Hacker News Reader

Comment by gizmondo | Hacker News Reader

ISS appears to be falling apart. Is it a change in publicity or real?

ISS has been running continuously for 22 years. Most earth based housing doesn't even have that level of uptime. If it were a cruise or cargo ship it would have been in and out of drydock 5-7 times. It's extremely difficult to have complex systems run continuously for decades.

Unfortunately after we built ISS I thought there would be ISS2 or ISS upgrades planned. And I haven't seen anything like that.

>Most earth based housing doesn't even have that level of uptime

are we including mud huts and/or poorly built apartments in chinese ghost cities here? If we only considered american timber framed houses, I don't see why 22+ years of "uptime" would be hard to achieve.

Maybe OP meant 22 years of zero maintenance. Even though many houses are way older than 22 years (including the apartment I'm living in now) going more than two decades without something breaking is quite challenging. Granted a lot of the time it's a simple electrical issue, plumbing that needs to be repaired or paint that's peeling off the walls. Stuff that isn't vital for the structural integrity of the building.

Because if it is tearing down buildings after 22 years and rebuilding new housing then yes, that is quite ridiculous and unachievable for most people.

>Maybe OP meant 22 years of zero maintenance

Has the ISS not received any maintenance in the last 22 years either?

ISS hasn't been 22 years without maintenance.

You are not continuously occupying your home for 22+ years. It might feel like it during the pandemic but you regularly leave. You probably take 2-4 weeks off per year without worrying about if it's going to still be there. If your bathroom stops working you can go to the gym. If the power goes out it's simply inconvenient, but not life threatening.

I'll reiterate; the ISS has been continuously inhabited for 20 years, non-stop, no weekends in the countryside.

But Earth-based stuff isn't designed to last too long precisely because it can be maintained. Why wouldn't the ISS be somewhat different in this regard? I don't really see how this analogy is supposed to work.

Let's say they decide to put it out of commission. How do they get rid of it? Regular orbit needs to be actively maintained, I think. Will they let it enter the atmosphere, whole or in chunks?

Most components of ISS were brought up by shuttle. It will need to be disassembled and brought down by the next generation of shuttle. I don't think it was designed for controlled re-entry. And dismantling it for re-entry is going to get super complicated and dangerous.

The shuttle has heat shields which disintegrate on re-entry. Could the ISS be kept at that altitude to safely destroy it?

Its actually falling apart, roscosmos has been saying their segments have outlived the expected lifetime of the station for a few years now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com