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.

1 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Re:WHY?!? by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NASA has official plans to deorbit the ISS if it loses funding because it's required by law to have such plans.

    Russia would never, EVER allow NASA to actually go through with it.

    If NASA sent a demolition crew up to the ISS to start taking it apart, Russia would promptly evict them & announce they were taking over the station.

    The US would bitch & moan, compare it to space piracy, and threaten retaliation. Russia would roll its eyes and point out that we were planning to junk it anyway.

    After a week or two of tense negotiations, the presidents of the US and Russia would hold a press conference to announce their deal... the creation of a new commercial space resort, transfer of the American modules to it in exchange for partial ownership of the new venture, and an agreement by Russia to maintain it going forward. A few already-wealthy Russian oligarchs become even wealthier, the US declines to cash its dividend checks, space tourism becomes a reality (driven by the acquisition of a prohibitively-expensive asset for free) and the space station continues in orbit for another hundred years.

    The fact is, Russia would be insane NOT to do it. Even if the US side became completely derelict and ceased to be habitable over time, it would STILL be valuable as a source of recyclable raw materials already in orbit. Or even just a place to store shit that's halfway between "garbage" and "stuff that might be useful for something, someday".