ISS to be de-orbited in 2016!

[cljohnston]

As Space Station Nears Completion, It Faces End of Mission - washingtonpost.com

Discuss.

 

[simonpro]

Newspaper in hysteria shocker.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I can't remember aggressive liquids handling safety rules quite clearly, what's the right way to do: pour washingtonpost.com into pravda.ru or vice versa?

 

[MJR]

I would have thought it would try to be used longer. I guess some things have to happen before others.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The fact is, the ISS is just not economically viable.

Actual science productivity is low, because 90% of the ground control’s and crew’s effort is spent on simply keeping the thing in orbit.

Also, do we really need a 6 person crew???

We would have been better off launching the ISS on 15 or so Proton flights over 5 years, and getting about 10 years of science from it - as opposed to launching it over 12 years, to get 5 years of limited science from it.

Of course, NASA is looking to extend the ISS’s lifetime, but if science productivity is low, and operating costs are high to the point that they start to take money away from other programmes, one must ask, is there a point to extending its lifetime???

I love the ISS for its technical accomplishments, but I also cannot argue against facts.

Thank you NASA, and good night.

-Rant over.

 

[Eagle]

And what is their plan to replace ISS? An Ares derived Skylab? Oh wait, they don't seem particularly keen on finishing Ares. Orion isn't looking too useful if they do manage to launch it on a Delta or Atlas.

It seems like NASA has NO plans. And they're gonna throw away ISS just because they don't feel like budgeting for it. Have you noticed how NASA likes to deactivate deep space probes because they don't feel like paying for 2 people to point a satellite dish talk to them once a week?

In my opinion NASA currently has NO FUTURE.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

And more to the point, if NASA cannot sustain a space station in Earth orbit, then just how do they intend to sustain a base on the Moon or Mars???

One has to ask, fundamentally, are space stations a good idea???


Ask yourself this:

Why are we building the ISS?
>So we can learn how to live on the Moon.

Why are we going to go and live on the Moon?
>So we can learn how to live on Mars.

Why are we going to go and live on Mars?
>So we can learn how to travel to and live on other planets in the solar system.

Why are we going to travel to and live on other planets in the solar system?
>So we can learn how to travel and live beyond our solar system.

Why are we going to travel to and live beyond our solar system?
>So we can travel to and find other planets that may harbour life

Why are we going to travel to and find other planets that may harbour life, when we already have the Earth?
>Umm...?

Eventually, there comes a point where you can answer no further.


So, what should NASA's future be?? Does manned space flight even have a future????

 

[MJR]

I agree with that. Also the press is saying NASA is a waste and that they need to quit doing all these waste less things. They say that because we a trillions in debt and it is just causing it more damage. That may be true, but we were not the ones who got into this. It was war. Spaceflight is the future and many useful things are coming out of it. If they want to stop it i is a bad idea.

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

And more to the point, if NASA cannot sustain a space station in Earth orbit, then just how do they intend to sustain a base on the Moon or Mars???

One has to ask, fundamentally, are space stations a good idea???


Ask yourself this:

Why are we building the ISS?
>So we can learn how to live on the Moon.

Why are we going to go and live on the Moon?
>So we can learn how to live on Mars.

Why are we going to go and live on Mars?
>So we can learn how to travel to and live on other planets in the solar system.

Why are we going to travel to and live on other planets in the solar system?
>So we can learn how to travel and live beyond our solar system.

Why are we going to travel to and live beyond our solar system?
>So we can travel to and find other planets that may harbour life

Why are we going to travel to and find other planets that may harbour life, when we already have the Earth?
>Umm...?

Eventually, there comes a point where you can answer no further.


So what should NASA's future be?? Does manned space flight even have a future????

That all leads up to a good conclusion though. If you have a planet that contains life that means they are like us. Which leads to similar resources and shelter. It could have its disadvantages, but overall I think it is good for mankind to find similar beings.

 

[Eccentrus]

Why are we going to travel to and find other planets that may harbour life, when we already have the Earth?
>Umm...?

Because the earth won't always be here and its mineral would be fastly depleted and even the whole solar system's resources would simply be incapable of supplying our vastly advancing civilization? And don't forget about the population problem, and survival of mankind.

 

[MJR]

Because the earth won't always be here and its mineral would be fastly depleted and even the whole solar system's resources would simply be incapable of supplying our vastly advancing civilization? And don't forget about the population problem, and survival of mankind.

Nicely spoken.

 

[Eagle]

Why are we going to travel to and find other planets that may harbour life, when we already have the Earth?
>Umm...?

Or to increase mankind's ability to survive beyond the lifetime of Earth and the Sun, to gain access to the amazingly vast resources of the asteroid belt and beyond. (Remember how big a 1km iron-nickel asteroid is? Well there's more than one of those, many bigger.)

Or you can say, well we're gonna die anyways so what does it matter if its on the same dirtball members of your species have always been dying on or inside some tin can far away? After all, why spend money on spaceflight when you could subsidize a few starving villages on the edge of a desert so they become dependent on somebody else for their food and essential needs? When maybe what they need is just knowledge of a few modern techniques or just to move to a less godforsaken corner of the Earth?

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Because the earth won't always be here and its mineral would be fastly depleted and even the whole solar system's resources would simply be incapable of supplying our vastly advancing civilization? And don't forget about the population problem, and survival of mankind.

But, is the ISS really providing us with the knowledge to go do this? Or is it just draining resources, with little scientific output?

And, do you think mankind will ever get to the point where we will be able to cross the solar system in days, weeks, months, or even years?
I certainly don't think the Star Wars idea of zipping across to other galaxies in a matter of a few hours will ever exist - we still don't know if it is physically possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Travelling at the speed of light, it could be a thousand year journey just to reach another life-harbouring planet - pretty pointless, considering that no human has ever lived past 114 years old!

I suppose there's always the idea of space colonisation - travel to another planet, then create a new batch of humans, or just keep pro-creating along the way...?

 

[ar81]

We are going backwards.

First humans went to the moon, out of Earth's SOI, for a few hours and said moon was conquered.
In that case you have conquered any hotel you have visited.

Then NASA budget is cut back and space shuttle can reach a top altitude of 1000Km, and ISS is the only near-space habitat.

Now ISS is deorbited and the highest habitat for humans will be the top of the Everest, until climate change melts Himalaya ice and leaves 1 billion without water.

Will we be back to stone age in 100 years?

 

[MJR]

If you have seen how advanced we have become in a decade you would think otherwise. In the 80's and 70's transitors on the silicone chips were lmiited to dozens. Now we can fit billions into a chip smaller and compact.

We may be moving back at the moment, but that is just how things go. You couldn't expect us to go to Mars in the 90's could you? Just because we went to the Moon in the 70's. Even if we had the money, manpower, and resources to do this, A project like the ISS would be needed because it helps with long duration missions which a Mars mission is. We were just focused on oing to the Moon first not getting familiar with space and learning about it.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Going to the Moon and Mars is one thing.
Actually learning about them and how to live on them is another.


In my opinion, I feel there are two points of view for the ISS:

. The Idealistic approach:
The ISS is providing valuable research on how to live in space.

. The Realistic approach:
The ISS is not providing much research at all, is draining resources, and is not doing anything to advance our understanding of how to live in space.

I'd like to believe the first, but I can't help but think the latter...

 

[cljohnston]

Why are we going to travel to and find other planets that may harbour life, when we already have the Earth?
>Umm...?

ISN Reporter: Is it worth it? Should we just pull back? Forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?

Commander Jeffrey Sinclair: No. We have to stay here. And there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us.

It'll take Marilyn Monroe.

And Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes… and all of this… all of this… was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

 

[MJR]

Unfortunately we cannot duplicate resources. So I would expect to use resources for spaceflight.

 

[Eagle]

The real question isn't is ISS efficient resource wise. The question is what you will replace ISS with?

Go back to drop towers (which have about 1 seconds of freefall) and use computer simulations (which can have some very bad assumptions)? Shoot up an unmanned Progress or Soyuz and let it float around for 30 days? Float a manned Soyuz up there for a week or two? The fact that you can have a continuous microgravity experiment go on for years with the ability of scientists to directly observe and modify at any time is not an asset to give up lightly.

ISS is inefficient to what? What can do the same that you can replace it with?

Maybe we don't need a long term manned spacecraft in orbit. But be sure of what you're giving up before you get rid of it.

And it appears that NASA has no plans to build another space station (what could be different that would make the new station better that couldn't be accomplished with a few new modules to ISS?). And they probably won't announce that "Oh right, we actually want a space station," until ISS is all wet.

 

[MJR]

I am sure that they have at least some plans that we do not know about. Remember, 2016 is 7 years from now.

 

[bpops]

This may be naive, but can someone explain why a station must be de-orbited?

I understand to keep it in working condition requires people and money. But what would really be the harm in bringing everyone off it it and letting it orbit without interaction for the next 10 years?

Is it a danger to anyone or anything if left alone?