Follow this blog:
RSS

International Space Station to fall into ocean in 2020

By | July 27, 2011, 11:55 AM PDT

Russia and its partners plan to let the International Space Station fall into the ocean when it reaches the end of its lifecycle in 2020, according to a new report.

Agence France-Presse reports that the Russian space agency’s reason is simple: left alone, the ISS poses great risk as an enormous bundle of space junk.

“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,” deputy head of Roskosmos space agency Vitaly Davydov reportedly said.

The ISS, home to scientific experiments since its launch in 1998, orbits 220 miles above Earth’s surface and hosts researchers hailing from Russia, the U.S., Europe, Japan and Canada.

It’s also had its own scary brushes with space junk. Just last month, a piece of debris came so close to the station that the six-member crew prepared to use their rescue craft.

The ISS was originally planned to operate through 2013 but its service was officially extended last year through 2020. Whenever its final plunge arrives, the ISS will follow in the footsteps of its predecessor, Russia’s Mir, which was sunk into the Pacific Ocean in 2001.

Will the ISS’s eventual replacement remain close to home, or operate in deeper space? It’s unclear at this point, especially with the uncertainty following NASA’s final manned shuttle mission this month.

Whatever happens, it’s clear that astronauts don’t want to worry about mankind’s previous experiments in space exploration threatening future missions — or activity here on Earth.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
13
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
But they only just finished it...?
What the heck? What's the replacement?
Posted by gork platter
27th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Not much
Actually, it won't be finished until next year. After it's gone, experiments will have to be done by robots in satellites small enough to fit on an Atlas V. If you want people to do it, they'll have to arrange for a ride on a Soyuz.
Posted by hoodedswan
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Private companies
Private companies are working on sending astronauts and supplies to the ISS
Posted by wildwolf93446
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Make it a space ship
Why not turn it into a space ship and send it to Mars with some colonists?
Posted by brandonkelton
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Recycle
Pack the space station with a very small nuclear generator, observation equipment and an engine that can send it out to explore more of the solar system.
Posted by daliere@...
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Sure, I'll do it next weekend
Send it out? The reason it's going to fall into the ocean in the 1st place is that it's in a low orbit - about 350 km up. Building it will take (it's not even done yet) over 40 shuttle & Proton flights. There's nothing remotely powerful enough to get into a stable orbit, let alone escape velocity. Even if there were, it's not sturdy to enough to withstand much acceleration because it was never designed to be moved in the 1st place.
Posted by hoodedswan
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
ISS Future
With such a financial investment by many nations, it seems a shame to let this floating lab be destroyed. Why not lease it to other nations that have an interest in space. Maybe China or India might find it useful. Or add a testbed propulsion system to keep it permanently in space and test long term engines that will be needed eventually for deep space missions. Seems short-sighted thinking to me.
Posted by dcr100@...
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
money wasted
That would be not only a travesty but a complete waste of good engineering to just let it burn up.Why not move it to a higher orbit and use it for a way station for deep space exploration.
Posted by wildwolf93446
28th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
The design life for the ISS was only about 10 years or so.
10 years is a very long time in space. Don't forget that space is a very hostile environment, and the ISS is a very complex machine. It was never expected to last indefinitely. Exposure to extreme high and low temperatures, radiation, micrometeorites and space debris all take an extreme toll. Being in low orbit (only as high as the Space Shuttle was capable of lifting significant payloads) doesn't help. Like with any complex piece of hardware, at some point, the cost of maintaining and repairing it will become unsustainable, while becoming less reliable and safe anyway. Just like Mir before it, sooner or later it will become too unacceptably safe for human habitation.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
28th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
ISS and Skylab
This is pure idiocy just like allowing Skylab to re-enter the atmosphere and break up over Australia, something NASA didn't count on. Since "useful life" is not clear it amounts to laziness to just abandon ISS. Simple, remotely-controlled booster rockets can keep it's orbit from decaying even though it is not suitable for human habitation or experiments or whatever. It's politics and money that determine a decision like this, not science. Leave it there and in 30-50 years we can fire're up again with most everything ready to go again. Even if radiation and space debris have damaged some components just think of the human energy and resources it took to get the basic structure up there. Anyway, I thought this was a way station to Luna.
Posted by dangnad
28th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Keep it and raise its orbit
Political grandstanding and associated idiocy abounds in far too many ways around the US these days, and having a Roscosmos manager (which now holds a monopoly on human access to/from the ISS) quickly trumpet some eventual flaming destruction of the ISS is another bit of demagogic theater. While the reported comments are accurate in a very narrow, shortsighted and simplistic sense (such a large piece of orbital hardware can't simply be abandoned and ignored without potentially severe consequences to surface dwellers as gravity and upper-atmospheric drag produce the inevitable decay in its present orbital position), the implicit resource waste of such inaction renders the entire Shuttle legacy (and the efforts of many tens of thousands of workers and at least 14 astronauts' lives, not to mention the many billions of taxpayer dollars) moot.

A far better strategy over the next decade would be to retrofit the structure with a distributed system of ion motors (like the one used for the 'Dawn' probe) at key structural points of the ISS which can efficiently maintain the station's orbit, with fuel supplied in bulk through automated/unmanned delivery (in pressure vessels comparable to the Shuttle's main external tank) captured by the station's crew and secured in place to feed the ion drive system. Ultimately, I think the entire structure should be raised into much higher orbit, perhaps even geosynchronous or shifted into one of the leading or trailing Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system. Access through current heavy-lift boosters available in the US (Delta IV-heavy, Atlas 5, Falcon 9), Europe (Ariane 5) and comparable ones produced in Russia and China can provide resupply capability for both personnel (when particular rocket models become human-rated) and materials at those higher orbits.

De-orbiting both Skylab and Mir decades ago may have been unavoidable with the then-available technology, but the principal reasons were political expediency and a complete lack of any coherent vision for human space exploration and development. It's a travesty that one still doesn't exist.
Posted by jhvance
29th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
And what if...
They miscalculate and it falls in a heavily populated area?
If it has reached its "end of life", it is possible that the retro rockets are damaged, or other methods of diversion are unavailable. Maybe it should just be "parked" in a non-deteriorating orbit where it can await the "space scavengers" to arrive!
Posted by FiOS-Dave
Updated - 31st Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
thanks for sharing
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli chat sesli sohbet
Posted by yarinsiz
Updated - 26th Aug 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!