Ultimate fate of ISS (International Space Station)

AI Thread Summary
The International Space Station (ISS) is expected to eventually re-enter Earth's atmosphere and burn up, with discussions highlighting the importance of planning for its deorbiting. Concerns were raised about the potential for debris, referencing the Skylab incident in 1979, and the need for a controlled descent to minimize risks to populated areas. The ISS could theoretically remain in orbit indefinitely with periodic boosts, but there are plans to decommission it around 2016, depending on funding and completion timelines. The design strategy includes folding solar panels and targeting a descent over the Pacific Ocean to reduce the risk of casualties. Overall, the ISS has fulfilled its purpose in supporting aerospace industries post-Cold War, but its end-of-life strategy remains a critical topic of discussion.
sysreset
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Eventually ISS will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up, I assume. I recall that back in 1979 Skylab fell back to Earth and showered debris over a large area. It's never too early to plan ahead... Any thoughts on when ISS will come down and how it will be handled? This question enters my mind every time I see them installing another multi-ton module onto it.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It was part of the launch plan that it could be deorbited succesfully with 99% certainty of less than 1:10,000 chance of a casualty.
So how do you design a space station so that it can be de-orbitted in a chaotic flight path into a turbulent atmosphere at hypersonic velocities with 1:10,000 chance of hitting someone?

Basically they fold the solar panels and point it at the middle of the pacific.
 
Last edited:
The ISS could be kept in orbit indefinitely with an occasional boost. I don't foresee it being abandoned any time soon, but, replacing and jettisoning older parts of the station into the pacific is an option.
 
Assuming funding yes - the current plan is to complete it in 2010 as the shuttle retires and dump it in 2016. Other opinioins are that it will be a rush to complete it in time to dump it!

The Nasa technical report on end of life is available at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9794&page=R1
 
I am surprised that it could be dumped only 6 years after completion, or even less if completion is delayed or funding is cut. And the "spray" of debris could be huge. Skylab was much smaller and it's footprint included the Indian Ocean and Western Australia.
 
sysreset said:
I am surprised that it could be dumped only 6 years after completion, or even less if completion is delayed or funding is cut.
It's served it's purpose already. It ensured that a lot of aerospace companies didn't go bust after the end of the coldwar

Skylab was much smaller and it's footprint included the Indian Ocean and Western Australia.
But this time it was determined that there was only a 1:10,000 chance of a casualty so it's alright.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top