• Space Station to be abandoned
    153 replies, posted
Why do they do awesome shit like building a fucking space station and then not plan ahead something like 50 years. Economic depressions (severity aside) should be something they should think of before doing stuff like building a fucking awesome space station...in space.
Its partly because they have to. Its orbit is decaying and it would happen eventually. Still a shame thats is going.
They should just leave it floating in space as an abandoned station. That's what they did with the ARK in Sonic Adventure 2. Maybe they just think a mad scientist will use it to destroy the moon.
They should leave it up there, and put live webcams in it so we can see out the windows and stuff.
Might aswell leave it up there for that price, it would do more bad than good if they got rid of it, well it would mainly be a huge waste of money, and isn't that why Obama cut the space programs funding?
Just when we make a few steps forward, we just throw it all in the bin... Wer'e REALLY making progress here, by the time i see an alien...
The problem with abandoning it and leaving it up there is that its orbit will eventually decay and fall into Earth where it risks landing in a populated area. This would be a bad thing (it's too big and too protected to burn up completely in the atmosphere).
At least we know nobody is going to destroyed it with a nuclear missile.
put it in the Smithsonian
[QUOTE=Zareox7;22674381]After a while the technology gets old and becomes a liability with increased risk of failure. They probably expect to put up a new one with much better and up-to-date technology.[/QUOTE] Great idea! Let's build a new space-station with up-to-date technology that will be obsolete in 10 years so we can start the process all over again! WEEEEE!!!
No offense guys but I'm sure that the NASA engineers don't want to lose the station either, and have probably explored all other possibilities. I think they know best They're [i]rocket scientists[/i] after all.
Urbanex in space.
Pretty sure the "I" part of "ISS" means that NASA can't just destroy it on a whim.
This was inevitable. Technology becomes obsolete. I just hope they take down a few modules and put them in museums before they deorbit it. Even without the space shuttle they have the unmanned thing designed by the USAF.
Thanks obama for ruining childrens dreams.
Hey Obama, Canada here. Can we have it? We hear space is really cold and we're good with cold. We can keep the doorstep shovelled and everything. We'll even bring your mail in so nobody sees that you're gone and robs the place. Signed, your friend, Canada
Why can't they just let it keep orbiting?
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;22676151]Why can't they just let it keep orbiting?[/QUOTE] Because something like ISS can't keep steady orbit without booster engines iirc so it will eventually drop out of orbit with no possibility to control the reentry. The last thing you want is flaming chunks of metal showering over a city.
This thing will look awesome as it's burning through the atmosphere. The day it is decommissioned and begins it's descent I'm going to the beach to watch it fall.
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22676202]Because something like ISS can't keep steady orbit without booster engines iirc so it will eventually drop out of orbit with no possibility to control the reentry. The last thing you want is flaming chunks of metal showering over a city.[/QUOTE] Why can't they booster engine it out of orbit, better to let it float around in space than burn up in the atmosphere
I don't think keeping it in orbit costs so much. Besides it is international how can USA alone determinate it's fate?
Let's hitch onto some Russian rocket and squat the ISS spacestation. We'll claim it for the Kingdom of Facepunchia. Come on you guys, it'll be fun. I want to be the king of space.
[quote]But it'll be destroyed as surely as a Lego palace obliterated by the sweeping arm of a suddenly bored kid.[/quote] I love doing that. :buddy:
They should shoot it out into space for the aliens.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;22677338]Why can't they booster engine it out of orbit, better to let it float around in space than burn up in the atmosphere[/QUOTE] Because it's alot cheaper to just shut it down and let it burn.
Guys, sorry to break it to you, but the plan to get rid of it was put into place by Bush in favor of the ARES and CONSTELLATION programs. Those both have been eliminated by Obama and he's given it funding to remain in orbit until 2020 and most likely longer. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS#End_of_mission_and_deorbit_plans[/url] The reason that they wanted it to end in 2016 is because that's the year that all international funding will end, meaning the U.S. will be it's sole investor and owner. [editline]10:12AM[/editline] In all honesty, I think we should get rid of it in 2016. There are several new stations planned, such as the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex and the numerous commercial space stations planned over the decade. The ISS served it's purpose, which was to test new technology and how being in space for months at a time can effect people. It's a sad ending to such a critical program, but it's just not worth it to keep it going.
Fuck that shit, the ISS looked so huge and awesome. They should make a real shattered horizon there. With Paintballs :v: [img]http://fhsukams.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/iss_after_sts-124_06_2008.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=FrostyMax;22674278]WHAT THE HELL! They are just going to let it crash and burn into the atmosphere? After all the money spent and hard work? They spent $100 billion, and it was just completed 5 years ago [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html?hpid=topnews"] [/URL][/QUOTE] They're going to begin building a 21st-century space station shortly after the new shuttle program begins. Also, they let literally every obsolete, old, useless space-based junk burn up in the atmosphere, the way they do it prevents it from hitting anything 99%. If you were to go into the Pacific ocean, you'd find hundreds of thousands of particles from downed satellites and fuel rockets.
Really NASA? Is it that expansive to install a god-fucking-damn magnetoplasmadynamic ion drive to keep the damn thing high enough to prevent orbital decay? Just sell the ISS to some corporation and let them turn it into a private station...
[QUOTE=NickFury6;22678321]They're going to begin building a 21st-century space station shortly after the new shuttle program begins. Also, they let literally every obsolete, old, useless space-based junk burn up in the atmosphere, the way they do it prevents it from hitting anything 99%. If you were to go into the Pacific ocean, you'd find hundreds of thousands of particles from downed satellites and fuel rockets.[/QUOTE] I want to do like taco bell and float a giant styrofoam target the size of a football feild into the ocean. If any debri hits it I'll give every scientist and engineer who's contributed to the ISS a blowjob.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.