SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23 2022, @04:34AM
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.