NASA plans to retire the International Space Station by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

(CNN)NASA intends to keep operating the International Space Station until the end of 2030, after which the ISS would be crashed into a remote part of the Pacific Ocean known as Point Nemo, according to newly published plans outlining its future.

Launched in 2000, the space lab has orbited 227 nautical miles above Earth with more than 200 astronauts from 19 different countries enjoying stints aboard -- representing a continuous human presence in space.

NASA said that commercially operated space platforms would replace the ISS as a venue for collaboration and scientific research.

"The private sector is technically and financially capable of developing and operating commercial low-Earth orbit destinations, with NASA's assistance. We look forward to sharing our lessons learned and operations experience with the private sector to help them develop safe, reliable, and cost-effective destinations in space," said Phil McAlister, director of commercial space at NASA Headquarters in a statement.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/world/nasa-international-space-station-retire-iss-scn/index.html

[NQAS]

1. Three words

“With NASA’s assistance.”

Question: do all these commercial space ventures pay NASA for its assistance?

Who pays for the 24X7 monitoring of spacecraft end of space junk? Yet one more instance of privatizing profit and socializing cost.

[Zorro]

4. The US taxpayer pays for 24x7 space monitoring

The CSPOC facility at Vandenberg does this, and has for almost two decades.

[jgmiller]

2. I have no problem with private space stations however

I do think it's shortsighted to eliminate a government funded and run space station. Other than Spacex no private company has been able to self fund anything in space successfully. The risk averse attitude driven by the market just won't allow it. In the meantime the Chinese and the Russian (maybe) have no problem funding stuff like this. It just gives us yet another chance to fall behind.

[Sapient Donkey]

7. With the ISS, I think the issue is just how old it's getting

The thing will be over 30 years old when they deorbit it. As for not building a new one, hasn't this been a long debate within NASA? Whether an expensive space station in low earth orbit gives enough return on the investment when compared to spending those funds on things we haven't done. Such as building a space station around the moon, building a moon base, going to Mars, sending out more robotic probes/landers to distant planets, or developing planet busting death rays.

If private companies can build manned or unmanned science labs in low-earth orbit that can do similar science as the ISS does now, but for a fraction of the public funding, then I don't see the problem with that. NASA isn't really going to innovate much by putting another space station in low earth orbit. The innovation from NASA will come from deeper space exploration. The innovation that can happen in low-earth orbit will come from it becoming more accessible and cheaper to perform science up there, and perhaps even someday for the masses to go to space. It seems like is most likely to happen if driven by private industry.

I dunno, though. I'm mostly talking out of my ass. I don't have any expertise in this area, and am just a passive observer. I'm totally open to hearing why my thinking/understanding is flawed.

[jgmiller]

19. I understand that it's past it design life

and I get that it brought down but my angst is about replacing it. I'm all for doing things like a station near the moon but sadly I doubt we as a nation have the will to do that. We can't even seem to get the will to repair bridges here on earth.

[Happy Hoosier]

30. This is mostly about ROI at this point.

There is still research to do in LEO of course, but at this point, the question is whether or not it continues to make sense to spend the bulk of of manned spaced flight funds on the ISS, or shift focus to other endeavors. I think a return to the moon makes sense. And if we really do want to go to Mars, then a way station at the moon makes a lot of sense.

What remains to be done LEO can be done on platforms maintained by private ventures.

[sanatanadharma]

3. NASA will responsibly dispose of the ISS

I suppose we can expect private businesses orbiting space stations to responsibly clean up after themselves like mining, chemical, manufacturing, etc industries have been doing for decades.

Imagine a bankrupt business stranding their employees nearly 300 miles from home.

[slightlv]

5. I really hate to see this.

Maybe I'm just too idealistic, but I wish it would stay in "the People's" hands, not given to the private and commercial sector. Any joint venture will cost us more... just like giving so many of the military jobs to civilian service. But it's something deeper than that to me. Space should belong to all of us. To me, when they crash the ISS, they're taking something away from us. Oh, I dunno... it's still early in the morning for me (LOL) I don't have the words coming to mind yet. It just doesn't feel right to me. Just feels like we're basically giving space away to the space pirates, and we're going to end up paying massively for the right to buy more "stuff" at exorbitant prices. And really, the last thing we need is more "stuff." With the ISS, we world together for the betterment of mankind. Except for two countries, at times.

Even now, China and Russia are going to be building their own space labs. How great would it be if instead of crashing ours, we all worked together to build a huge lab that would work for the betterment of all of us? But how much do you wanna bet everyone is going to be building more and better weaponry before they're going to be growing bigger and better lettuces? (sigh)

How many times over can they destroy the planet earth?

[Auggie]

25. Exactly--we're handing space over to profiteers!

[slightlv]

28. Thank you....

I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling like this.

[Bayard]

6. Junk in space

Junk in the ocean. I don't see much difference.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Aim for the floating plastic garbage island.

[DallasNE]

9. Nephew Is Long Time Electrical Engineer For Space Station

After graduating from college with a degree in electrical engineering my nephew went to Seattle to work for Boeing and after about a year transferred to Huntsville, AL as an electrical engineer working on the space station continually since the mid 1980's Seeing that splash down in the Pacific Ocean will be difficult for him, I am sure.

[turbinetree]

10. To bad we don't have the shuttle to bring back a section to be placed in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy

museum.....

[dbonds]

11. Welcome to Marriott Hilton North Orbit 1.

Free WiFi and meals. No swimming pool.

[Hekate]

12. I'm really sorry it's going to be junked like that

That is all

[truthisfreedom]

13. It seems very wasteful to drop all of that material into the ocean

It could be very useful in the future as raw materials for building things in space. It cost thousands per pound to lift it up there, all 925,000 pounds of it.

[Slammer]

16. +1

You'd think they'd at the very least offer it for sale with the stipulation that the new owners either keep it up or splash it down (perhaps with a bond to be forfeit if they renege on the terms of the deal.

There's plenty of space companies and billionaires who might be interested.

Getting something for it would be better than getting nothing for it.

[HariSeldon]

29. Like a boat floating in water, it won't stay put

There's still atmosphere in low-Earth orbit...not breathable by any means, but causing drag. Either the ISS has to be maintained -- adding energy to its orbit with rockets, which the space shuttle did on several occasions -- or it will deorbit. If no one is going to maintain it, the question becomes if it deorbits at some random point or if the authorities (NASA, ESA, Russia's, etc.) plan for it to come down at a relatively safe and known location.

[notinkansas]

14. "The private sector is technically and financially capable of developing and operating commercial

low-Earth orbit destinations"

The private sector is also prone to being profit driven, declaring bankruptcy, taking technical shortcuts - as with Boeing - and generally evading regulations. Any number of risks with that. What could go wrong?

[Coventina]

15. Calling Boeing the "private sector" anymore is almost laughable.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you are saying.

It's just ironic that the only profitable sector of Boeing's business is the one where they have just one customer: The US military.

[LT Barclay]

27. And they've done such a great job at coming up with a replacement for the shuttle program.

Does call to mind the pundits who say we are an "empire in decline".

[OneCrazyDiamond]

17. Are they dumping anything toxic?

Seems a waist.

[jgmiller]

18. To everyone worried about polluting the ocean

Realize that probably 99% of it will burn up in the atmosphere. Almost nothing will make it to the surface they just do it over the ocean just in case things survive. Also it's not going to pollute the atmosphere because again it will burn up. There are far more naturally occurring toxic substances up there than this will introduce.

[Javaman]

20. "that's no moon!"

corporate orbiting platforms scare me a bit, but I guess it's inevitable.

[ArizonaLib]

21. They should aim for Mar-a-Lago

Maybe it will get rid of the smell.

[SouthernDem4ever]

22. I'll betcha they could sell it to trump

tell him it's a sky penthouse.

[CaptainTruth]

23. IF only he had money!!!

[rickford66]

24. Why not add a booster engine and have into sent to the Sun.

[Dial H For Hero]

32. That would take an enormous amount of propellant and be extremely expensive.

[Kaleva]

26. Article doesn't say if the ISS will be unoccupied when they crash it.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

31. Its OK, China will have theirs operating by next year, with a space telescope module for 2024