NASA Just Picked SpaceX To Deorbit The International Space Station 

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

😂

Lol a good one!

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

❤👍

Lmfao

Crew demo still attached.😂

😂

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

😂😂😂

Don't worry it will free up funds for gateway & Artemis

@@karliszauers1go watch the smarter every day video "I was scared to say this to NASA...". There are unfortunately SERIOUS problems with the entire Artemis architecture because Artemis has never been about getting to the moon, it's about finding a convenient excuse by the politicians to keep the cash flowing to Boeing and Thiokol and Lockheed and all the other shuttle contractors around the country that would have had to shut down or lay off employees when the shuttle program ended if not for constellation and now Artemis. Telling NASA to focus on going back to the moon, only this time it has to include a lunar space station, a polar base, an orbital tank farm in LEO, a 100T 10+ story lander, with double the crew on the surface, relay communications satellites, etc., oh and you have to use old shuttle hardware instead of clean sheet designs even though it means a rocky that all that suitable for its stated goal, in the same time frame as Apollo, but we're not even going to give you a *fraction* of the funding of Apollo... it's obvious they don't actually care whether we actually get back to the moon or not which is massively unfortunate. If Artemis ever does succeed, it's going to be LONG after the ISS is gone.

@@karliszauers1 Yeah.... A useful established space station for a useless redundant one.

@@obsidianjane4413 both useless.

The chinese one is still working

Definentally an underated comment!

And somehow Bezos got the contract to Mars.

Since they can't get to space, they'd have to bring it down with lawfare.

If I can't have the cookies no one else can. Such a childish mentality.

Yeah, Boeing likely would fail to have anything that could make it to ISS by 2030. Only rocket company performing more slowly would be Sue Origin.

The key is destroying it safely :) leave it to boeing to potentially miss the fucking ocean

@@SuperGiggunBrilliant.

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.

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...

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

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

@@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...

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.

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?

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

😂😂😂

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

Deorbiting ISS has been under plans for a decade already. It's long overdue.

And then have museums and collectors bid for it. Sounds like a plan! :)

There were only over budget by one and a half billion dollars, what do you expect?

Noone with a brain

Naw…uninhibited ocean is down with it, unlike that uptight inhabited ocean.

I was thinking 2027

Indeed!

Good question and idea

@@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.

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.

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 🤔🤔

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

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.

​@@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.

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

There's no way to recover the modules, they're as I've compared to any spacecraft capable of reentry and even if there was there isn't any heat shield big enough to generate a comma that covers even the smallest module.

🤣

And add an extra door

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

Shhhhsh don't give them ideas

😂

Sue Origin!😂😂

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Have it sent to the moon and land it.

5:55 onwards

huh keep investigating

Would the museum be connected to the UN headquarters since the ISS is composed of modules from many countries

@@Fusion_4000 I’d say it could be broken down into its component modules and returned to the countries that built them. Basically bringing it down in the same pieces they went up in.

Watch this be the beginnig of the end. Some crazy virus survives and infects the ocean killing all life on earth

What?

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

Not much.

It depends on the required precision. Just deorbiting it is not that hard, just push the perigee further down and have the atmosphere do it's job, it'll be slow and imprecise. But for precision, adjustments will be needed.

@@DrKartoffelsalat Getting it into the top of the atmosphere need not be that precise. Once it has started slowing noticeably a final, accurate nudge will take it into a controlled descent. I say controlled, but this is no re-entry capsule. It has bits sticking out all over and its attitude will not be controllable. Splashdown will be approximate at best, so they will have to aim for the middle of the pacific.

And open mind, as well as the desire to try new positions.

No.

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

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

​@@sakshamShukla_Yep.

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

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