NASA Plans to Stretch ISS Program Until at Least 2024

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
For those of you that feared for the shortened lifespan of the International Space Station, the US has decided to keep its hand in the space business and support the ISS until at least 2024 and possibly longer. The Space Station was due to be brought back to Earth in 2016 in a spectacular fireball decent from its orbit.
 
They were not going to bring it down in 2k16! They finished building it soo late! There is plenty of other waste we can cut before we can cut the budget to NASA. Like giving aid to rest of the world with our tax payer money? Or...hmmm where do I start with waste??? Maybe we can start with figuring out where the 2.3 trillion dollars pentagon cannot account for?
 
Budzman said:
What a waste of money.
Click to expand...

What was?

Because spending all that money and effort to build a space station only to plunge it into the ocean in 2016 was looking to be a huge waste.

At least with the extension we can make the most out of this station.
 
I'm not sure why NASA wants to always destroy stuff that still has a use past their target date. Hubble Space Telescope... does it still work? check. lets push it out of orbit and let it burn up because it's a piece of space junk and oh what happens if it gets destroyed? Multiple pieces of space junk. Since we can't service it anymore why don't they just use it until it stops working they push it into the atmosphere?

ISS? Ok I can understand if there are political reasons for not funding it anymore, but why destroy it? You spent billions to get that hunk of junk up there. Even if the shit is vacant why not just leave it vacant, perhaps in a few years some country might change their mind, or perhaps Richard Branson wants a new place to bang his bitches, or some company wants to buy it for a space hotel, or fuck all it's a good temporary platform to build something larger in space.

Fuck it all, it's like we have this cell phone mentality, once we're done using it we just want to throw that shit away.
 
txaggies07 said:
I am all for funding NASA, but the ISS is pretty useless.
Click to expand...

Useless how a lot of zero g experiments are carried out there... Personally I say leave it up there till it has a longer service life than mir or it just takes too much to keep it going... Besides it was a colabrative effort on many countries I don't see why the us gets to say when it lives or when it dies.

Also space is not a dream it is an inevitability we will need to leave the planet someday or find an equilibrium with the earth.
 
Also space is not a dream it is an inevitability we will need to leave the planet someday or find an equilibrium with the earth.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I don't see either happening.
The notion that there are people out there thinking the sooner our race dies off the closer they will be with their invisible friend in the sky.
That and the massive amounts of dumb shits that don't think of the future just breed like rabbits without a care in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l59cg62wqpY
 
ISS? Ok I can understand if there are political reasons for not funding it anymore, but why destroy it? You spent billions to get that hunk of junk up there. [/QUOTE]So that hunk of junk doesn't fall out of orbit and destroy Houston.
 
I have said this before but it bugs me to see people innumerate people complain about NASA wasting so much taxpayer money when in reality they are given about 0.5% of it. Yet nobody seems to complain about the disproportionate amount of funding we put into defense.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I'm not sure why NASA wants to always destroy stuff that still has a use past their target date. Hubble Space Telescope... does it still work? check. lets push it out of orbit and let it burn up because it's a piece of space junk and oh what happens if it gets destroyed? Multiple pieces of space junk. Since we can't service it anymore why don't they just use it until it stops working they push it into the atmosphere?

ISS? Ok I can understand if there are political reasons for not funding it anymore, but why destroy it? You spent billions to get that hunk of junk up there. Even if the shit is vacant why not just leave it vacant, perhaps in a few years some country might change their mind, or perhaps Richard Branson wants a new place to bang his bitches, or some company wants to buy it for a space hotel, or fuck all it's a good temporary platform to build something larger in space.

Fuck it all, it's like we have this cell phone mentality, once we're done using it we just want to throw that shit away.
Click to expand...

Well, I quoted this from Wikipedia, but I think it should answer your question.

Hubble orbits the Earth in the extremely tenuous upper atmosphere, and over time its orbit decays due to drag. If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032, with the exact date depending on how active the Sun is and its impact on the upper atmosphere. If Hubble were to descend in a completely uncontrolled re-entry, parts of the main mirror and its support structure would probably survive, leaving the potential for damage or even human fatalities.

NASA's original plan for safely de-orbiting Hubble was to retrieve it using a space shuttle. The Hubble telescope would then have most likely been displayed in the Smithsonian Institution. This is no longer possible since the space shuttle fleet has been retired, and would have been unlikely in any case due to the cost of the mission and risk to the crew. Instead NASA considered adding an external propulsion module to allow controlled re-entry. Ultimately NASA installed the Soft Capture and Rendezvous System, to enable deorbit by either a crewed or robotic mission.
Click to expand...
 
sfsuphysics said:
I'm not sure why NASA wants to always destroy stuff that still has a use past their target date. Hubble Space Telescope... does it still work? check. lets push it out of orbit and let it burn up because it's a piece of space junk and oh what happens if it gets destroyed? Multiple pieces of space junk. Since we can't service it anymore why don't they just use it until it stops working they push it into the atmosphere?

ISS? Ok I can understand if there are political reasons for not funding it anymore, but why destroy it? You spent billions to get that hunk of junk up there. Even if the shit is vacant why not just leave it vacant, perhaps in a few years some country might change their mind, or perhaps Richard Branson wants a new place to bang his bitches, or some company wants to buy it for a space hotel, or fuck all it's a good temporary platform to build something larger in space.

Fuck it all, it's like we have this cell phone mentality, once we're done using it we just want to throw that shit away.
Click to expand...

Hubble is an entirely different argument. Like lots of NASA probes every time it would take a dump it would shit out science.

ISS will fall eventually out of orbit, without funding to keep it fixed and up high it falls. For everyone's dream of leaving the Earth in droves, the ISS will not get us that.

Lunas said:
Useless how a lot of zero g experiments are carried out there... Personally I say leave it up there till it has a longer service life than mir or it just takes too much to keep it going... Besides it was a colabrative effort on many countries I don't see why the us gets to say when it lives or when it dies.

Also space is not a dream it is an inevitability we will need to leave the planet someday or find an equilibrium with the earth.
Click to expand...

Tell me what revolutionary science came out of ISS. Most all the science work on ISS has been research about life in zero-G and not WRT space travel.

ISS is not and will not help us that much with any hope of leaving Earth/Moon. That requires leaps in physics that we have not made, presuming those leaps are actually to be made....and the ISS will not get us them presently. We've been thinking about the physics problems for 50+ years and it is little more feasible to go to Mars now than it was in 1970.

If your concern is leaving Earth you should be hoping to find the Prothean Archives on Mars rather than worrying about the ISS...beacuse that fantasy kind of leap in science we need to even talk about leaving Earth/Moon orbit on anything other than a fantastically expensive one way trip.
 
I believe life in zero G is an important aspect of space travel. Astronauts will be spending a long time in zero G condition on the trip to Mars, for example.

Nevertheless, scientific progress is not about selecting what we think is useful and research in that. It's about trying to understand nature in every aspect we can. This is the approach that allows us to have all the knowledge we have today which engineers have turned into something useful.

When Einstein thought about the speed of light, or when a group of young scientist were intrigued by the nature of subatomic particles, there were no need for such understanding at that time. They just research those area simply because no one understood it yet. Yet today Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics plays an important role in the technology we used today.
 
Hornet said:
Well, I quoted this from Wikipedia, but I think it should answer your question.
Click to expand...

If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032,
Click to expand...

Ok not that I'm calling bullshit, but bullshit. Not because I don't think it will happen, I understand the mechanics of space flight with atmospheric friction, but a 13 year window of when it will come down? Really that's as accurate as NASA (or whomever Wiki quoted) could get?
 
Hornet said:
I believe life in zero G is an important aspect of space travel. Astronauts will be spending a long time in zero G condition on the trip to Mars, for example.

Nevertheless, scientific progress is not about selecting what we think is useful and research in that. It's about trying to understand nature in every aspect we can. This is the approach that allows us to have all the knowledge we have today which engineers have turned into something useful.

When Einstein thought about the speed of light, or when a group of young scientist were intrigued by the nature of subatomic particles, there were no need for such understanding at that time. They just research those area simply because no one understood it yet. Yet today Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics plays an important role in the technology we used today.
Click to expand...

Zero G is only a minor problem if tour worry is space travel. And in the end, what do we get out of sending people anywhere? That is ultimately why Apollo dried up...after spending billions to beat the Ruskies, and then collecting a bunch of moon rocks why keep going? The Moon has a whole lot of nothing in terms of resources and Mars is probably similar.

Further for the dollar unmanned probes do far more science than manned anything.
 
You guys think that studying how to live in space for long periods of time is a waste of money and won't ever help us?
 
Draktharbar said:
You guys think that studying how to live in space for long periods of time is a waste of money and won't ever help us?
Click to expand...

Ever is a strong word. Will it help me before I retire or am buried in the ground? More than likely not.

Further, for the money dumped into the ISS, we could have gotten a hell of a lot more science IMHO. And in an era when everyone is screaming about government program expenditures...
 
Skripka said:
Zero G is only a minor problem if tour worry is space travel. And in the end, what do we get out of sending people anywhere? That is ultimately why Apollo dried up...after spending billions to beat the Ruskies, and then collecting a bunch of moon rocks why keep going? The Moon has a whole lot of nothing in terms of resources and Mars is probably similar.

Further for the dollar unmanned probes do far more science than manned anything.
Click to expand...

How do you justify saying the Moon and Mars have no resources? They have plenty of natural resources. They're made up of largely the same materials as the Earth (materials we are quickly using up on Earth). There's no reason they can't one day be home to humans.

I think there's two reasons why humans should explore space. 1) Exploration into new hostile locations will continue to drive important technological and scientific advances, and that will benefit us. 2) If a large asteroid is going to hit Earth (or some other global disaster), our chances of survival will greatly increase if we have colonized another rock.
 
Draktharbar said:
How do you justify saying the Moon and Mars have no resources? They have plenty of natural resources. They're made up of largely the same materials as the Earth (materials we are quickly using up on Earth). There's no reason they can't one day be home to humans.

I think there's two reasons why humans should explore space. 1) Exploration into new hostile locations will continue to drive important technological and scientific advances, and that will benefit us. 2) If a large asteroid is going to hit Earth (or some other global disaster), our chances of survival will greatly increase if we have colonized another rock.
Click to expand...

"Plenty of resources" in the sense that it is far too outrageously expensive (and will continue to be for the visible future) to worry about retrieving them for anybody back here...and further odds are anybody going to colonize a planet, if Earth gets whacked by an asteroid, is going to starve and die a terrible death within a year or two or less when anything breaks or wears out and there are no more spares (which happens sooner or later with any equipment).

There's no natural shelter from the elements, there's no natural food, there's no breathable atmosphere...and to create the aforesaid on another planet in self-sustaining sealed habitats requires 1st world nation sized industrial complexes.
 
So much grief towards the ISS. We, as human beings, have built a space station....A SPACE STATION. How is this not an amazing thing. It should be kept running forever, if for nothing more than a historical monument.
 
Believe it or not, NASA could learn a lot more sending probes out and more advanced telescopes than to keep funding the ISS...
 
The ISS situation isn't ideal but it's really all we have left. Sadly I don't think I will live long enough to see humans colonize Mars.... hopefully some crazy kid will come up with a warp drive before I die. Or get uploaded into the singularity.
 
Beowulf said:
So much grief towards the ISS. We, as human beings, have built a space station....A SPACE STATION. How is this not an amazing thing. It should be kept running forever, if for nothing more than a historical monument.
Click to expand...

Mir and Skylab came before ISS.
 
It seems like it could have some commercial value and could be sold to a private party. As space travel becomes more efficient, I could see universities having space programs during our lifetime. This would be a great first step.

Or sell it to a crazy rich guy, with aspirations of world domination. Maybe Kim dot com.
 
Skripka said:
Zero G is only a minor problem if tour worry is space travel. And in the end, what do we get out of sending people anywhere? That is ultimately why Apollo dried up...after spending billions to beat the Ruskies, and then collecting a bunch of moon rocks why keep going? The Moon has a whole lot of nothing in terms of resources and Mars is probably similar.
Click to expand...

What about all of the technology/industry/innovation that sprung up from those Apollo missions?
 
Skripka said:
Ever is a strong word. Will it help me before I retire or am buried in the ground? More than likely not.

Further, for the money dumped into the ISS, we could have gotten a hell of a lot more science IMHO. And in an era when everyone is screaming about government program expenditures...
Click to expand...

Research on the frontiers of science like particle accelerator experiments and space stations are always going to be more expensive than practical applied research.

I doubt the Lewis and Clark expedition did much for the average American back in the day. The prevailing view back in 1804 was that it was a dangerous waste of money and that it would take a thousand years or more to colonize the western frontier. Today it is remembered as one of the greatest legacies of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. It established the United States' claim on the northwest, advanced our scientific understanding of the flora, fauna, natives, and geology of the region, and opened the door for future explorers and pioneers.

Apollo ended because the US achieved exactly what it set out to accomplish: Dominance in the areospace arena. When the Russian moon program failed there was nothing to drive further missions to the Moon or a Mars program. Today, with the practical experience we've gained on the ISS and the new Space Launch System we have the capability to visit more distant objects like asteroids. If we can figure out how to break bite-sized chunks off of asteroids shoot them back to Earth the US could easily dominate the global market for metals and rare-earth elements. If we don't somebody else will.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Research on the frontiers of science like particle accelerator experiments and space stations are always going to be more expensive than practical applied research.

I doubt the Lewis and Clark expedition did much for the average American back in the day. The prevailing view back in 1804 was that it was a dangerous waste of money and that it would take a thousand years or more to colonize the western frontier. Today it is remembered as one of the greatest legacies of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. It established the United States' claim on the northwest, advanced our scientific understanding of the flora, fauna, natives, and geology of the region, and opened the door for future explorers and pioneers.

Apollo ended because the US achieved exactly what it set out to accomplish: Dominance in the areospace arena. When the Russian moon program failed there was nothing to drive further missions to the Moon or a Mars program. Today, with the practical experience we've gained on the ISS and the new Space Launch System we have the capability to visit more distant objects like asteroids. If we can figure out how to break bite-sized chunks off of asteroids shoot them back to Earth the US could easily dominate the global market for metals and rare-earth elements. If we don't somebody else will.
Click to expand...

Actually Lewis and Clark did a hell of a lot by helping to map the western part of the United States and to stake our claim on territory. I am quite curious as to where you learned that people that it was a waste of money and that it would take a thousand years to colonize considering how fast the east coast was being colonized.
 
Igroock said:
Believe it or not, NASA could learn a lot more sending probes out and more advanced telescopes than to keep funding the ISS...
Click to expand...

The purpose of the ISS is to provide a platform (jointly with other nations) to be able to experiment and test new technology. It's also an international platform as well and probably one of the most successful joint ventures of international cooperation.

The cost to maintain it is NOTHING compared to the cost of assemble. Keeping it maintained is fractional in fact compared to the cost to assemble it. Defunding it would be a huge waste in so many ways that keeping it funding is the more intelligent move. Space stations are required in this age , we need place to test new technology and continue to advance scientific understanding. Funding more probes is great and I'm all for it but if anything probes need a cheaper launching platform so we can afford to send more of them. Right now it costs hundreds of millions. But thanks to companies like SpaceX that cost might be $10 Million in 5 years.

And if you want to put funding problems on anything blame on it Congress/Senate and the American people. NASA is funded by 1/4 of 1 penny per person in the US each year. People are happy to cheer on NASA when they do something no one else has done before but the minute NASA asks "Hey , now that we've impressed you again and done what many thought impossible ..would you mind giving us a bit more funding so we can do even greater things?" which the response to that is "No. And hell no."The American people are happy to waste hundreds of billions each year but it seems anything that is science based and not related to making weapons or bolstering defense capabilities rather than funding things that expand our knowledge as a species are left now and sadly so to .. private funding (corporate funding in reality).
 
darksrcow said:
Actually Lewis and Clark did a hell of a lot by helping to map the western part of the United States and to stake our claim on territory.
Click to expand...

That was... kinda the point. The average person living in 1804 didn't really get anything back from it, but we can see that it was clearly an important step over the long term. Staking our claim, establishing diplomatic relations with the Indian tribes, mapping and describing the environment... things that benefited future explorers and pioneers.

I am quite curious as to where you learned that people that it was a waste of money and that it would take a thousand years to colonize considering how fast the east coast was being colonized.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was a well-reasoned argument, they obviously were wrong. In the history channel 'Presidents' series the episode about Andrew Jackson delved into the change of US policy from integration to total removal of the eastern Indian tribes. Part of the reasoning behind the Indian Removal Act was that people believed it would take hundreds of years for white settlers to encroach on them again, allowing time for peaceful integration to occur.

Jefferson and the American Philosophical Society had to lobby Congress to pass the bill funding an expedition following the purchase of the Louisiana territory.
 
easiest way to get funding... cook up some crackpot idea to hold WWF matches in zero-G, then you'd have every ignorant redneck piece of crap throwing money at nasa's doorstep.

I'm exaggerating of course but the premise is sound. The common people of this country are overall stupid/lazy and if it's not directly entertaining them or helping them, they can't fathom why it would be important.
 
There's a yypo in the there:
"The Space Station was due to be brought back to Earth in 2016 in a spectacular fireball decent from its orbit."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descent?s=t
Yes, I feel bad for pointing it out.

The ISS is too political for most people. Competition between nations and agencies works better than cooperation, in my opinion. The moon missions wouldn't have happened if the Russians hadn't launched Sputnik. Let China build a moon base and see if someone else doesn't feel compelled to catch up. Or we can all start trying to learn Chinese now.
 
Poseur said:
There's a yypo in the there:
"The Space Station was due to be brought back to Earth in 2016 in a spectacular fireball decent from its orbit."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descent?s=t
Yes, I feel bad for pointing it out.

The ISS is too political for most people. Competition between nations and agencies works better than cooperation, in my opinion. The moon missions wouldn't have happened if the Russians hadn't launched Sputnik. Let China build a moon base and see if someone else doesn't feel compelled to catch up. Or we can all start trying to learn Chinese now.
Click to expand...

If China intends on building a moon base A) We'll build one before them B) Since the Defense budget is so bloated it wouldn't be that hard to justify C) But none of that will happen , China just landed their first rover on another solar body and its a massive leap to go from landing a small rover to landing large living modules and tons of supplies on the Moon. Not to mention the psychological effect it will have.

Its more likely we'll be on Mars before anyone builds a base on the Moon.
 
Wow I had no idea there was plans to even decommission it, now THAT would be a waste. Nice to see it's being extended.

When the time does come, instead of decommissioning it, they should just make it a tourist attraction. Make it so people can go live there for a couple weeks, I imagine that would have to cost a lot of money but I'm sure there is plenty of rich people that would do it.
 
Basic research and proof of concept projects are building blocks. the ISS does serve a useful purpose.

The part that disgusts me, is the fact that this is the first time the US has no way to send a person into orbit since 1960.


Guess we can hail a (Russian) cab...
 
Wonder what kind of expense/timeline we'd be looking at to boost iss to earth/moon L1 using vasimr or hipep. Probably a wacko idea, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top