• Space Station to be abandoned
    153 replies, posted
[QUOTE=rampageturke;22692323]ITT: People who obviously know more than NASA about their own space station[/QUOTE] wow, i was just about to post that, with the ITT and everything.
They use the thrusters that are normally used for keeping it in orbit (By moving it slightly every now and again) and avoiding debris to set it onto a course which will eventually cause it to hit earth. They have to calculate it correctly or it will end up in the wrong place. I read that Mir hit Australia due to a 4% error in the calculation. Atleast it wont bring a nuclear reactor down over Canada like a Russian satellite did.
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;22692603]it seems as if actively deorbiting it would cost less than keeping it in orbit[/QUOTE] I meant as in they would they abandon it and leave it to fall into the ocean itself. Then again they wouldn't be able to control it's descent.
Fantastic idea, let's erase a large part of an already microscopic amount of humanity's advancement in space.
This thread reminds me of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Point]Deception Point[/url]
[QUOTE=Jsm;22674543]This is what happens, they build a space station, spend years researching on it (While expanding it to do the research) and then burn it up. The 2015 date and lack of funding after it was set when they started, or around that time anyway. Its a shame, NASA seems to lack (very) long term planning. "Hurr lets build a space station, then not realise it will need maintenance for many years to come"[/QUOTE] NASA is kind of at the bottom of the government funding food chain right now, so it's not surprising that they can't afford to keep it orbiting. [editline]05:23PM[/editline] And seriously, as has been said earlier, have none of you paid attention through your life? Mir was brought down the same way, space stations aren't permanent installations. [editline]05:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=B-hazard;22681989]We should send it on a trajectory for deep space instead.[/QUOTE] That's a great idea, let's hurl our waste into deep space with no regard for the outcome.
[QUOTE=Strider_07;22693720] And seriously, as has been said earlier, have none of you paid attention through your life? Mir was brought down the same way, space stations aren't permanent installations. [/QUOTE] Atleast this was planned from the start, unlike Mir and SKYLAB which fell apart. Perhaps they thought they would last forever. [editline]01:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider_07;22693720] That's a great idea, let's hurl our waste into deep space with no regard for the outcome.[/QUOTE] The people who suggest this are probably the same people who (were) for dumping waste in the middle of the sea, or in a hole in the ground.
Um, the guys running NASA have a [i]lot[/i] more education and knowledge on what they're doing. They aren't burning up a $100 billion project because they're bored.
[QUOTE=Jsm;22693875]The people who suggest this are probably the same people who (were) for dumping waste in the middle of the sea, or in a hole in the ground.[/QUOTE] I know, it pisses me off to think that people seem to believe space is a dumping ground, we've already fucked up the ocean that way.
it's really sad that a monument of world cooperation is just going to be shrugged off into the atmosphere. :'(
lets hurl our trash into the sun!! xD
[QUOTE=Strider_07;22694040]I know, it pisses me off to think that people seem to believe space is a dumping ground, we've already fucked up the ocean that way.[/QUOTE] Wasn't there an idea recently to launch nuclear waste into space.
Derp NASA dum.
They should leave it up there. It'd be cool to come back years later. It'd be like a sci-fi movie because an alien species would probably have grown on it by then.
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;22694143]lets hurl our trash into the sun!! xD[/QUOTE] How is that a bad idea again?
[QUOTE=Strider_07;22693720]NASA is kind of at the bottom of the government funding food chain right now, so it's not surprising that they can't afford to keep it orbiting. [/QUOTE] They can now, or at least until 2020. Which is a spectacular lifetime for a space station.
carl sagan would rollover in his grave
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;22693965]Um, the guys running NASA have a [i]lot[/i] more education and knowledge on what they're doing. They aren't burning up a $100 billion project because they're bored.[/QUOTE] They aren't going to burn it up any time soon. Odds are by 2020 it won't be in very useful shape anyway. Mir was in a sorry state when they finally abandoned it.
I'm gonna steal it, send it back into orbit, and use it for a secret club house. For sleep overs and shit.
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22694205]They should leave it up there. It'd be cool to come back years later. It'd be like a sci-fi movie because an alien species would probably have grown on it by then.[/QUOTE] Just bits of bacterial scum are about all you could expect. It's not going to last years without a reboost, though, there's too much atmospheric drag. fucking stop breaking my automerge goddamnit
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22694205]They should leave it up there. It'd be cool to come back years later. It'd be like a sci-fi movie because an alien species would probably have grown on it by then.[/QUOTE] Expect it would eventually crash into the earth in an uncontrolled manner, and risk hitting a populated area. I don't think people realise that an object cannot stay in orbit for ever. Its coming towards earth at 2km a month and its at ~330km (That was a year ago though). Assuming it keeps up at this rate (And doesn't suddenly speed up like Mir did) it will end up (By my bad calculation) hitting the earth in ~12 years. I am not 100% sure how any of this works though, I'm not sure if that's 300km to the earth's atmosphere or to the surface. I dunno if you could even use it as it gets closer. Not to mention the station has been designed to only last ~20 years so the components are both old and close to failing.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;22694296]How is that a bad idea again?[/QUOTE] well, I don't think that it would hurt the sun any but the time it takes to reach the sun and the amount of energy and money it would take to get several tons of cargo to the sun would be waaay too high to make it viable
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;22694481]well, I don't think that it would hurt the sun any but the time it takes to reach the sun and the amount of energy and money it would take to get several tons of cargo to the sun would be waaay too high to make it viable[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly this was the reason that dumping waste in space isn't possible. Due to weight and fuel constraints you wouldn't be able to put large amount's into space in one go so it would be cheaper to landfill it or (gasp) recycle it.
If the space station became old and could be dangerous(Considering that surviving in a space station of this time, while its failing is prietty much slim) I understand if theyr gonna destroy it. But its fucking new.
Stupid decision, it's brand-fucking-new!
Bureaucrats :argh:
$10 says it hits Australia ...brb moving to another Country
[QUOTE=stablemist;22694882]$10 says it hits Australia ...brb moving to another Country[/QUOTE] I don't think if it hit australia you'd have to worry too much, chances are higher it'd hit some place in the desert than in a city
If anyone is interested, Here is the live feed from the ISS. [url]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx[/url] It's not on all the time.
[QUOTE=booster;22695067]If anyone is interested, Here is the live feed from the ISS. [URL]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx[/URL] It's not on all the time.[/QUOTE] -snip- Never mind the camera is outside the station, couldn't tell as it was on the dark side.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.