It really is a testament to NASA that they managed a moon landing <i>without</i> this level of testing. I wonder how much further along we'd be if there hadn't been a run of visionless administrations.
It would be a lot more economical to just end-of-life the ISS.<p>The ISS is a vampire on science funding, and I can't think of a single important scientific paper from it, in contrast to hundreds from the Hubble and WMAP.
It’ll blow up <i>some time after</i> the abort sequence, due to loss of active control at a relatively low altitude and relatively high speed. It’s not simulating an explosion as part of the test, AFAIK.
Why would there be any risk of the fuel ending up in the ocean? If it doesn't go boom in the test wouldn't the range safety officer push his button?