Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Tuesday February 22 2022, @08:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the crash-and-burn dept.

How NASA plans to destroy the International Space Station, and the dangers involved:

NASA has announced plans for the International Space Station (ISS) to be officially decommissioned in 2031. After dozens of launches since 1998 got the station up and into orbit, bringing it down will be a feat of its own—the risks are serious if things go wrong.

NASA's plans for the decommissioning operation will culminate in a fiery plunge into the middle of the Pacific Ocean—a location called Point Nemo, also known as the "spacecraft graveyard," the furthest point from all civilisation.

Finding Point Nemo will be the final stop in a complex and multi-staged mission to transition the operations of the ISS to new commercial space stations, and to bring the remaining structure safely down to Earth.

Originally commissioned for a 15-year lifespan, the ISS is outliving all expectations. It has already been in operation for 21 years, and NASA has given the go-ahead for one more decade, thereby doubling its total planned time in orbit.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 22 2022, @05:54PM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 22 2022, @05:54PM (#1223970) Journal

    Just two pages quickly found with a simple web search:

    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/science_results.html [nasa.gov]

    Advances in the fight against food poisoning, new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells, and better materials for future spacecraft are among the results just published in a NASA report detailing scientific research accomplishments made aboard the International Space Station during its first eight years. The results include more than 100 science experiments, ranging from bone studies to materials research.

    https://www.ibanet.org/scientific-research-iss-france [ibanet.org]

    Many experiments have been conducted throughout the years in the ISS and have helped significantly develop medical knowledge on diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, asthma or even heart problems.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23 2022, @04:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23 2022, @04:34AM (#1224094)

    Does that report state which of those things could only be done in space? You should probably read Bob Park's testimony to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on the ISS [spaceref.com] and see how the science impact of the ISS is way overblown (ok, that's the nice word, but people don't like to say "they lie all the time about it"). The game behind a lot of these claims is that experiments carried out on the Shuttle or ISS do not lead to any significant breakthroughs, but they are either part of larger programs on the ground, or are similar to other experiments on the ground that do come up with advances, then they claim credit for them. The ISS wasn't going to be, was not, and will never be a platform for producing breakthrough science. Almost every scientific society in the world took great umbrage at NASA and its contractors using science as the primary reason for building it. And 21 years later they have been proven correct. I've always shared Park's objections. There are many reasons to argue building one (and probably many more arguing against it), but be honest about it and don't hold science up as the noble champion of the cause.