Former members of a pot They expressed their opposition to the plans. Devastation The follower International Space Station (International Space Station). Former employees highlight the importance of the ISS as a platform for scientific research and technological advancement, arguing that its demise would be a great loss to the global community. The debate raises the question of the future of space exploration and international cooperation projects in orbit.
Last month, a pot Awarded to SpaceX Almost a decade 1 billion dollars To develop the “American landing craft”. Capable of taking out International Space Station (International Space Station) from orbit and burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. The station, which had been a symbol of peaceful international cooperation for three decades, is now obsolete, and NASA plans to destroy it by 2030.
However, not everyone is happy with this plan, and critical voices have emerged in the aerospace community seeking to extend the life of the International Space Station. Jean Jacques Dourdanformer Director General of European Space Agency During the construction of the station and Michael GriffinThe former NASA administrator expressed his dissatisfaction with the current plans. Dordin said in an interview with Forbes“We recommend that officials consider other options besides destroying the station.”
Durden and Griffin’s proposal focuses on passing the ISS to “future generations, allowing them to decide its fate.” Rather than destroying the station, they suggest that a SpaceX-deorbiting vehicle could be used to salvage the station, increasing its altitude and allowing it to enter a stable orbit farther from Earth.
In an open letter published in Space News“Boosting the ISS from its current altitude of 400 kilometers to a circular orbit of 800 kilometers requires a boost of about 220 meters per second, roughly the same amount needed to precisely control the deorbit process,” the space agency’s veterans said. If successful, the maneuver would provide “enough time for future generations to make their own decisions and actions,” according to the outlet.
On the other hand, they stressed the importance of leaving the station in appropriate conditions to prevent any danger. “To do this, the International Space Station must be left in such a condition that no part of it can explode and create a long-term debris hazard,” Durdin and Griffin wrote in their letter.
In addition, they insisted that more studies should be done before an informed decision can be made. “Clearly, more studies need to be done before today’s officials can make an informed decision,” they said in the letter published in Space NewsThey added: “We are no longer responsible, but our question to the current generation is: Wouldn’t it be better to use that stage to put the International Space Station into a higher orbit for possible use by future generations rather than destroy it upon return?“
Public opinion and the media have shown great interest in this issue. Forbeswho interviewed Dordin, highlighted concerns about the loss of valuable research assets. The coverage also highlighted the debate, emphasizing the importance of international consensus in making decisions about the future of the International Space Station.
In all things, destiny International Space Station It remains a hotly debated topic, with industry figures arguing against its destruction. The challenge now is how to balance current interests with future possibilities, a dilemma that will require not only technical decisions but also ethical and philosophical discussions about our relationship with space and science.
“Beeraholic. Friend of animals everywhere. Evil web scholar. Zombie maven.”