ClioBitcoinBank
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jcbncm8 wrote
Reply to comment by Anderopolis in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
By ground based solution I mean you accomplish 99% of the deorbit construction phase of the mission on the ground instead of sending up parts in the cargo missions and slowly building a deorbiter system or whatever you want to call it. Those same missions could siphon off fuel from the resupply mission upper stages, but a ground based solution might be to send a dedicated vehicle, purpose built for this mission. Imagine your going on a camping trip, you wouldnt assemble the tent and then walk it into the woods, you would take the tent into the woods in pieces, and assemble it there. I like the idea of Nasa sending a simply single mission vehicle to solve this problem, I jsut dont like that it would cost a ton of extra money for what basically boils down to a demolition job, demolition should be the cheapest and least reliably type of mission Nasa has ever conducted, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to cheap out.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8naao wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Reliability in demolition is not the same standard of reliability as in construction. This is literally the lowest standard of reliability you could have. Do not waste MY money on a golden wrecking ball.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8l1cf wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
They want my money for a ground based solution not a station based solution. What they purpose is wasteful
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8kddg wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Use a cargo mission with a modified upper stage, grab it with Canada arm, and attach to station, the crew lander can carry extra fuel going up and refill before evac. Not exactly this but something similar and simpler.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8j0zn wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
If only there was a crew to fit the station with such a system and constantly docking resupply missions to draw fuel from, if only.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc7vjvv wrote
Waste of money, the station can be deorbited without an expensive "tug".
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jccgblp wrote
Reply to comment by Fellowearthling16 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
You can control the landing area and deorbit the station using a modified upper stage, the kind that are constantly flying upto the station, canada arm it to the station and then have station residents finish the system. This should be a quick cheap demolition, not an excuse to design a mission vehicle from the ground up as a "deorbit tug".