The long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hamas sparked jubilant scenes in Gaza on Sunday, but joy has quickly turned to dismay as the true extent of the devastation becomes clear. More than a year of Israeli bombardment and ground operations has reduced much of Gaza to a "rubble-strewn wasteland," said Euronews. 

The U.N. estimates that in addition to claiming tens of thousands of lives, the conflict has left 69% of buildings damaged or destroyed, including more than 90% of homes. With the majority of the 2.2 million population currently displaced and large parts of the enclave "uninhabitable," it could take "years or even decades for the territory to recover," said the BBC.

What are the immediate issues? 
Gaza's health care system is a primary concern. Most hospitals and clinics are "damaged beyond use, and those remaining open face shortages of water, fuel and medical supplies," said a recent U.K. Parliament report. Water, sanitation and hygiene systems are "almost entirely defunct," and an acute food shortage has left Gaza's 1.9 million displaced people at risk of malnutrition and starvation, said the U.N. Environment Programme. 

Israel's bombardment of Gaza has also "unleashed yet another deadly but silent enemy on the people there: asbestos," said Al Jazeera. The toxic fibers are "present throughout much of Gaza's structures," and the destruction has caused vast amounts to be broken into tiny airborne particles that could lead to a spike in cancer cases "for decades." 

What about the economy? 
The conflict has had a disastrous economic impact. The World Bank estimates almost 100% of the population is now living in poverty, while the cost of basic supplies has risen by almost 250% on average since the start of the war. In addition, "major roads have been plowed up," and "critical water and electricity infrastructure lie in ruins," affecting not only everyday life but also the prospect of economic recovery, said Euronews. 

What are the long-term challenges? 
It's "unclear when, or even if, much will be rebuilt," said the Los Angeles Times. The initial challenge of removing the estimated 50 million tons of rubble strewn across Gaza is expected to take years and may prove hazardous, with much of the debris containing unexploded munitions as well as human remains. The key task of rebuilding homes will require "billions of dollars and the ability to bring construction materials and heavy equipment into the territory, neither of which are assured."

Americans, Russians and spacefarers from other countries have been working together aboard the International Space Station for a quarter-century. But the ISS is nearing the end of its operational life. 
 
Following the ISS retirement in 2030, NASA expects to see the construction of "one or more commercial space stations," said The Verge. Each station will be run by a private for-profit company as "part of a thriving space economy." NASA astronauts will use these stations. But industry leaders still don't know "whether there's money to be made or not" in space.

Why is the ISS being retired?
The station is "showing its age," said Florida Today. A recent report from NASA's inspector general questioned whether it would be "safe or even affordable to operate past 2030" or if it can last that long. There's an air leak in a Russian module on the station, and space suits aboard the station have been malfunctioning. So NASA is planning to "deorbit" the station, contracting with SpaceX to build a vehicle that will bring the station "over a remote part of Earth" in 2031.

Critics say crashing the ISS into an isolated part of the Pacific Ocean "could end up polluting Earth's air and water," said Space.com. Conversely, dumping the 400-ton ISS will be a "very minor contributor to ocean pollution" compared to the shipping and cargo that already sinks every year, said Luciano Anselmo of the Space Flight Dynamics Laboratory. Others argue the ISS should be boosted to a higher orbit. Up there, it could serve as a museum for astrophysicists, astronauts and space aficionados.

What happens next?
Space stations have for more than 50 years "been the preserve of nation-states," said The Telegraph. That's largely been a question of capabilities. National governments alone possessed the "billions of dollars of investment" and ability to make "dozens of rocket launches" that building a station requires. But no longer. Elon Musk's SpaceX has helped bring down launch costs, and private companies are raising money to "build future hubs" in space. 

NASA, meanwhile, is looking beyond Earth's orbit to the "moon and beyond," said Mashable. America's space agency aims to build a "permanent lunar presence" that could serve as a launch point for humanity's first trip to Mars.