NASA: No current plan for return of space station parts for museums

[Admin]

A plan for how NASA will dispose of the International Space Station makes no mention of preserving parts from the complex. It is not just an omission from a report: the agency says it has no plans.

NASA: No current plan for return of space station parts for museums : Read more

 

[steve_foston]

I keep asking why not consider other options than simply deorbit the ISS to the ocean. I know it will cost money but the ISS should become a valuable historical artefact for future generations. It should be possible to do a controlled deorbit to the surface of the Moon - I know, I know it will cost money and a rocket would have strapped to it to escape from Earth's orbit, etc but imagine if the ancient Egyptians had destroyed the pyramids after they built them. The ISS (and Hubble) are on the same scale of importance to human history.

 

[billslugg]

We cannot simply attach "a rocket" to the ISS to land it on the Moon. It would require many separate rockets or else it would break apart. Each rocket would need several other rockets to get into space.
It would probably cost about as much to land it on the Moon as we have already spent on it, US$50 billion. We have better uses for such money.
The ISS would have no scientific value if it were landed on the Moon. It would be considered "harmful contamination" and thus would be prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty.

 

[steve_foston]

Thank you for your reply, OK if not the Moon where? The point I was trying to make is that I think we should seek a better solution than simply pollute the Earth by deorbiting the ISS to the bottom of the ocean. With the new rocket technology coming on stream (SLS, SpaceX heavy) the tonnage they can carry is considerably increased so I doubt it would cost as much as you suggest. Nevertheless, money (as always) does remain a problem but some thought should be put behind preserving Space historic artefacts, after all the ISS is the largest object that mankind has constructed in space. Regarding the legal treaty I don't have the knowledge to comment on that but humans are planning to return permanently to the Moon shortly so we will be building there anyway but, of course, we should be careful in what we do. I disagree with you about the future scientific value of the ISS - even without further human intervention the 'life' on the ISS (Bacteria, fungi, etc.) would provide us with an experiment to see whether it flourishes, evolves or not in space.

 

[billslugg]

There is nowhere to put ISS permanently, other than the bottom of the ocean, that would not cost an enormous amount of money. Any scientific benefit would be very small. We have far better ways to spend our money.

 

[Pogo]

It would take plenty of planning and several burns, but perhaps its orbit could be raised to a much higher altitude with virtually no drag where it would remain stable for the foreseeable future. Then maybe it may end up being useful to someone, or until we find a reasonable way to save some of it.