One of the factors is thermal blankets, or what is more correctly called multi-layer insulation. Because the American modules were launched within Shuttle bays, they could be launched with the relatively delicate blankets in place. These give a good protection from thermal extremes. The exteriors of the blankets may reach these extremes, or close to them, but the multiple layers slow the transport of the heat into and out of the modules.

As NASA learned with Skylab, when its thermal protection failed during launch, the interior can get rather warm. Thermal management is also necessary for unmanned spacecraft, too.

This has the trappings of a life-threatening crisis simmering under the surface. The only thing that gives me any reassurance is the capability of SpaceX to possibly react to whatever crisis may arise from this.

When this crisis happens – I suspect it is only a matter of time – who will step up to rescue astronauts? (SpaceX seems to be the only one with capability) Who will be held responsible? What contingencies are in place?
Are we covering our eyes thinking that no one can see us?

Jerry Greenwood: I suspect the range at ISS is less because of a number of factors.

Wow!

I had no idea the range was that great.

Thanks

Jerry Greenwood: I don’t know the specifics at ISS, but based on what I know was experienced by the Apollo capsules, the range is likely about 400 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, minus 200-300 Fahrenheit in shadow and plus 200-300 in sunlight.

Others might have more precise information. This is only a rough estimate. Being in Earth orbit rather than traveling to the Moon will impact these numbers.

Do we know what the hull temperature of ISS is on the side that faces the sun and the side that is in shadow. I know the side facing the sun changes during an orbit but I’m curious as to the magnitude of temperature change and if this would contribute to stress fractures like that of aircraft pressurization cycles.

It’s a lot of mass you’d have to push around every time you do station-keeping burns. I think it’s instructive how much the commercial stations have each managed to minimize such structure elements on their designs – not just in terms of size, but materials, too.

I’d like to see private modules take the place of Russian ones. That trusswork could still be useful.

People like to see out. Recall ‘The Right Stuff’ (1983) when, on viewing the prototype Mercury capsule, the astronauts complained about the lack of manual control systems, and windows. “Spam-in-a-can”

I don’t think blended-wing transport aircraft are going to be a hit for the same reason. Even in the middle of a 777, you can still see the outside.

Over a short amount of time could it be disconnected and later replaced?

We have all the designs and measurements a very simple replacement could be built quickly. It doesn’t even have to be an exact replacement.
We presently have a launcher that can carry something heavier than it is. I just don’t see a reason to not replace it with something that can be handed over to a private group for use after the station is junked.

After reading the WIKI it doesn’t look like much if any of the original equipment sent up with it is still operational.
Its got 13 windows. Why so many? Replace them with cameras. Lighter and don’t leak.

“All told, the reboost kit can add about 20 mph, or 9 meters per second, to the space station’s already-dizzying speed, according to Walker.

Spetch said that’s roughly equivalent to the total reboost impulse provided by one-and-a-half Russian Progress cargo vehicles. That’s about one-third to one-fourth of the total orbit maintenance the ISS needs in a year.”

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/spacexs-latest-dragon-mission-will-breathe-more-fire-at-the-space-station/

Impressive. That’s more than I expected.

It’s also worth noting that this Dragon delivered over 1,500 tortillas for the station’s culinary needs. I’ll bet Progress has never delivered any tortillas. (Probably some borscht, though.)

It provides propulsive attitude control, allowing it to desaturate the CMGs. It is the only module (well, it and the Progress vehicles attached to it) that can perform this function.

It provides orbital reboost capability. Until recently it and the Progress vehicles attached to it were the only ones capable of providing this. Now, Starliner, Cygnus, and Dragon can provide this capability, but only in combination with Zvezda/Progress. One of those two must fire simultaneously with Starliner/Cygnus/Dragon to maintain attitude control during the reboost. In addition, those three vehicles don’t have enough capability to perform all of the reboost ISS requires.

It provides life support for the Russian 3-man crew. The life support for the 4-man USOS crew is provided by the American modules. (OK, technically the life support systems don’t care about the nationalities of the crew, but that’s how the numbers stack up.)

According to the Encyclopedia Astronautica website, it is was completed in February of 1985 as the backup to Mir. 41 years old now.

“Stress fractures” anywhere in space, combined with living, breathing humans, just seems crazy.

Talk about adding to everyday stress!