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

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more