The ISS will be "sunk" in 2020

[Archean]

The International Space Station will plunge into the ocean after 22 years in service. The reason behind plummeting the station into the ocean is to avoid leaving behind space debris. "After it completes its existence, we will be forced to sink the ISS. It cannot be left in orbit, it's too complex, too heavy an object, it can leave behind lots of rubbish," explained Vitaly Davydov, head of Roskosmos space agency.

 

[learninmypc]

The International Space Station will plunge into the ocean after 22 years in service. The reason behind plummeting the station into the ocean is to avoid leaving behind space debris. "After it completes its existence, we will be forced to sink the ISS. It cannot be left in orbit, it's too complex, too heavy an object, it can leave behind lots of rubbish," explained Vitaly Davydov, head of Roskosmos space agency.

Very why did we spend BILLIONS to build it only to destroy it??
I thought it was going to be used as a "stop over" on the way to the outer reaches of space? So

 

[SNGX1275]

I think it needs to stay too, it can't take very much energy (compared to a launch) to keep it in orbit. As long as it isn't getting broken up by meteors there is only 1 piece, so I'm confused at Davydov's comment.

I imagine it will stay up there longer.

 

[Leeky]

I totally agree. Surely given the cost its easier to maintain it and have it as a viable platform for future space exploration by all countries?

 

[Archean]

Exactly, they have regularly serviced Hubble and kept it in space for almost 20 years I think? So why can't they do the same for ISS.

 

[captaincranky]

Well first, they've been working on the damned thing for about 10 years haven't they? So 10 and 10 years from now does add up to 20. (Correct me if I'm wrong here).

Pollute space with it, or pollute one of our oceans with it. Hard choices boys and girls, hard choices.....

Very why did we spend BILLIONS to build it only to destroy it??
I thought it was going to be used as a "stop over" on the way to the outer reaches of space? So

Very true, but that was way back when we deluded ourselves into thinking we could afford to go into deeper space. ATM, the lowly FAA's shut down, for Christ's sake. Not to mention the pink slips being received by NASA workers. Not to worry though, uncle Barack will print us some more money, and we'll be ridin' that sparkling tiger tail to the stars.


Well, as long as he doesn't give it all to the bankers, like he did last time....

 

[Archean]

Can't we simply attach few rockets and send it towards some nearby planet e.g. venus, it would hardly make any difference to that planet's environment IMO.

Or we can wait for few more years and land it on Apophis whenever it happen to come visit us.

 

[captaincranky]

Can't we simply attach few rockets and send it towards some nearby planet e.g. venus, it would hardly make any difference to that planet's environment IMO.

Or we can wait for few more years and slam it into Apophis whenever it happen to come visit us.

It's a shame that hydrazine is so expensive. You may have inadvertently solved our land fill problems as well.

Oh sure, then when Apophis hits earth, we'll get the POS back, without being able to choose the point of impact.

 

[Archean]

Okay I must admit I changed 'slam' with 'land' precisely because of this reason, probably when you were replying. :evil:

 

[captaincranky]

Okay I must admit I changed 'slam' with 'land' precisely because of this reason, probably when you were replying. :evil:

Dude, it's not like it has landing gear or anything. ...

 

[Archean]

Yes, but we can crash land it ?

 

[captaincranky]

Yes, but we can crash land it ?

I suppose that would depend if it's populated at the time. The aviator's axiom is this, "any landing you can walk away from is a good one".

Other than that, you can always, "crash land" something, it doesn't necessarily even have to be able to fly in the first place. This does, of course, make the rather broad assumption that you don't miss the planet with it altogether....

Anyway, I think they should blast it further into space if they're going to get rid of it. Who knows, maybe it will come back a century or two from now all souped up, like Voyager did in the first Star Trek movie, and try to blow us all to hell. Or maybe, it won't find any intelligent life here yet, and keep on going.

 

[Archean]

Voyagers' are not coming back any time soon though, so there won't be any chance of them blowing us up

I think you are onto something here sending ISS to some nearest star with planets sound great ...... but the problem is no one in these economic conditions will be able to foot the fuel bill.

 

[learninmypc]

Beam me up Scotty, no sign of intelligent life down here:grinthumb

 

[Benny26]

It would be a major blow to the whole "humanity and space" thing if they did. I would guess that any space shuttle fans wouldn't be very happy either, with the amount of work the shuttle did toward it.

You never know, in ten years time things might be different (and the financial side of things different as well)

 

[learninmypc]

You can use this link http://www.livestation.com/ to learn about it.