SpaceX to deliver vehicle to deorbit International Space Station

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Contract and Choice of SpaceX

  • NASA selected SpaceX to develop and deliver a U.S. Deorbit Vehicle for the ISS, with a single-award contract up to $843M; launch services will be procured separately.
  • Some view $843M as very high for what sounds like a one-off tug; others note inflation, heavy mission assurance, and that the NASA Administrator had cited ~$1.5B earlier, making $843M look like a “bargain.”
  • Commenters argue that if SpaceX can do it for $843M, other vendors would likely be even more expensive.
  • SpaceX’s schedule slips (e.g., Starship) are acknowledged, but many see them as still more capable and reliable than alternatives like Boeing or Russian providers.

What the Deorbit Vehicle Might Be

  • Ideas range from a modified Cargo Dragon to a Starship-based tug, or a dedicated propulsion module.
  • One calculation notes NASA’s requirement of ~3236 N thrust for a 60-minute burn; Dragon’s 16 Draco thrusters could theoretically provide ~6400 N, but fuel mass and engine duty cycles are concerns.
  • Suggestions of using multiple tugs, staged fuel, or orbital refueling arise, but are flagged as technically unproven at this scale.

Why Not Preserve or Re-orbit the ISS?

  • Many wish it could be dismantled and returned in pieces (e.g., via Starship) for museums, or boosted to a long-term “graveyard” or Lagrange/Lunar orbit.
  • Counterarguments emphasize:
    • Huge delta‑v and fuel needed to move a 450‑tonne station from low orbit to graveyard, lunar, or solar trajectories.
    • Limited ISS power-to-mass ratio for ion propulsion; multi-decade spirals estimated.
    • Structural aging: aluminum pressure shells, thermal cycling, fatigue, contamination (mold/dust) make indefinite use risky.
    • Ongoing drag at current altitude; without reboost it will naturally deorbit in an uncontrolled way.

Extend vs Retire

  • Some argue for keeping and incrementally refactoring the ISS, attaching new modules and eventually cannibalizing old ones.
  • Others note another decade might cost on the order of tens of billions, and NASA wants to redirect funding to lunar programs and rent space on smaller, private stations instead.
  • There is concern that once deorbited, a replacement large, cooperative station may never materialize.

Environmental and Heritage Concerns

  • Reentry is linked in the thread to atmospheric/ozone impacts; sending the ISS into the Sun is raised and then rejected as delta‑v–prohibitive and more polluting due to many extra launches.
  • Some lament the loss of a historic asset and imagine preserving it as a “space landmark”; others say safety and cost override sentiment.