Elon Musk recommends 2027 ISS de-orbit

[DanClemmensen]

Does SpaceX have any contractual commitment to provide Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon services to anyone other than the CRS and CCP ISS services to NASA?

NASA intends (for now) to continue with the commercial crew and cargo programs for the Commercial LEO Destinations program, at least at the beginning of that program.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2660172#msg2660172

Hmm. That does not appear to be a contractual obligation laid on SpaceX to provide Crew Dragon service. It's a fairly hollow assertion from NASA. I think SpaceX may feel free to offer crewed Starship and announce an EOL for Dragon at the same time as an early decommissioning of ISS.

Yes, you are right there is no contractual obligation as of now but it makes sense to continue it that way. One of the advantages of doing it that way as that it allows NASA to ask for redundancy and also to certify new commercial crew transportation systems on demo missions that may or may not go to the CLD habitats.

NASA can ask for whatever it wants, including an FTL drive. That does not mean it will suddenly be available. NASA has contracted for Dragon through Crew-14, and unless a miracle occurs and Starliner gets certified, Crew-14 will return to Earth in early 2027. SpaceX can in theory decline to bid on flights after Crew-14. NASA's advantage in being coy is an expensive and disruptive disadvantage to SpaceX. If I were SpaceX (I'm not) I would require NASA to purchase all remaining Dragon flights on a firm fixed schedule, but allow NASA to substitute Starship flights as soon as Starship is crew-certified. If NASA wants to keep penciling in Starliner flights that never happen, then NASA needs to find a way to pay for replacement flights when Starliner does not fly.

As of now, the commercial crew requirements haven't been updated to allow Starship to be certified. It is possible that they will be updated under Isaacman but that has yet to happen. I hope that they are updated and that a ship that has flown enough can be certified based on its flight history (similar to what was done when NASA accepted to use Soyuz for its astronauts).

Indeed. Right now, CCP/Dragon benefits a lot from F9 economise of scale. I was fantasizing that SpaceX will need to charge a whole lot for Crew-15 through Crew-20 (or whatever) because Dragon will need to pay for the entire fixed costs of F9 after all other F9 is moved to Starship. That's a lot of money. The offer to allow NASA to replace some or all of those with Starship would incentivize both NASA and SpaceX to certify crewed Starship as soon as it is safe to do so.

But why am I speculating in this thread? Because the existing Dragon contracts end at Crew-14, and Crew-14 is possibly the last CCP flight needed by ISS if it is decommissioned in 2027. This might be perceived as an implied threat in Musk's recommendation.

[RedLineTrain]

IMHO, Mars might be a fantastic 'goal', but the transit time makes it impractical and unaffordable for the long time.

...
I think everything hinges on how soon NASA will get rid of SLS and Orion, then take that money to do Artemis quicker using existing rockets.  Also, SpaceX getting Starship operational and expanding Starlink for their cash cow.  Then Blue getting New Glenn operational. 

Remember Musk gets things done, but sometimes on Elon Time which takes a little longer.  I think he shortens the time to get everyone working for him to work harder to achieve the goal.

I doubt there will be a reprogramming of money toward SpaceX and Blue for HLS from SLS/Orion/Gateway/ISS.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see them take a haircut on their existing HLS contracts.

[yg1968]

Long-time advocate of SLS rocket says it’s time to find an “off-ramp”:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/long-time-advocate-of-sls-rocket-says-its-time-to-find-an-off-ramp/

In terms of NASA's budget, to justify its funding or seek more resources, Pace says the agency needs to innovate more and that traditional programs of record should be used "only as a last resort." He also says the agency could consider options, such as ending the life of the International Space Station before 2030, due to its age and an increasing number of anomalies.

Pace also said he believes that the space agency should target both the Moon and Mars.

[yg1968]

Long-time advocate of SLS rocket says it’s time to find an “off-ramp”:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/long-time-advocate-of-sls-rocket-says-its-time-to-find-an-off-ramp/

In terms of NASA's budget, to justify its funding or seek more resources, Pace says the agency needs to innovate more and that traditional programs of record should be used "only as a last resort." He also says the agency could consider options, such as ending the life of the International Space Station before 2030, due to its age and an increasing number of anomalies.

Pace also said he believes that the space agency should target both the Moon and Mars.

I haven't watched the hearing yet but in his written testimony, Pace is fairly nuanced in respect of the ending of the ISS:

Policy Stability: The current U.S. policy is to retire the International Space Station by 2030 and return humans to the Moon before then should be maintained. The geopolitical context and rationale for human space exploration should be clearly understood.

International Space Station: The station is doing useful scientific work and is being well-utilized, however, its age and increasing number of small anomalies requires continued vigilance to ensure crew safety. It is possible that the ISS may need to end before 2030. This would leave China as the only country with an operational space station. To ensure no gap in U.S. presence in low Earth orbit, NASA is pursuing contracts to spur private development of space platforms on which NASA could be one of several customers. However, NASA has not provided sufficient funds or set clear priorities for these platforms, unlike what it did for the development of commercial crew and cargo capabilities. Efforts to create private LEO platforms should be funded, with efforts to begin transitioning NASA work to them as soon as practicable.

https://republicans-science.house.gov/_cache/files/7/5/753b449d-7b41-455b-a134-222c9337caf7/F18B0162A530D3153DA52B2D398F47A395E90858670BB89A775902087AD10733.dr.-pace---testimony.pdf

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62476.msg2665621#msg2665621

[yg1968]

Kristin Fisher interviewed her mom, astronaut Anna Fisher on the issue of the end of ISS at 10 minutes of this video:



https://twitter.com/KristinFisher/status/1895458543400341660

[Magnus_Redin]

If ISS is deorbited in two years, it would practically kill many programs like; Starliner, Dream Chaser, Cygnus and Antares 330? None of those are *in-fact competition for SpaceX, but would look bad if Elon get his way.

*Look BryceTech Briefing's quarterly reports of Space flight up-mass.

ISS should be retired when there are new stations in orbit ready to continue the various research work and they will likely be cheaper to run. It is good of this happens ASAP on the other hand it would be interesting if Starship matures soon and literally can be used to plunder ISS of reusable equipment and museum pieces before deorbit.

[DanClemmensen]

If ISS is deorbited in two years, it would practically kill many programs like; Starliner, Dream Chaser, Cygnus and Antares 330? None of those are *in-fact competition for SpaceX, but would look bad if Elon get his way.

*Look BryceTech Briefing's quarterly reports of Space flight up-mass.

ISS should be retired when there are new stations in orbit ready to continue the various research work and they will likely be cheaper to run. It is good of this happens ASAP on the other hand it would be interesting if Starship matures soon and literally can be used to plunder ISS of reusable equipment and museum pieces before deorbit.

This will be awkward. Some Starship with an IDSS port will need to be certified to dock to ISS. The only stuff that can be "plundered" must be able to fit through the 0.8 meter diameter passage in the IDSS port.  It is probably more difficult to dock Starship to Harmony Zenith than to Harmony forward and it may not be possible at all. If Harmony forward must be used, all the transfers will likely need to be done prior to docking USDV, which occurs a year before ISS deorbit. I suppose the "plundered" stuff could be moved from ISS into a Dragon, which can then ferry it to a nearby Starship, but this will probably require that the Starship is crewed. A series of Cargo Dragon flights is probably cheaper and easier.

[yg1968]

It’s time to retire the Space Station and focus on Mars

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1940523657069318227

[rklaehn]

Musk making noise about earlier deorbit;

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1892621691060093254

It is time to begin preparations for deorbiting the
@Space_Station
It has served its purpose. There is very little incremental utility.
Let’s go to Mars.

Eric Berger:
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1892624571779481920

Are you suggesting that the ISS be deorbited prior to 2030? As you know, SpaceX currently as a contract to build the US Deorbit Vehicle to safely bring the station down in 2030.

I have to agree with this. The Russian segment has increasingly shown signs of being unsafe, and due to the russian quality control issues, every Soyuz launch or reentry is an accident waiting to happen.

The US should expedite launching a small space station from one of the private vendors and then discontinue the ISS.

I disagree with the exclusive focus on Mars though. Even without Starship, the current US space program has enough capabilities to focus on several goals at one, and especially cislunar space is strategically more important than Mars in the short term.

Elon should stick to his contractual obligations to make lunar Starship work, then let that be used other private entities or government orgs and focus on Mars.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Off-topic posts trimmed.