• Space Station to be abandoned
    153 replies, posted
[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] They have plans to do that but NASA is poor as piss.
Humanity is doomed.
Why are the people in power always wasteful with taxpayer money?
Well, if they tear down the old ISS, they had BETTER go back to the Moon and build a goddam International MoonBase. If they confine us to Earth, mushrooms will sprout.
If you wanna see what happens, go to gm_new_worlds, build a PHX space station then hit it with a nuke :v: I just did it. I lol'd
Tens of thousands of people put their entire life's work into creating this with tens or hundreds [b]sacrificing[/b] their lives to make it possible in the hope that future generations may benefit and move further into space and discover man's true place amongst the stars. Instead Barack Obama goes "lol we need that money for welfare and free health care" *YANK* and now the greatest single structural and technological marvel of the human race is going to be thrown into the ocean and blown up. cool.
Did none of you see my post? That was Bushes plan. Obama has said it will remain in orbit until 2020, what happens after that is up to the current administration.
How do squatters' rights apply in space?
Abandoned space station, the perfect setting for a space horror movie
This was always going to happen if funding wasn't extended beyond 2016. If NASA stops funding, the other space agencies could buy it or keep it maintained (ESA and the RFSA alone have the means to supply and man it) but without NASA, I doubt they would take the burden. The primary mission of the ISS is to learn as much as possible about the outer space environment. Its effects on life, chemical reactions, classical systems and anything else that it would be better to know now than half way through a manned mission to Mars. As soon as the ISS has completed its mission, if there are no other experiments waiting to buy their way onto the station, or keeping it running just isn't economically viable the best thing to do is burn it up in the atmosphere. Keeping it up there is just a hazard to other spacecraft and boosting it into a higher orbit would require tons of fuel and it would still pose a risk. Destroying it so soon after completion (which has always been the plan) isn't a waste of tax money. The ISS becomes a waste of tax money the day it stops doing anything useful, or the cost of being useful is too much. Even now, the ISS has taught us things that will be invaluable for manned interplanetary exploration, and by 2016 it'll no doubt have discovered much more. The last thing we want is for the ISS to become another shuttle; a very expensive project that's long outlived its purpose.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22678023]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.[/QUOTE] Thank you for doing your research. [QUOTE=pognivet;22679318]Tens of thousands of people put their entire life's work into creating this with tens or hundreds [b]sacrificing[/b] their lives to make it possible in the hope that future generations may benefit and move further into space and discover man's true place amongst the stars. Instead Barack Obama goes "lol we need that money for welfare and free health care" *YANK* and now the greatest single structural and technological marvel of the human race is going to be thrown into the ocean and blown up. cool.[/QUOTE] Read the fucking thread, my god you people are thick. Also, what the hell? Sacrificing their lives? What the hell did they do cut themselves to fuel it with their blood?
When the fuck are they going to find the lost protean technology on mars south pole so we get develop mass effect technology?
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;22680694]When the fuck are they going to find the lost protean technology on mars south pole so we get develop mass effect technology?[/QUOTE] I heard that they plan to do that next year.
Why don't they just give it to the corporations instead of destroying it?
ISS is pretty much the symbol for the 21st Century, What... The... Fuck... NASA... [editline]03:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mindtwistah;22680788]Why don't they just give it to the corporations instead of destroying it?[/QUOTE]Because they will proberly put ION cannons on it and take over the world... ...oh wait
To be honest this seems kinda normal, MIR, SKYLAB both existed in less than 20 years before deorbiting it into the atmosphere.
Hell, I'll have it if they don't want it. They're gonna have to haul it, though...
[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 kind of want to say that by the time the IIS is finished, we'll have a new one, and we'll just continue a 20 year cycle of getting a new "IIS" then barely finishing it, shutting it down, and continuing. Surely there's a better idea than that floating around.
For fuck's sake, why don't they just let it orbit instead of breaking it?
Fuck that, just strap a rocket to it and send it flying off into space, then perhaps Aliens could find it.
[QUOTE=Sickle;22681266]For fuck's sake, why don't they just let it orbit instead of breaking it?[/QUOTE] It'll hit stuff and de-orbit itself anyway because of atmospheric drag.
[QUOTE=Sickle;22681266]For fuck's sake, why don't they just let it orbit instead of breaking it?[/QUOTE] In case you haven't read, it can't keep orbiting unless it had boosters, which probably wouldn't be enough to keep it in orbit. The ISS can only do so much until we don't need it anymore. True, the ISS was a major point in space and helped us understand more about it, though sooner or later we would have to replace it with something greater (such as a Orbital Elevator or Hotel, depending on how fast technology is growing). [QUOTE=petieng;22681409]It'll hit stuff and de-orbit itself anyway because of atmospheric drag.[/QUOTE] My point exactly.
They are taking down the ISS? :what: Oh well, as long as it might mean a larger focus on Mars and, in the long run, interstellar travel I'll be happy.
The Gov cut funding, we can't afford to keep it in space any more. Way to go, Obama! Cut funding for the most important organization we have to advance our technology!
At first I was amazed at the idea of having the ISS up there. Now, I am just like "Meh, when will we get a public space station up?" The government is most likely cutting funding to use on the upcoming Mars Mission or some other greater project that involves space.
does nasa have the right to take down the ISS? they weren't the only ones who worked on it
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;22681510]interstellar travel [/QUOTE] Implying we will achieve that within our lifespan.
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22681905]Implying we will achieve that within our lifespan.[/QUOTE] No I wasn't. [QUOTE=Herr Sven]in the long run, interstellar travel I'll be happy.[/QUOTE] With "in the long run" I meant before 2200. Although it is a hypothetical possibility.
Probably late but... [quote="Wikipedia"]NASA planned to deorbit the ISS in the first quarter of 2016.[123] However, the plan to end the ISS programme in 2015, as determined in 2004 by then-President George W. Bush, has been rejected by the current Obama administration. With the new budget announced on 1 February 2010, the administration aims to extend the lifetime through 2020.[/quote] :buddy:
We should send it on a trajectory for deep space instead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.