How exactly will the ISS die in 2025?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












According to:




”Moreover, the ISS end of life might come in 2025, and assuming you need a few years to graduate, more to get a degree, work experience, get hired, do the training... The ISS might not exist at that point anymore.” Antzi




I begin to have many thoughts of how ISS will die when we’ll reach that year.



What was in my mind?



  1. I was thinking NASA will take step by step parts from ISS.

  2. I was thinking that NASA will plant a bomb in ISS and evacuate every member of ISS.

  3. I was thinking that ISS will break apart naturally.

Can anyone please tell me how will ISS will end? Because, now I’m started to be curious how will that happen.



I tried to find on Internet, but my search has failed






iss







share|improve this question























  • Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
    – Russell Borogove
    42 mins ago










  • I was asking “how will ISS will die”
    – Alex A
    40 mins ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












According to:




”Moreover, the ISS end of life might come in 2025, and assuming you need a few years to graduate, more to get a degree, work experience, get hired, do the training... The ISS might not exist at that point anymore.” Antzi




I begin to have many thoughts of how ISS will die when we’ll reach that year.



What was in my mind?



  1. I was thinking NASA will take step by step parts from ISS.

  2. I was thinking that NASA will plant a bomb in ISS and evacuate every member of ISS.

  3. I was thinking that ISS will break apart naturally.

Can anyone please tell me how will ISS will end? Because, now I’m started to be curious how will that happen.



I tried to find on Internet, but my search has failed






iss







share|improve this question























  • Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
    – Russell Borogove
    42 mins ago










  • I was asking “how will ISS will die”
    – Alex A
    40 mins ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











According to:




”Moreover, the ISS end of life might come in 2025, and assuming you need a few years to graduate, more to get a degree, work experience, get hired, do the training... The ISS might not exist at that point anymore.” Antzi




I begin to have many thoughts of how ISS will die when we’ll reach that year.



What was in my mind?



  1. I was thinking NASA will take step by step parts from ISS.

  2. I was thinking that NASA will plant a bomb in ISS and evacuate every member of ISS.

  3. I was thinking that ISS will break apart naturally.

Can anyone please tell me how will ISS will end? Because, now I’m started to be curious how will that happen.



I tried to find on Internet, but my search has failed






iss







share|improve this question















According to:




”Moreover, the ISS end of life might come in 2025, and assuming you need a few years to graduate, more to get a degree, work experience, get hired, do the training... The ISS might not exist at that point anymore.” Antzi




I begin to have many thoughts of how ISS will die when we’ll reach that year.



What was in my mind?



  1. I was thinking NASA will take step by step parts from ISS.

  2. I was thinking that NASA will plant a bomb in ISS and evacuate every member of ISS.

  3. I was thinking that ISS will break apart naturally.

Can anyone please tell me how will ISS will end? Because, now I’m started to be curious how will that happen.



I tried to find on Internet, but my search has failed






iss




iss






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 17 mins ago









Russell Borogove

73k2227311




73k2227311










asked 50 mins ago









Alex A

273126




273126











  • Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
    – Russell Borogove
    42 mins ago










  • I was asking “how will ISS will die”
    – Alex A
    40 mins ago
















  • Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
    – Russell Borogove
    42 mins ago










  • I was asking “how will ISS will die”
    – Alex A
    40 mins ago















Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
– Russell Borogove
42 mins ago




Related: why would extra fuel be needed to deorbit the ISS and why does the ISS have to be destroyed
– Russell Borogove
42 mins ago












I was asking “how will ISS will die”
– Alex A
40 mins ago




I was asking “how will ISS will die”
– Alex A
40 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Left alone, the ISS would eventually re-enter the atmosphere within a couple of years due to the tiny amount of atmospheric drag at its current orbital altitude. That scenario isn't desirable, because it's very hard to predict where a natural re-entry like that will eventually land, and we don't want 400 tons of space junk to fall on someone's house. The ISS is periodically re-boosted to maintain its altitude.



Instead, when the decision is made to bring the ISS project to an end, it will be tanked up with extra fuel, and one or more unmanned Progress service craft will be used to make a reentry burn that drops the station in such a way that all the debris will fall safely into the ocean rather than on land.



No bombs need to be placed; the heat and force of reentry will break the station up pretty well. Some interior equipment may be salvaged (unlikely to be of much use to future missions; they'll probably be museum pieces) but none of the major components of the station can be re-used; they will be badly damaged or destroyed by reentry and splashdown.



Finally, 2025 is more than two US presidential elections in the future. Regardless of how the future plans for ISS stand at the moment, a lot could change between now and then.






share|improve this answer






















  • Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
    – Alex A
    34 mins ago






  • 2




    Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
    – Russell Borogove
    32 mins ago










  • Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
    – Don Branson
    12 mins ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31363%2fhow-exactly-will-the-iss-die-in-2025%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote













Left alone, the ISS would eventually re-enter the atmosphere within a couple of years due to the tiny amount of atmospheric drag at its current orbital altitude. That scenario isn't desirable, because it's very hard to predict where a natural re-entry like that will eventually land, and we don't want 400 tons of space junk to fall on someone's house. The ISS is periodically re-boosted to maintain its altitude.



Instead, when the decision is made to bring the ISS project to an end, it will be tanked up with extra fuel, and one or more unmanned Progress service craft will be used to make a reentry burn that drops the station in such a way that all the debris will fall safely into the ocean rather than on land.



No bombs need to be placed; the heat and force of reentry will break the station up pretty well. Some interior equipment may be salvaged (unlikely to be of much use to future missions; they'll probably be museum pieces) but none of the major components of the station can be re-used; they will be badly damaged or destroyed by reentry and splashdown.



Finally, 2025 is more than two US presidential elections in the future. Regardless of how the future plans for ISS stand at the moment, a lot could change between now and then.






share|improve this answer






















  • Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
    – Alex A
    34 mins ago






  • 2




    Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
    – Russell Borogove
    32 mins ago










  • Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
    – Don Branson
    12 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote













Left alone, the ISS would eventually re-enter the atmosphere within a couple of years due to the tiny amount of atmospheric drag at its current orbital altitude. That scenario isn't desirable, because it's very hard to predict where a natural re-entry like that will eventually land, and we don't want 400 tons of space junk to fall on someone's house. The ISS is periodically re-boosted to maintain its altitude.



Instead, when the decision is made to bring the ISS project to an end, it will be tanked up with extra fuel, and one or more unmanned Progress service craft will be used to make a reentry burn that drops the station in such a way that all the debris will fall safely into the ocean rather than on land.



No bombs need to be placed; the heat and force of reentry will break the station up pretty well. Some interior equipment may be salvaged (unlikely to be of much use to future missions; they'll probably be museum pieces) but none of the major components of the station can be re-used; they will be badly damaged or destroyed by reentry and splashdown.



Finally, 2025 is more than two US presidential elections in the future. Regardless of how the future plans for ISS stand at the moment, a lot could change between now and then.






share|improve this answer






















  • Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
    – Alex A
    34 mins ago






  • 2




    Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
    – Russell Borogove
    32 mins ago










  • Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
    – Don Branson
    12 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









Left alone, the ISS would eventually re-enter the atmosphere within a couple of years due to the tiny amount of atmospheric drag at its current orbital altitude. That scenario isn't desirable, because it's very hard to predict where a natural re-entry like that will eventually land, and we don't want 400 tons of space junk to fall on someone's house. The ISS is periodically re-boosted to maintain its altitude.



Instead, when the decision is made to bring the ISS project to an end, it will be tanked up with extra fuel, and one or more unmanned Progress service craft will be used to make a reentry burn that drops the station in such a way that all the debris will fall safely into the ocean rather than on land.



No bombs need to be placed; the heat and force of reentry will break the station up pretty well. Some interior equipment may be salvaged (unlikely to be of much use to future missions; they'll probably be museum pieces) but none of the major components of the station can be re-used; they will be badly damaged or destroyed by reentry and splashdown.



Finally, 2025 is more than two US presidential elections in the future. Regardless of how the future plans for ISS stand at the moment, a lot could change between now and then.






share|improve this answer














Left alone, the ISS would eventually re-enter the atmosphere within a couple of years due to the tiny amount of atmospheric drag at its current orbital altitude. That scenario isn't desirable, because it's very hard to predict where a natural re-entry like that will eventually land, and we don't want 400 tons of space junk to fall on someone's house. The ISS is periodically re-boosted to maintain its altitude.



Instead, when the decision is made to bring the ISS project to an end, it will be tanked up with extra fuel, and one or more unmanned Progress service craft will be used to make a reentry burn that drops the station in such a way that all the debris will fall safely into the ocean rather than on land.



No bombs need to be placed; the heat and force of reentry will break the station up pretty well. Some interior equipment may be salvaged (unlikely to be of much use to future missions; they'll probably be museum pieces) but none of the major components of the station can be re-used; they will be badly damaged or destroyed by reentry and splashdown.



Finally, 2025 is more than two US presidential elections in the future. Regardless of how the future plans for ISS stand at the moment, a lot could change between now and then.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 28 mins ago

























answered 37 mins ago









Russell Borogove

73k2227311




73k2227311











  • Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
    – Alex A
    34 mins ago






  • 2




    Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
    – Russell Borogove
    32 mins ago










  • Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
    – Don Branson
    12 mins ago
















  • Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
    – Alex A
    34 mins ago






  • 2




    Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
    – Russell Borogove
    32 mins ago










  • Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
    – Don Branson
    12 mins ago















Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
– Alex A
34 mins ago




Great. Left alone. Why NASA don’t simply blow up ISS? And finish?
– Alex A
34 mins ago




2




2




Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
– Russell Borogove
32 mins ago




Blowing it up would leave a lot of uncontrolled debris in orbit for a few years to come, which would be a hazard to everything else in low Earth orbit. It's much better to push it into the atmosphere in a controlled way.
– Russell Borogove
32 mins ago












Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
– Don Branson
12 mins ago




Besides, adjusting orbits is tried-and-true for NASA - they have considerable experience at it. It's straightforward for them, and they know it works. It just seems like that would be the safer, simpler approach, rather than take the time to develop and analyze a new solution.
– Don Branson
12 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31363%2fhow-exactly-will-the-iss-die-in-2025%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
Read more

One-line joke

A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
Read more