I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The article discusses de-orbiting the ISS, which requires pushing a 500t object to a transfer orbit with 150km lower perigee than what it is right now. The space shuttle had nowhere near the delta-v to do that. Yes it was used few times to reboost ISS orbit, but only a tiny bit.

Yes, Shuttle was used to construct some parts of the ISS, but in 36 flights in total. Are you suggesting an idea to de-assemble ISS and take it back to the ground piece by piece? It's a completely crazy idea and even if the Shuttle was still operational it would never be considered.

[removed]

NASA needs to build on their own previous research on electromagnetic EDL - "Magnetoshell Aero Capture":

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_Phase_I_magnetoshell/

Click through to the PDF for detailed info on their modelling, EG aerocapture of a 60t spaceship at Mars replaced a 20t heatshield with a 1t magnetic system. Also 20km/s aerocapture at Neptune.

"This means that for any given breaking drag forces on the Magnetoshell will be three orders of magnitude larger than the aerodynamic forces on the spacecraft. With the ability to rapidly and precisely modify the drag in varying atmospheric conditions, much larger braking forces can now be contemplated at low risk, enabling very aggressive aerocapture maneuvers."

The thing that makes this suitable is that when you turn the system on it basically kicks in the atmospheric reentry much higher than normal. You then adjust the magnetic field strength to accurately target the deceleration that you have pre-planned.

Some concepts that I've seen literally put the system on a tether behind the spacecraft, and it acts like the parachute behind a drag racer or a plane landing on a short runway. Nice feature of this is that it's a dynamically stable system - it just brakes in a straight line.

Just what this needs.

I'm honestly disappointed that SpaceX aren't testing this. Not because it's their patriotic duty to do everything interesting in spaceflight, but because they're launching 100 F9US this year alone, and every Starlink mission should be testing this during U/S disposal post mission (after all payloads have deployed).

Exactly like they tested reentry of the first stage long after MECO / stage separation / payload in its way to orbit. Zero risk to mission success.

First target should be to slow down FH core stages so they can survive F9-style reentry and recovery.

Also, those simulations were based on "room temperature" copper coils to reduce the technical complexity of the system during testing phase.

There are now very low mass / high performance thin film superconducting tapes which would be perfect for this job, I think. There will be LOX residuals to provide the cryocooling.

I'd love to see a world where every Starship uses this to reduce the performance requirements on the heatshield. Starship docks behind ISS, switches on the MAC, targets the reentry, then un-docks, reboosts itself, and lands safely.

(Before you say "why Starship"? ISS is about 4x the dry mass of Starship. If MAC is in regular use in Starship EDL, then it will work on a combined Starship / ISS system by just running the MAC for 5x longer than normal.

If any other provider is going to be in a position where they have 100t+ spaceships in regular use, ground control teams with years of experience with ISS rendezvous, MAC built into the system [I can dream], etc, etc, then perfect. But I'm not seeing it.)

Do you know how the ISS was constructed?

Yes, but for very small reboosts, nowhere near what would be required here.

> recycle the parts/materials

That's completely pointless. It's not a solid block of aluminium or something else which can easily be recycled. Consider that ever on Earth we don't "recycle" things like cars, because it's just not practical - it would be more expensive than making a new thing from scratch.

Actually, it was used in exactly that capacity in multiple missions.

1. There are safety risks because modules are old and degraded
2. Costs are pretty high, it takes a couple of billions to keep it flying each year. Why would private sector do it? Cost is high and return prospects not great.

[removed]

Shuttle would be rather useless for such purpose, it had very little delta-v and could not do such thing.

A "weta workshop" is even better

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C4%93t%C4%81_Workshop

I've been saying we need these capabilities for years. Shuttle was excellent LEO utility vehicle. We have no equivalent at the moment.

Not even remotely, overwhelming majority of regular people have no idea.

Agreed.

You could build an ion engine to do this with a tiny amount of propellant, but that would take years which completely misses the point.

Sort of like taking foot off the gas and letting a car drift to a stop.

Instead, ISS needs something like brakes. Press the pedal and the whole thing slows down. Just like modulating the brake pedal so that you stop at the lights. In this case, you apply just the right amount of brakes at just the right time to splashdown in the Southern Pacific (Point Nemo, as it's known).

At the moment, Ax-3 is still in its very early stages. The private space company will still have to submit four proposed crew members and two back up crew to the agency for review, with the mission commander being a flown NASA astronaut. (Ax-2, for instance, was headed by retired NASA astronaut Peggy Annette Whitson.) Under the parties' agreement, NASA may ask the commander to perform certain tasks or science experiments while onboard. Meanwhile, Axiom Space astronauts will be able to use NASA cargo and other in-orbit resources for daily use.

[removed]

Nah. Bomb made from sugar and liquid oxygen.

Same principle, but at suitable scale.

Don't you just make a bomb out of sugar and liquid oxygen? Problem solved.

A "wet-workshop" idea is not new - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_workshop

what about the boosters? they have an even bigger tank space and without the weight of the Starship on top maybe they can reach orbit by themselves?

I wonder if a pair or more of non-reusable Starship boosters bodies could be welded together to make a new ISS? Once removed the inside plumbing, the room inside the tanks is gigantic. Lots of work to do but a possibility.

What do you think a ground based solution is?

Because an orbital tug is definitely not ground based.

It will be 30 years old at the time of decommissioning, it already has several permanent leaks.

We totally should fund commercial leo though so that replacements are up by 2030, but this budget request asks for no additional funding for that.

And BAO. And CMB anisotropy. And the Bullet Cluster. And DM free galaxies. And early -universe structure formation. DM works on a huge range of scenarios. Even MOND requires DM to function properly...

Yes but everyone knows it's just a label, if they're too ignorant to realise then that's their bad, and tbh, it has literally zero bearing on everyone's day to day existence....for now anyway.