Elon Musk recommends 2027 ISS de-orbit

[Silmfeanor]

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.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1892627928921329862

The decision is up to the President, but my recommendation is as soon as possible.

I recommend 2 years from now.

[zubenelgenubi: Splinter thread OP and moved to Space Policy.]

[HVM]

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.

[Tomness]

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.

No,  they have a business case with Axiom and Vast. Both are almost ready to go.  Though Axiom pivoted for ISS when their First module could have been a free flier after ISS. If they do decide to deorbit ISS in 2 years.  I wouldn't send it to ISS. But send it to their own destination wth a better oribit. ISS's orbit for Roscosmos.

[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.

It also kills Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon. I do not think that is Musk's primary motivation, but it is a big benefit to SpaceX because it lets them terminate Dragon and Falcon early. Those are distractions from Starship. Dragon is basically the only Falcon payload that cannot be moved to Starship, so the last CCP Dragon mission defines the EOL for Falcon. This assumes that SpaceX believes they are certain to have Starship fully operational at high cadence by 2027.

[catdlr]

[deleted]

Space Pete, Member of the Forum and the other moderators:

You are not alone in feeling a mix of motivations, theories, and discontent related to the current administration. Many of us share similar frustrations. It is natural to react emotionally to posts and communications that seem to align with our concerns, especially when faced with uncertainty and recent developments affecting NASA and potentially extending to the private sector.

However, we must remember that emotional reactions often intensify our anxiety rather than alleviate it. In these challenging times, it is crucial to remain focused and patient, allowing the justice system to proceed as necessary. Let's keep our primary interests in mind and hope that these circumstances do not adversely affect them.

Please remember to engage respectfully and thoughtfully in discussions. Together, we can navigate these times with a level-headed approach.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Tony

[Skyrocket]

[deleted]

Frankly, based on the actions and rhetoric of the last few weeks, I fear, that the current administration does nor care in anyway for the damage caused by unilateral moves.

[spacenut]

ISS is already past it's prime.  It was to be de-orbited by now already.  It is also now a maintenance problem.  Money saved could go to the private space stations where Dragon and F9 will still be needed as well as the other providers of service.  NASA as well as private researchers could use the private space stations, such as Orbital Reef by Blue Origin and VAST.  NASA may coordinate them working together. 

[yg1968]

[deleted]

Russia has only agreed to extension of the ISS until 2028 (for now). Furthermore, the IGA for the ISS (and Gateway) provides for a 1 year notice to withdraw from the IGA. See article 28:

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12927-Multilateral-Space-Space-Station-1.29.1998.pdf

[yg1968]

This commentary represents yet another instance of misguided assertions from Mr. Musk.

The potential crash of the International Space Station (ISS) would severely disrupt the market for vehicles such as Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus, and Dream Chaser, leading to significant repercussions for the commercial space sector.

Furthermore, if Mr. Musk is under the impression that the ISS has outlived its usefulness, I would be interested to learn the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) for the Starship, specifically rated for Mars missions.

It is also important to note that operational commercial space stations are still several years from realization.

Space Pete's account has been deleted. Wow. He is a long time contributor to very good ISS articles. That is unfortunate.

He is still on Blue Sky:
https://bsky.app/profile/spacepete.bsky.social

[spacenut]

This commentary represents yet another instance of misguided assertions from Mr. Musk.

The potential crash of the International Space Station (ISS) would severely disrupt the market for vehicles such as Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus, and Dream Chaser, leading to significant repercussions for the commercial space sector.

Furthermore, if Mr. Musk is under the impression that the ISS has outlived its usefulness, I would be interested to learn the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) for the Starship, specifically rated for Mars missions.

It is also important to note that operational commercial space stations are still several years from realization.

Not really, it depends on when Vast and Orbital Reef are ready to be launched.  VAST can be orbited now with either F9/FH, and Orbital Reef with New Glenn which has already had one successful launch, (not landing however).  We still have all of 2025, and 2026 to go, almost two years.  Then if it is late 2027, that is almost another year.  As said, Russia wants out by 2028 anyway, and the ISS cannot work without their modules.  This is a realistic time frame.  The costs save servicing the ISS can be rolled over to servicing VAST and/or Orbital Reef.  Nothing really has changed, just quicker operational private stations. 

NASA is no longer the only one who can do things in space.  I just wish Bezos would hurry along fully operational New Glenn.  This rocket for it's thrust has a huge payload volume. 

[robertross]

IMHO, Mars might be a fantastic 'goal', but the transit time makes it impractical and unaffordable for the long time. In the short term it will likely be the same as the years of the USA going to the moon: 'been there, done that'. Elon Musk might want to get there, but like all other programs: they come to the taxpayer to seek continual funding to keep the dream alive. If international partners aren't willing to divert funding to the endeavor (to be a part of it), how long do we think this will continue? Let's not kid ourselves: going to Mars is ridiculously expensive.

Therefore, ditching the ISS now, which is nearby, still has usable life, and is producing science, has a place until the Gateway (and/or other LEO stations) is up and running.

We all understand that Russia wants out of ISS, but at the moment it still has a low-cot solution to get into LEO (and no other space platform up there).

And if you want further proof that LEO has merit: the Chinese thinks it has potential**.

** Of course they are trying to match or exceed what the ISS partners have already accomplished, but that's not to say there aren't still other things to learn.

[yg1968]

Just to be clear, the Russians haven't ruled out extending the ISS (from 2028) to 2030.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55503.msg2649595#msg2649595

[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? Once Starship is fully operational, SpaceX can decomission Falcon 9 if they can decomission Dragon. If SpaceX wishes to maintain crewed access to space, they can choose to wait until they have crewed Starship operational.

This would mean that other CLDs cannot depend on Dragon either, and would be forced to use Starship or some other system that is not currently available, or on the Chinese system.

[yg1968]

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

[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.

[spacenut]

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

If you read all the threads about Mars, etc.  Musk said with refueling, Mars transmit times would only be 3-4 months every synod that Mars is closest to Earth, which is about every 18 months.  3-4 months is not that long.  People have stayed at ISS for 6 months to a year or more.  6 months is about the limit. 

Refueling can be done with Starships possitioned as fuel depots, which are filled prior to going to Mars.  A Starship will then launch, dock with fuel depot, then fly on to Mars, land, stay 18 months, refuel on Mars with prior Starships which came in a prior synod and made fuel, then fly back to Earth.  This is not impossible once Starship is fully operational. 

Oh, also, Ms Shotwell said Mars can be done by 2030 or a little later.  It is not that far away.  The whole purpose of Starship is Mars.  The moon and launching Starlinks are just benefits of having a large reusable ship.

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. 

[eeergo]

If you read all the threads about Mars, etc.  Musk said with refueling, Mars transmit times would only be 3-4 months every synod that Mars is closest to Earth, which is about every 18 months.  3-4 months is not that long.  People have stayed at ISS for 6 months to a year or more.  6 months is about the limit. 

Refueling can be done with Starships possitioned as fuel depots, which are filled prior to going to Mars.  A Starship will then launch, dock with fuel depot, then fly on to Mars, land, stay 18 months, refuel on Mars with prior Starships which came in a prior synod and made fuel, then fly back to Earth.  This is not impossible once Starship is fully operational. 

Wrong on many accounts:

- 'Refueling' is a very broad concept that may or may not be doable, both technically, logistically or economically.

- The mission concept you mention, explicitly vague on the (sheer) number of launches, resources and reliability/maturity it would imply, is as feasible as developing a nuclear-propelled tug or a great shielding technology that changes most variables on the whole Mars equation.

- ISS' radiation environment, being inside Earth's magnetosphere, is wildly different from that in deep space, and infinitely more subceptible to solar activity events, implying a high-risk 6-year period around solar maximum.

- 6 months is not "the" limit for ISS, just a convenient rotation period for many reasons, one factor of which is manageable astronaut risks. The threshold might or might not be different for other missions.

[yg1968]

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.

[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.

[yg1968]

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).