Starliner docks with ISS

A few bumps along the way but 2 or more methods to get squishy cargo to LEO (and beyond) are better than one.
MUCH better than thumbing a ride from the Rooskies.

Boeing Starliner problems go beyond thrusters - The Washington Post

 

Excellent news! I'm always excited to see good things happening to keep the ISS viable.

 

Why aside from jobs? What have been the benefits? Are they proportional to the expense? Given the Russian pull out, does it still make any sense? Have we learned all we can?

 

While there is plenty more to learn, the costs are very high. Other missions have commonly been more cost effective.

ISS is way beyond its original expiration date. It was extended yet again just a few weeks before Putin's newest aggression. They first teased about leaving one of our astronauts stranded, then said they are pulling out of the collaboration. Without Russia, it comes down. Without the USA, the power goes out.

Considering the overall international situation, it won't bother me to just depopulate the station, then bring it down.

 

Human access to ISS is a necessary but not sufficient condition to continue ISS function. More than one access supplier is obviously a good thing.
It is my understanding that ISS was always planned for decommission at approximately the same time as being considered now. Also, that there was never planning for some modules to be transferred to a follow-on orbital station.
SpaceX has revolutionized the industry since initial ISS days. In a much smaller way, Bigelow also has. So the follow-on orbital station will be a very different thing. Possibly planned to avert obsolescence.
China now assembles another orbital station; pretty much an incrementally modernized Mir. Not that there's anything wrong with that
==
ISS is still accomplishing space science, but at a not-so-low ongoing cost. The only way I can see for it to stay in orbit for longer is to add some Bigelows and make an orbital hotel. That would be at most 'practice' for such a purpose-built station later.

 

I now read indications (rather vague I'd say) that ISS was originally planned for 2020 'splash'. As such it is not now way beyond, but plans to keep it up until 2031 would be. So, the point is conceded.
At some point it will splash. There is a lot of dandy technology up there, and I presume plans are being made to save some of that. What we do not have at present is a big truck like space shuttle that could bring down big pieces without them melting en route.

 

When this topic came up three months ago, I saw indications that the original decommission date was for 2015. Now I'm seeing more similar statements, including that in 2009, Obama's plan called for de-orbiting it in 1Q2016. That same article indicates that, some extensions later, Trump wanted to sell the U.S. portion.

 

OK, ISS has already received several time extensions. Might as well add this to the list:

Obama administration approves space station extension, NASA says - CBS News

==
Your CNN link does not add info. Even though beverages come in aluminum cans, and ISS is also an aluminum can

Other media about ISS timelines suggest US' annual operating cost of 3 to 4 billion, which is pertinent here.

 

Oops! Fixed, look again, I started at post #4.

That bad link was being emailed to a lover of the product in question. Another example of multitasking failure.

 

We always learn something from what happens in the micro-gravity environment, and lessons learned in the ISS have applications elsewhere.

 

ISS has without doubt provided much information useful for doing things in space. Very recently I saw TV show about ISS crew radiation exposure in the South Atlantic Anomaly.

Radiation and micro-gravity effect on humans are very important for travel further out. Or for longer on moon.