GEO?

[@Sonnell]

@@DrKartoffelsalat nope, but in a few years Starship will be available, with a lot of propellant and power.

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

@@Sonnell Back of the napkin math tell me that'll need at least 3-4 fully fueled Starships. Each needs 10 refuelling flights, that is 30-40 launches... and even if it were just one fully fuelled Starship with 10 refuelling flights... now where is the point in doing that, if Starship itself has a larger internal pressurized volume then the ISS? This is just stupid to preserve an outdated piece of equipment that would need billions in maintanence... especially if it's in an even harder to reach orbit... it'll likely triple if not quadruple the yearly running costs of the ISS...

[@Sonnell]

@@DrKartoffelsalat I did not say they shall maintain it. I said, it could be cheaper and safer to put it to a higher stable orbit. And utilise it to run some experiments without any people on board when cheap enough. With starship, the costs of putting it to a higher orbit might be less than the current plan.

[@khankrum1]

Why not park it in orbit around the Moon and use it for spare parts?

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

1. spare parts? The station is ancient by todays standards, who needs spare parts designed in the 80s and 90s on future space stations? Especially ones that are already approaching or past their service life... 2. Physics and Cost. You want to push 400+t of space station for LEO to Lunar Orbit? Good luck getting all the fuel and an appropriate spacecraft up there.

[@ralphschutz5475]

some glaring mispronounced words by the AI voice!

[@jroar123]

Why? Why destroy something we (taxpayers) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get it up there to begin with? Why not use it as a storage facility for fuel, O2, food, H2O and hardware? Or, is there something that they are not telling us about ISS? I hope that the reason why is because we are working with the Russians?

[@CommyPlayz]

it was a collaboration with russia anyways and it has been 30 years for the ISS. Its time they de orbit it. Its a normal occurance. The ISS is slowing down so its time to stop wasting fuel on it and time to end the mission.

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

Because it's literally useless as any of the things you mentioned. It's getting old, needs more and more maintenance and would need regular boosting of orbit, something done by the russians Progress-spacecraft in the past, but they will exit the ISS by 2028.

[@yoyohighness]

Please, do not blame China for this !!!

[@tangopapajuliet9469]

Why don’t they just send the junk out into Outer space? Why back to earth? What about the homeless aliens? Put the iss to good use helping others❤️👽

[@DrKartoffelsalat]

Physics.