Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8kddg wrote

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.


rocketsocks t1_jc8kjdz wrote

Glad to see you're onboard with basically what the plan will turn out to be, not sure why you were so resistant to the idea.


ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8l1cf wrote

They want my money for a ground based solution not a station based solution. What they purpose is wasteful


Anderopolis t1_jc9vc07 wrote

What do you think a ground based solution is?

Because an orbital tug is definitely not ground based.


ClioBitcoinBank t1_jcbncm8 wrote

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.