BFR servicing the ISS

[Alastor]

So, I've been thinking about Musk mentioning the ITSy eventually replacing the dragon2 for servicing the ISS.
However, we are talking of something very different.
Where Dragon 2 will be bringing men and supplies aboard the ISS and then just wait for the time to leave, with ITSy, we are talking about docking to the ISS something that has a pressurized volume roughly equivalent to the whole ISS.
Obviously, you cannot pack it with supplies and transfer them to the ISS. You'd need to fill it up, which wouldn't be very practical to work in it .

So, how would it work ?

My guess would be bringing up whole experiments, installed in their own cabins and using the ITSy as a temporary living/working module for the astronauts. Basically you would have permanent experiments aboard the ISS and some temporary ones aboard the ITSy. You'd bring crew to service these experiments, and when the spacecraft leaves, the crew staying with the ISS would rotate. In addition to that, you'd obviously bring up supplies and bring back the trash as is usually done with dragons.
Basically, the ITSy would act as a second station that would dock with ISS and have a landing capability.

[QuantumG]

It's only 11 meters longer (43%) than the Shuttle.

[Jim]

So, I've been thinking about Musk mentioning the ITSy eventually replacing the dragon2 for servicing the ISS.
However, we are talking of something very different.
Where Dragon 2 will be bringing men and supplies aboard the ISS and then just wait for the time to leave, with ITSy, we are talking about docking to the ISS something that has a pressurized volume roughly equivalent to the whole ISS.
Obviously, you cannot pack it with supplies and transfer them to the ISS. You'd need to fill it up, which wouldn't be very practical to work in it .

So, how would it work ?

My guess would be bringing up whole experiments, installed in their own cabins and using the ITSy as a temporary living/working module for the astronauts. Basically you would have permanent experiments aboard the ISS and some temporary ones aboard the ITSy. You'd bring crew to service these experiments, and when the spacecraft leaves, the crew staying with the ISS would rotate. In addition to that, you'd obviously bring up supplies and bring back the trash as is usually done with dragons.
Basically, the ITSy would act as a second station that would dock with ISS and have a landing capability.

Not really.  It's not worth it to dock to the ISS.  Just better to do its own solo mission.  Would be to disruptive to the ISS for a long term stay

[ChrisWilson68]

So, I've been thinking about Musk mentioning the ITSy eventually replacing the dragon2 for servicing the ISS.
However, we are talking of something very different.
Where Dragon 2 will be bringing men and supplies aboard the ISS and then just wait for the time to leave, with ITSy, we are talking about docking to the ISS something that has a pressurized volume roughly equivalent to the whole ISS.
Obviously, you cannot pack it with supplies and transfer them to the ISS. You'd need to fill it up, which wouldn't be very practical to work in it ;D.

So, how would it work ?

My guess would be bringing up whole experiments, installed in their own cabins and using the ITSy as a temporary living/working module for the astronauts. Basically you would have permanent experiments aboard the ISS and some temporary ones aboard the ITSy. You'd bring crew to service these experiments, and when the spacecraft leaves, the crew staying with the ISS would rotate. In addition to that, you'd obviously bring up supplies and bring back the trash as is usually done with dragons.
Basically, the ITSy would act as a second station that would dock with ISS and have a landing capability.

They wouldn't fill it up and they wouldn't stay for long.  They'd just be using it to do exactly the missions they're currently contracted to do with Dragon or Dragon 2.  They'd only use a fraction of the capacity of BFR/BFS, and it would still be cheaper than F9/Dragon or F9/Dragon 2.  That's because BFR/BFS would be 100% reusable without refurbishment for many, many flights.

That's the plan anyway.  Maybe they can make it work out that way, maybe not.  But that's what Elon was talking about.  If things go according to his plans, doing a BFR/BFS mission to service ISS will be dirt cheap.

[su27k]

There're some alternatives.

You could just use cargo BFR launch a cargo Dragon 2, only D2 docks with ISS and after it's unloaded, BFS will take it back. Since D2 doesn't need to do re-entry and landing by itself, the refurbishment should be minimal.

Or you could park pressurized version of BFS outside ISS keep out sphere, then use any cargo ship with auto docking capability to ferry cargo between BFS and ISS, this would need a cargo handling robot on BFS though.

[Semmel]

I am not sold on the idea that ITSy replaces Dragon2. The reason is, that ITSy would have to comply to the same CCtCAP standards as D2 and I am not seeing it. First, there is no LAS. Then the Micro meteorite protection of ITSy is going to be a problem when held to the same rules as D2. Luckily the return trip propulsive landing has to be proven to CCtCAP standard anyway if they want to use ITSy in the way they intend to. However, unless I see a paper trail that is at least twice as long as BFR, including exhaust flame, I am not convinced its going to replace D2. If SpaceX shows the papertrail, I might be changing my mind on this one.

For the ISS, its going to be tough. ISS manoeuvres using its own thrusters. Its small manoeuvres but it does them. With ITSy hanging off to one side, I am not sure ISS can cope with that. This is going to be a problem both in fuel usage, structural strength, vibration/oscillation and control software. ITSy is substantially heavier than shuttle.

[Nibb31]

So, how would it work ?

It wouldn't. NASA isn't letting BFR come anywhere close to the ISS without going through lots of paperwork, certification, and reworking to their own requirements. This isn't going to happen before the ISS is retired in 2024.

Also, I doubt that it would be good idea for the ISS structure to the have the weight of BFR hanging off of the APAS and IDS adapters.

Dragon is only scheduled for a total of a dozen flights or so before the end of the ISS and it's supposed to be reusable. There is no need for BFR to ever go the ISS and no evidence that NASA has any use for it.

[Ludus]

It seemed like the presentation was just trying to illustrate the point that the new iteration of BFR/BFS is a general purpose system that can do everything expected of the current generation hardware and a lot of other things. It can launch huge satellites or big batches of ordinary ones. It can build and support a moon base without ISRU straight up with no other infrastructure. It can move people and Cargo point to point. It can even dock with the ISS (or for that matter triple it’s pressurized volume in one load by bringing up a BA 2100). That doesn’t mean it’s especially well suited to standing in for Dragon 2. After all, the ISS isn’t supposed to keep going much past 2024. BFR might look more natural docking at a new station with BA2100 size modules with hundreds of people.

[CuddlyRocket]

My guess would be bringing up whole experiments, installed in their own cabins and using the ITSy as a temporary living/working module for the astronauts.

Or some of them could be tourists.

[John Alan]

Opinion on topic... 
It's more likely a Ms Pacman style cargo BFS would bring up PAIRS of Cygnus like cargo carriers (simple cylinders with attached thruster/EL power backbones) and put them out in orbit nearby...
They could then pull up to the station one at a time and be berthed with the station arm...

Bonus would be an arm or something in the BFS bay that could grab a floating nearby used cargo carrier and secure it back in the BFS bay for a ride down...

I could imagine a two up, two down BFR flight every say 60 days keeping the station stocked cargo wise  and returning tons of science down mass...

The manned systems about to enter service would continue being ISS human crew transport and lifeboats until ISS is deorbited, sold, or parted out someday...

[Hotblack Desiato]

MY guess, they will still do that: not for ISS, but for the capability of servicing the DSG.

There are no contracts available yet, but there will be (as the DSG needs to be built aswell).

For ISS, I could imagine that the DSG-qualification process will also qualify for ISS. And there is always the possibility to use ITSy to send 2 dragon capsules uphill, let them dock for long term stays and return ITsy to Earth. The dragon capsules will be serve as lifeboats, or for extra return capability.


There is even something more interesting possible: ISS has an expected lifetime until 2028, when they have to deorbit everything. How about sending new BA-modules uphill (ITSy has a lot of capacity) and take the old modules back to Earth. with 50t of payload capacity down, ITSy could deorbit the old part of the ISS piece by piece until just the new BA-parts are remaining up there. Then they can put ISS on display in a museum (in my opinion a better solution than burning it up in the atmosphere).

[Todd Martin]

imagine a CRS2 cargo delivery from SpaceX in 2022 using BFR and there are 90 tourists on-board asking for a tour of ISS.     Reminds me of cruise ship calls to small island ports. 

Clearly, SpaceX would want to delivery as much upmass and downmass as possible to maximize the contract value, which begs the question how much could NASA utilize in one go.

[RDMM2081]

I think there is an obvious answer here has missed about this topic, and that is multi mission launches.

Send the big rocket/ship up with whatever ISS needs, and the remainder filled with fuel.  After the ISS mission is done, undock, rendezvous and transfer the fuel to a depot or other waiting tanker or ship.

The BFR system is designed with so much capacity beyond what the current market has a demand for, it is inevitable that they will have to split launches between multiple payloads/customers/missions.  Even "ballasting" launches with plain old water would provide a benefit in the long run if they had a decent way to store it on orbit.

[Lee Jay]

Clearly, SpaceX would want to delivery as much upmass and downmass as possible to maximize the contract value, which begs the question how much could NASA utilize in one go.

Not much more than now unless the spacecraft stayed attached to be used as a "closet", like the PMM.

[Star One]

So, how would it work ?

It wouldn't. NASA isn't letting BFR come anywhere close to the ISS without going through lots of paperwork, certification, and reworking to their own requirements. This isn't going to happen before the ISS is retired in 2024.

Also, I doubt that it would be good idea for the ISS structure to the have the weight of BFR hanging off of the APAS and IDS adapters.

Dragon is only scheduled for a total of a dozen flights or so before the end of the ISS and it's supposed to be reusable. There is no need for BFR to ever go the ISS and no evidence that NASA has any use for it.

I don’t think ISS will be retired then with the recent talk it looks like it will go onto at least 2028.

[Barrie]

Clearly, SpaceX would want to delivery as much upmass and downmass as possible to maximize the contract value, which begs the question how much could NASA utilize in one go.

Not much more than now unless the spacecraft stayed attached to be used as a "closet", like the PMM.

Perhaps there is a use for a  BFMPLM ?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Perhaps there is a use for a  BFMPLM ?

Or just a normal MPLM, Rafaello is still at the SSPF and is already built and certified for station meaning less money effort away from other SpaceX goals.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

The discussion of ISS past 2024, and BFR caused me some thinking

1)  How does BFR fit into the various post- ISS options - Bigelow, Axiom, and so forth?  I'd be very curious.

2)  This is probably the crazy/stupid idea of my post - instead of returning ISS to Earth, could they use BFR to move all or some of the ISS to other locations?

3)  What about BFR being used as part of the Lunar Space Station/Gateway/Etc that has been discussed?

[Nibb31]

The BFR removes any point of having a DSG anyway.
If you have a spacecraft that has the habitable volume of the ISS, can spend 6 months on orbit, and can go anywhere in the solar system for 10% of an SLS launch, then you don't need a DSG or an ISS.

[daveklingler]

The BFR removes any point of having a DSG anyway.
If you have a spacecraft that has the habitable volume of the ISS, can spend 6 months on orbit, and can go anywhere in the solar system for 10% of an SLS launch, then you don't need a DSG or an ISS.

I look at it differently.  If you have a spacecraft that has the habitable volume of the ISS (along with all that payload), you can build LEO infrastructure much more quickly.  O'Neill's plans for space habitats that originally required 70 or 80 Saturns and seemed far in the future suddenly become easily achievable - we could even do it using O'Neill's steel and glass if we so desired.

Likewise, establishing lunar mass drivers to supply the shielding mass for those spinning habs was just as far off last month as it was 30 years ago, but that artist's moon base conception could have included a mass driver and it would have been just as plausible.  Not only that, but performing the plane changes necessary to mine asteroids jumps into the "possible" column.

If BFR does fly, and it's as capable as SpaceX wants it to be, orbital space settlements suddenly go from being pipe dreams to straightforward possibilities. 

I think it's pretty paradigm-changing.  From my point of view, SpaceX builds tools for Mars colonization and we can suddenly build superior colonies in LEO.  Physics and economics are stubborn things...

[Alastor]

The BFR removes any point of having a DSG anyway.
If you have a spacecraft that has the habitable volume of the ISS, can spend 6 months on orbit, and can go anywhere in the solar system for 10% of an SLS launch, then you don't need a DSG or an ISS.

I disagree.
Having a spacecraft that has the habitable volume of the ISS is a great thing, but it does not remove the need for an ISS. The main difference between them is that an ISS stays up for dozens of years, allowing to perform very long running experiments, when the BFR does not provide this capability.

That's why I think we will always need to have an ISS. BFR will however make it much more easy to build and would be in my opinion a great way to service it, since you can bring up and down a lot of supply, crew and temporary experiments.

It might even allow us to operate with a space-based laboratory not very differently than with our Antarctic stations. You could very well have a crew of specialized astronauts tasked with maintaining the station and allowing safe operation, and have a crew of scientists that would be there for a few months to perform the experiments, if the size of crew is not an issue anymore (I may need to start working on an experiment that would be very interesting to perform in pace at some point ! ).

I don't think it would be desirable to bring tourists to such a facility however. Have a separate tourists station ? Sure ! Do we even need a separate station ? I mean, space tourists won't very often want to stay for more than a few weeks. But I don't think it's a very good idea to mix the needs of a science lab and of a touristic destination.

A DSG could be seen as big on orbit fuel depot, and then would be interesting to have to allow asynchronous launching of tankers and crew. If you think about it, if every synod, you suddenly need to launch a lot of crewed spacecraft and then several tankers each, you have a lot of launching to do all at the same time, and the rest of the time, you can't do anything on that side. If on the other hand, you bring up the tankers in advance, it's suddenly much more manageable to only launch your crews close to the Mars transfer window.