@@mathewferstl7042 Ah ok, then there's probably no source, and since the Deagon XL is as experimental as the deorbit vehicle I doubt it will actually share much.
So the current dragon trunk will be upgraded to a full service module. This is basically an orbital tug. Hopefully, they can find a way to refuel it, to be used in orbit.
@@favesongslist yeah yeah of course they will make a even longer starship and longer super heavy even tho they havent even finnished the v2 and nothing about the v3
Hey SpaceBucket. Thanks for the way you deliver news. I always know to make time to watch because you will not waste my time, engage in sensationalist speculation or ramble. I wish you all the best and may your channel continue to grow!
@@kevikiru most of the time he reads articles word for word. Then adds a little of his own 2 cents thats just another articles take. Still appreciate his work, don't have to read the articles myself.
No doubt? NASA is fuming because Artemis 3 has been repeatably delayed by Starship development delays! Now, mainly because of SpaceX Starship (not forgetting the lunar EVA suit, too!), NASAs launch date for Artemis 3 has been delayed even further from late 2026 to late 2027. This is dangerously close to the scheduled date given by China for their crewed mission to the Moon, 2029/30. And Elon Musks forecasts on dates for acheiving Starship milestone goals are notoriously unreliable. Only those fanatical SpaceX Fanboys give ANY credibility to the word of Elon Musk (their 'only hope'... sad!). That's why NASA have backup, the "Blue Origin" lunar lander from National Team; only three launches of15 tonnes each (one lander, two fuel modules), on New Glenn, direct all the way to GATEWAY, launching 2028/9.
Makes you wonder how much more they can reiterate on starship for the foreseeable future. The dragon needs to be upgraded in general added seats and propellant along with its size. Still eagerly waiting on a v2-v3 starship to build the next gen space station so we can really begin our space fairing journey. We should have broadcasted 0g sports on earth by now😂
Disposing of this much 'useful material' in space seems so wasteful. Those solar panels at minimum could be handed off to something else. Really, the main reason seems to be avoiding unexpected collisions and thus more space junk.
Every inch of the exterior is damaged and worn and radiation scoured and solar wind blown... it's not pristine and easily reused. There's already parts of the solar that don't work, due to damage. Calm down, things have to go to the junk yard eventually
Those solar panels are based on 90's tech and will have been in space for 20-30 years by the time they are deorbited. They are obsolete and long past the end of their life.
@@MaxFagin I guess that u missed the update that NASA did with the IROSA solar arrays. They are good for another 10 years. Expect ISS to be deorbited around 2035.
I wonder how hard it would be to reposition a docking component to allow 2 de-orbiting devices to be attached. If each device had redundancy built in and was designed to perform the task stand alone, then having 2 could provide far more granular control. I know this would be more expensive, but other than that, what am I missing? (I know there is so much I'm missing). Be kind.
A stripped down, lightweight cargo dragon, with a giant 'trunk' converted into propellant tanks with a ring of draco thrusters..... Sensible. :) Just don't drop the ISS on Western Australia this time.
Probably more hazardous to have folks on walks disconnecting all those old parts. Also, when assembled I think there was the Shuttle available to hold the loose module so they'd need a grabber and a pusher to get each separate module de-orbited. *All conjecture on my part, maybe someone has a better or more complete reason? Great question though!
I hope theres a further use for the craft - ie not one off --- like maybe easily modifiable to service the 'gateway' - like the ill fated dragon xl that never happenned.
I wonder what happened to the Russian plan to detach some of their modules to reuse them for a new space station... maybe they realized it wasn't such a good idea? I didn't read anything "official" about that.
I think it was just propaganda BS. The Russians don't have the money to do anything meaningful in space any more, and it's hard to see what reusing ancient, already faulty hardware was going to achieve.
@@RobertoMaurizzi nasa owns some of their modules but was designed and built by the Russians. Russia detaching and taking them forcefully would technically be space piracy
If the trunk can be modified into a service module, then why can't they use that principle to ferry people between Earth and lunar orbit? That would make the SLS + Orion redundant, save tens of billions
@@tomporter8849 E=½mv². deltaV dominates the energy equation. Doubling the mass doubles the energy needed to move an object but doubling the velocity quadruples the energy needed.
@@kazedcat Might be better using the rocket equation. Assumptions: Dragon's mass is 12 tonnes, this is based on the launch mass of a low earth-orbit mission. Draco thrusters exhaust velocity: 2900m/s Delta-V to match Orion: 1200m/s So initial total mass is: 12e^(1200/2900) = 18.2 tonnes; so 6 tonnes of additional propellant 18 tonnes is the tonnage the must be deployed onto a trans-lunar orbit by the launch vehicle. This may be within the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Now let's compares with the Deorbit Vehicle: I've found some sources that suggest ISS deorbit requires delta-V of 47m/s, if this is true then lets run the equation again. Assuming we still use Dracos, but this time its 400 tonnes of station that need shifting: 400e^(47/2900) = 406.5 tonnes. So 6 tonnes of additional propellant, comparable to what it takes for a free flying Dragon to match the delta-V of Orion.
@@kazedcat Might be better using the rocket equation. Assumptions: Dragon's mass is 12 tonnes, this is based on the launch mass of a low earth-orbit mission. Draco thrusters exhaust velocity: 2900m/s Delta-V to match Orion: 1200m/s So initial total mass is: 12e^(1200/2900) = 18.2 tonnes; so 6 tonnes of additional propellant 18 tonnes is the tonnage the must be deployed onto a trans-lunar orbit by the launch vehicle. This may be within the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Now let's compares with the Deorbit Vehicle: I've found some sources that suggest ISS deorbit requires delta-V of 47m/s, if this is true then lets run the equation again. Assuming we still use Dracos, but this time its 400 tonnes of station that need shifting: 400e^(47/2900) = 406.5 tonnes. So 6 tonnes of additional propellant, comparable to what it takes for a free-flying Dragon to match the delta-V of Orion.
Reducing mass is not very helpful. Halving the mass halves the energy needed but halving the velocity reduces the needed energy to a quarter so bleeding velocity using atmospheric drag is more effective.
Do you realize how much taxpayer money goes into this stuff? The government already acts like they have an unlimited budget and you want them to waste hundreds of millions or billions more just to put a telescope in a museum, that’s insаne.
@@ScottBFree Well Starship will fly up to grab something and come back down JUST to prove they can. May as well be part of the ISS rather then some dead satellite.
HEY, ALL READY A TUG BOAT RIGHT, or pusher. Add a lot more to it, expand off of that innicail design, turn it into a perminate robotic, fueler, several deplotable working arms, not from Canada, just kidding. Ion drive as well as huge fuel storage a big 30x30 pressurized work bay, robotic. But after all the investments and with a company like SPACEX, Musk might just produce a space work truck for anything that develops in the future it will be right there in orbit. for future endevors. I say they spend a million on what the have built which is a lot so you might as well develop a really good tug, work truck in orbit for a few dollars more.
@@kazedcatmore importantly, the Raptor engine uses cryogenic propellants that have absolutely no chance of lasting a couple years in orbit. Draco uses hypergolics which last much better.
Because the Earth orbits the sun at a little over 66,626 miles per hour. Anything on Earth or orbiting it is already going that speed. To fall into the sun, you have to break out of Earth's orbit and continue to cancel that. Different frames of reference. It's MUCH harder than simply slowing from the 17,500 miles per hour it takes to stay in low Earth orbit.
Play the original Kirbal Space Program and you can learn about orbital mechanics. It is much more difficult than you think, there is a reason they go to school and are some of the smartest people alive. Stay off drugs, pay attention in school... LEARN EVERYTHING you can so you don't make a silly suggestion like sending the ISS to the sun.
Why not to de orbit the station to the moon surface? It can be recycled later with a few missions. Recycling of the parts of the station will be much easier than to create such materials directly on the moon.
Taking a whole ISS to the Moon would required dozens of boosts from dozens of ships, that thing weights 300 tons, currently we have less than 200 tons of stuff that we left on the Moon
You should try checking the numbers before complaining. For every dollar NASA spends, about $10 in economic activity is created. At the end of the day, NASA isn't just free, but thanks to that $10 per $1 getting taxed, we're literally making money off NASA. Oh, and you should look up "NASA spinoffs". A right decent amount of our modern technology is due to NASA.
The near billion dollars we are wasting de-orbiting the ISS, could be used to raise it's orbit and maintain it there for years. Musk's star may be fading due to recent rash and unexplainable choices that do not reflect a stable mind.
Unassisted deorbit is free but lawsuit would rise to more than a billion dollars if it hit populated area Raising the ISS to a higher orbit is just delaying the inevitable due to its wear and tear and will be a yearly upkeep to any company. Safely deorbit the ISS cost a billion just once.
NASA is spending far less then half a billion on this program. What "rash and unexplainable choices"? The only news worthy thing he has done recently is at last support the best president in living memory.
But ships attached still have lifetimes --- i mean just about anything freezes at 4K or liquids boil if directly in sunlight. Though that maybe battery life i guess fir heating/cooling
![ฮักเทื่อสุดท้าย - บอย ศิริชัย [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1PoPoQ-B-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Just a Dragon with extra tanks and engines strapped on. Very kerbal
Will this technically count as the world's largest space tug design to ever be funded?
Who has made the smallest space tug?
The shuttle did similar tasks for orbital boosts to the Hubble. So no
@@mathewferstl7042 I disagree.
@@sycodeathman can you back that up? or does it go against your emotions?
@@cadmanfox6874 I disprove a claim he made and he just responds with I disagree like it's a matter of opinion and not fact
This vehicle will share features that will be found on the dragon xl as well. The xl will be a cargo version of this craft.
Is there a crew dragon Xl? Or just cargo and deorbit version
@@chrisolix3441 source?
@@mathewferstl7042 Dragon XL is planned to be used to resupply the Moon gateway station.
@@galaxlordcz3933 ...I know. I'm wondering where he got the information that this vehicle is based on dragon XL.
@@mathewferstl7042 Ah ok, then there's probably no source, and since the Deagon XL is as experimental as the deorbit vehicle I doubt it will actually share much.
Anyone else was secretly hoping it'd turn into the 'valeron and city of a thousand planets' station
i hope they put cams on it
46 Engines? Wow! That’s 13 more engines than Super Heavy! Who proposes to name the deorbit vehicle to Dragon Heavy?
these are small hypergolic engines, and these are very reliable and cheap
@@chronablitz it's probably a cluster of draco engines which is the dragons RCS thruster
I kinda like it if they kept the old vehicle name that was never used "cargo xl"
So the current dragon trunk will be upgraded to a full service module. This is basically an orbital tug. Hopefully, they can find a way to refuel it, to be used in orbit.
SpaceX will have Starship V4 well before 2030
SpaceX should ask ULA about in-orbit refuelling of space tugs; their "ACES" space tug does that and it's a lot heavier, too.
@@favesongslist yeah yeah of course they will make a even longer starship and longer super heavy even tho they havent even finnished the v2 and nothing about the v3
@@paranaenselol Musk did release some details of V3.
Hey SpaceBucket. Thanks for the way you deliver news. I always know to make time to watch because you will not waste my time, engage in sensationalist speculation or ramble. I wish you all the best and may your channel continue to grow!
@@kevikiru most of the time he reads articles word for word. Then adds a little of his own 2 cents thats just another articles take. Still appreciate his work, don't have to read the articles myself.
@@mathewferstl7042 Really?! He reads articles?
No doubt SpaceX will have this ready on time and within the budget, unlike some other of NASA contractors.👍👍
Who else would they choose, Boeing
@@declanmccahan Boeing actually used to be a good aircraft manufacturer. Now they think they are a good aerospace company.
@@SebastianWellsTL they've been in the satellite game since the 60's to boot
No doubt? NASA is fuming because Artemis 3 has been repeatably delayed by Starship development delays!
Now, mainly because of SpaceX Starship (not forgetting the lunar EVA suit, too!), NASAs launch date for Artemis 3 has been delayed even further from late 2026 to late 2027.
This is dangerously close to the scheduled date given by China for their crewed mission to the Moon, 2029/30.
And Elon Musks forecasts on dates for acheiving Starship milestone goals are notoriously unreliable. Only those fanatical SpaceX Fanboys give ANY credibility to the word of Elon Musk (their 'only hope'... sad!).
That's why NASA have backup, the "Blue Origin" lunar lander from National Team; only three launches of15 tonnes each (one lander, two fuel modules), on New Glenn, direct all the way to GATEWAY, launching 2028/9.
Because spacex also use their own money and have experience, some of these companysmare quite new and dont have experience
Kerbal type ahhhh design
Makes you wonder how much more they can reiterate on starship for the foreseeable future. The dragon needs to be upgraded in general added seats and propellant along with its size. Still eagerly waiting on a v2-v3 starship to build the next gen space station so we can really begin our space fairing journey. We should have broadcasted 0g sports on earth by now😂
Thanks Man!
Disposing of this much 'useful material' in space seems so wasteful. Those solar panels at minimum could be handed off to something else. Really, the main reason seems to be avoiding unexpected collisions and thus more space junk.
Every inch of the exterior is damaged and worn and radiation scoured and solar wind blown... it's not pristine and easily reused. There's already parts of the solar that don't work, due to damage. Calm down, things have to go to the junk yard eventually
Out with the old and in with the new.
Those solar panels are based on 90's tech and will have been in space for 20-30 years by the time they are deorbited. They are obsolete and long past the end of their life.
It's like an old dashboard in southern California. Ready to break like potato chips.
@@MaxFagin
I guess that u missed the update that NASA did with the IROSA solar arrays. They are good for another 10 years. Expect ISS to be deorbited around 2035.
I wonder how hard it would be to reposition a docking component to allow 2 de-orbiting devices to be attached. If each device had redundancy built in and was designed to perform the task stand alone, then having 2 could provide far more granular control. I know this would be more expensive, but other than that, what am I missing? (I know there is so much I'm missing). Be kind.
A stripped down, lightweight cargo dragon, with a giant 'trunk' converted into propellant tanks with a ring of draco thrusters.....
Sensible. :)
Just don't drop the ISS on Western Australia this time.
Would be interesting to see a test of the new Dragon by firstly completing a lift of the ISS.
If this has a heat shield it would be displayed in the air and space museum it's part of exhibit with the International Space Station
I'm designing the world's midiumest space tug..
Most mid space tug. I think that flows nicer.
@@12pentaboraneWhat did the poor dragon do to you that you call it mid
I'm surprised they didnt seperate it into modules and de-orbit them seperately, anyone know why that rejected -- or just easier to junk in one go.
Probably more hazardous to have folks on walks disconnecting all those old parts. Also, when assembled I think there was the Shuttle available to hold the loose module so they'd need a grabber and a pusher to get each separate module de-orbited. *All conjecture on my part, maybe someone has a better or more complete reason? Great question though!
I hope theres a further use for the craft - ie not one off --- like maybe easily modifiable to service the 'gateway' - like the ill fated dragon xl that never happenned.
Would this vehicle make an ideal space tug to push volume to says Luna orbit?
SAVE ISS! I have the technology to update it!
If the ISS is so useful then why are they replacing it with almost nothing?
I wonder what happened to the Russian plan to detach some of their modules to reuse them for a new space station... maybe they realized it wasn't such a good idea? I didn't read anything "official" about that.
I think it was just propaganda BS. The Russians don't have the money to do anything meaningful in space any more, and it's hard to see what reusing ancient, already faulty hardware was going to achieve.
@@RobertoMaurizzi nasa owns some of their modules but was designed and built by the Russians. Russia detaching and taking them forcefully would technically be space piracy
Too expensive the Russians want out of the station way before the de-orbit.
So asteroid / moon /mars mining is a no go if 100bill of hi grade materials are unsalvageable from low earth orbit .
If the trunk can be modified into a service module, then why can't they use that principle to ferry people between Earth and lunar orbit? That would make the SLS + Orion redundant, save tens of billions
The deltaV of space station de-orbit is tiny compared to the deltaV of Earth-Moon transfer orbit.
@@kazedcat but the mass is a lot lower
@@tomporter8849 E=½mv². deltaV dominates the energy equation. Doubling the mass doubles the energy needed to move an object but doubling the velocity quadruples the energy needed.
@@kazedcat
Might be better using the rocket equation.
Assumptions:
Dragon's mass is 12 tonnes, this is based on the launch mass of a low earth-orbit mission.
Draco thrusters exhaust velocity: 2900m/s
Delta-V to match Orion: 1200m/s
So initial total mass is:
12e^(1200/2900) = 18.2 tonnes; so 6 tonnes of additional propellant
18 tonnes is the tonnage the must be deployed onto a trans-lunar orbit by the launch vehicle. This may be within the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy.
Now let's compares with the Deorbit Vehicle:
I've found some sources that suggest ISS deorbit requires delta-V of 47m/s, if this is true then lets run the equation again.
Assuming we still use Dracos, but this time its 400 tonnes of station that need shifting:
400e^(47/2900) = 406.5 tonnes.
So 6 tonnes of additional propellant, comparable to what it takes for a free flying Dragon to match the delta-V of Orion.
@@kazedcat
Might be better using the rocket equation.
Assumptions:
Dragon's mass is 12 tonnes, this is based on the launch mass of a low earth-orbit mission.
Draco thrusters exhaust velocity: 2900m/s
Delta-V to match Orion: 1200m/s
So initial total mass is:
12e^(1200/2900) = 18.2 tonnes; so 6 tonnes of additional propellant
18 tonnes is the tonnage the must be deployed onto a trans-lunar orbit by the launch vehicle. This may be within the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy.
Now let's compares with the Deorbit Vehicle:
I've found some sources that suggest ISS deorbit requires delta-V of 47m/s, if this is true then lets run the equation again.
Assuming we still use Dracos, but this time its 400 tonnes of station that need shifting:
400e^(47/2900) = 406.5 tonnes.
So 6 tonnes of additional propellant, comparable to what it takes for a free-flying Dragon to match the delta-V of Orion.
Couldn't they start reducing mass of the station by sending back equipment that won't be used
I'm betting they will, why would they leave all those science experiments, EVA suit, bio waste, etc up there.
There really isn't that much equipment that can be removed to meaningfully reduce weight
Reducing mass is not very helpful. Halving the mass halves the energy needed but halving the velocity reduces the needed energy to a quarter so bleeding velocity using atmospheric drag is more effective.
Could this thing be used to boost Hubble into a safe storage orbit when it's retired so that it could be retrieved as a museum piece someday?
Do you realize how much taxpayer money goes into this stuff? The government already acts like they have an unlimited budget and you want them to waste hundreds of millions or billions more just to put a telescope in a museum, that’s insаne.
Easily.
SpaceX should make it look externally exactly like Starliner.
Good content but it is annoying when you repeat yourself towards the end of every one of your videos! Why do you do this?
@@toddstewart4404 think it's just the TLDR portion of his video. Kind of useful
Why? It's a recap, a summing up for the viewer/reader. Cannae ye see it, Laddie?
They should deorbit some of the modules and put them In museums
You people are crazy. Do you realize how much that would cost? This isn’t a game, it’s taxpayer money you’re talking about.
Also that just seems like increased risk for something you can just make a replica of
@@ScottBFree true but it would be incredible if they did it
@@ScottBFree Well Starship will fly up to grab something and come back down JUST to prove they can. May as well be part of the ISS rather then some dead satellite.
@@Thorgon-Cross Great Comment ! Hubble Space Telescope/HST ! ! ! tjl
Closing time. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
I'm just waiting for Elon to send the "de orbit" vehicle, then push it to a higher orbit and claim it as his own billionaire clubhouse.
Except that, as I understand it, SpaceX will 'give' the tug to NASA and it will be NASA who actually controls it.
I’m sure he’ll build a way better clubhouse, the space station is already over used and beat to crap from being in orbit for so long.
You mean his engerneers
Move it to Jupiter . Shoemaker Levy 9 Jupiter loves space junk
dave why are you de-orbiting me dave...
If it’s Boeing you should think twice about going!
They ain’t gonna make it back alive.😮
HEY, ALL READY A TUG BOAT RIGHT, or pusher. Add a lot more to it, expand off of that innicail design, turn it into a perminate robotic, fueler, several deplotable working arms, not from Canada, just kidding. Ion drive as well as huge fuel storage a big 30x30 pressurized work bay, robotic. But after all the investments and with a company like SPACEX, Musk might just produce a space work truck for anything that develops in the future it will be right there in orbit. for future endevors. I say they spend a million on what the have built which is a lot so you might as well develop a really good tug, work truck in orbit for a few dollars more.
All A.I. controlled. But still gonna be cool to watch
Are they going to keep cryogenic oxygen and RP1 in space for 3 years?
Seems they're going to use Raptor engines to do this? They have the thrust to pull that off? If so, how? Interesting times.
They are using Draco. The Raptor engine is too powerful.
@@kazedcatmore importantly, the Raptor engine uses cryogenic propellants that have absolutely no chance of lasting a couple years in orbit. Draco uses hypergolics which last much better.
See this SpaceX, this could be the routine Lunar lander not a Semi Truck.
Why not send the ISS into the Sun?
Harder than it sounds.
Because the Earth orbits the sun at a little over 66,626 miles per hour. Anything on Earth or orbiting it is already going that speed. To fall into the sun, you have to break out of Earth's orbit and continue to cancel that. Different frames of reference. It's MUCH harder than simply slowing from the 17,500 miles per hour it takes to stay in low Earth orbit.
Lol
Play the original Kirbal Space Program and you can learn about orbital mechanics. It is much more difficult than you think, there is a reason they go to school and are some of the smartest people alive. Stay off drugs, pay attention in school... LEARN EVERYTHING you can so you don't make a silly suggestion like sending the ISS to the sun.
Good reporting, better than having to watch an awful nasa horse and pony show..
Why not to de orbit the station to the moon surface? It can be recycled later with a few missions. Recycling of the parts of the station will be much easier than to create such materials directly on the moon.
Taking a whole ISS to the Moon would required dozens of boosts from dozens of ships, that thing weights 300 tons, currently we have less than 200 tons of stuff that we left on the Moon
WE STILL NEED A MOON STATION. WHY NOT BOOST ISS TO L2...TO LIVE OUT ITS LAST DAY BY THE MOON. SO WE DONT NEED TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW ONE....
It is insane how much tax payer money gets wasted on this stuff, and we can’t even opt out. This is criminal.
You should try checking the numbers before complaining.
For every dollar NASA spends, about $10 in economic activity is created.
At the end of the day, NASA isn't just free, but thanks to that $10 per $1 getting taxed, we're literally making money off NASA.
Oh, and you should look up "NASA spinoffs".
A right decent amount of our modern technology is due to NASA.
It's peanuts. The entire Apollo program cost the same as what US women spend every year on cosmetics. The ENTIRE program.
The near billion dollars we are wasting de-orbiting the ISS, could be used to raise it's orbit and maintain it there for years. Musk's star may be fading due to recent rash and unexplainable choices that do not reflect a stable mind.
What's rash about supporting trump? You're brain washed. If he said biden 2024 you wouldn't bat a eye.
Unassisted deorbit is free but lawsuit would rise to more than a billion dollars if it hit populated area
Raising the ISS to a higher orbit is just delaying the inevitable due to its wear and tear and will be a yearly upkeep to any company.
Safely deorbit the ISS cost a billion just once.
Raising iss would not be good for kessler syndrome
@@gIozell1 Not if orbit was raised slowly by hall or ion thrusters.
NASA is spending far less then half a billion on this program. What "rash and unexplainable choices"? The only news worthy thing he has done recently is at last support the best president in living memory.
Can you even store liquid Ox and Methane for 18 months without it all boiling off? Or 3 years??
This vehicle uses a different propellant combo, a type of hydrazine plus nitrogen tetroxide.
@@sycodeathman ohh, ok. Not cryo fuels.
Maybe I missed that, but surely it'll be Keralox or Hypergoloic fuels. No boil off issue there. The Draco thrusters on Dragon are Hypergolic.
@@_starfiend kerolox? Kero (Kerosene) lox (liquid oxygen)... liquid.... oxygen...
But ships attached still have lifetimes --- i mean just about anything freezes at 4K or liquids boil if directly in sunlight. Though that maybe battery life i guess fir heating/cooling