Slashdot Mirror


The Oceanic Pole of Inaccessibility: Where Spacecraft Go To Die (bbc.com)

dryriver writes: Whether you launch a satellite into space or an entire space station like the Russian Mir, the Chinese Tiangong-1 or the International Space Station, what goes up must eventually come down -- re-enter earth's atmosphere. The greater the mass of what is in space -- Mir weighed 120 tons, the ISS weighs 450 tons and will be decommissioned in a decade -- the greater the likelihood that larger parts will not burn up completely during re-entry and crash to earth at high velocity. So there is a need for a place on earth where things falling back from space are least likely to cause damage or human casualties. The Oceanic Pole Of Inaccessibility is one of two such places.

The place furthest away from land -- it lies in the South Pacific some 2,700km (1,680 miles) south of the Pitcairn Islands -- somewhere in the no-man's land, or rather no-man's-sea, between Australia, New Zealand and South America, has become a favorite crash site for returning space equipment. "Scattered over an area of approximately 1,500 sq km (580 sq miles) on the ocean floor of this region is a graveyard of satellites. At last count there were more than 260 of them, mostly Russian," reports the BBC. "The wreckage of the Space Station Mir also lies there... Many times a year the supply module that goes to the International Space Station burns up in this region incinerating the station's waste." The International Space Station will also be carefully brought down in this region when its mission ends. No one is in any danger because of this controlled re-entry into our atmosphere. The region is not fished because oceanic currents avoid the area and do not bring nutrients to it, making marine life scarce.

5 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. WHY?!? by DatbeDank · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've spent so much money building the ISS and they think it's ok to just let it fall into the ocean after melting into a hunk of metal?

    What's the f*cking point of this at all? So we can say, "yeah at one time we had a livable tin can in the sky!"

    Am I the only one who is infuriated by this? The ISS is our only viable space platform for anything and these short sighted dip $hits think it's a disposable research toy.

    Anything we send up there should be thought of as being up there for damn good (unless it really is useless trash). It's an investment for the future even if it seems silly now. Build off of the damn thing FFS!

    1. Re:WHY?!? by ccb621 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gravity. What goes up will eventually come down unless it is pushed up again. If a satellite is beyond its lifespan, or the station is no longer feasible to maintain—whether the cost is too great, or there are no more experiments—it has to come down. Keeping it up costs resources—fuel.

    2. Re: WHY?!? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never underestimate the depths of someone's ignorance. And oddly enough, it's often in direct proportion to the zeal with which they show it off.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:WHY?!? by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "safe design life" has an entire range of meanings. A module that was built to be safely habitable by human occupants might cease to be safe for that purpose, but still might be useful as a storage area. Kind of like how a damp basement might not be suitable for a bedroom, but is perfectly OK for use as a laundry room & place to store nearly-worthless junk for decades.

      Maintaining things in low earth orbit costs money, but it's NOTHING compared to the cost of getting stuff up there in the first place.

    4. Re: WHY?!? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      instrument panels start to spark and smoke.

      I've always wondered why futuristic societies left surge suppression out of their control panel designs. Seems like any direct hit to shields causes a ripple current to feed back into the control circuits.