It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The International Space Station

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Hi,
How many of you remember the International Space Station or there for still care for its existence.I was watching a documentary with astronaut andy thomas from 1998 on cable and there where so many comments about how positive its creation would be and how much benifet it would bring in regards to reasearch.I mean dont get me wrong they have no doubt done an extensive amount of work up there but do you belive its more feasible to just scrap the whole thing and poor that money back into the space program for lets say the proposed "moon hub".Theyre was someone from the russian space agency at the time saying it would cost no more than $20 billion dollars to put together but that no doubt has skyrocketed by know. Anyone know what the current cost is.Another us astronaut saying it would cost americans no more than $1 each in regards to tax payers dollars. i mean WTF.


so please share your thoughts


[edit on 5-5-2006 by tarzan]




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I do not believe that having or not having the ISS on orbit would make a bit of difference to anything we do in the future in the US space program. With that said, I guess it would be fine with me either way they went.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
well I dunno, but I just read another post in here & part of it caught my attention, about the MIR space station & the amont of Space Mold that was in it, causing it to stink & finally being abandoned ( for whatever reasons we were given ). Anyway, I did a Google search on MIR Mold, is fascinating. I think I'd be reluctant to go live up there amongst the "space mold".



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Is this space fungus you are refering to?Because i found some articles but no pics.Has any of this mold/fungus been analysed?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
not sure, just found out about it. Did you Google it up & find some stuff
about it?



here's where I went, a couple of pictures.....very obscure thou

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Figjam]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The mold did not originate in space, it's brought aboard on the skin or interior of astronauts. It's on clothing and equipment that comes to the station and in the station components themselves.

I heard that MIR got pretty bad after a while and that ISS is better maintained to minimize molds and fungi from growing. Sorry I don't have a reference, but I read that the interior surfaces are wiped down with a type of wetnap that prevents it's growth.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
How do you see where a thread is tagged so if you put a tag on you're not duplicating what's already there?

And... I BROUGHT THIS THREAD BACK TO LIFE!!! (however briefly)



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Why not use it to build a space craft? Something pretty big that wouldn't actually land but would be a vehicle of sorts



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sepryo
Why not use it to build a space craft? Something pretty big that wouldn't actually land but would be a vehicle of sorts


Now you're getting back to what the original intent was (one of them, at least). In the Ride document that suggested the path forward for space exploration, one suggestion was that the station (which was supposed to be much bigger in this concept) was to be an on-orbit vehicle assembly station. That way the shuttle could take up smaller components of a much larger vehicle and it be assembled on orbit. This would create the ability to launch a far more massive vehicle from orbit than could be practically launched from the surface of the Earth, and eliminate the tremendous fuel/rocket requirements the ground launch would need.

[edit on 5-18-2006 by Valhall]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Don't see why it couldn't happen, sounds alot more viable than trying to build an interplanetary ship on Earth & then trying to get it into space, that kind of energy would be a waste in my opinion.

Competition is all that's really needed, then we'd see someone going for something like that for sure. At the moment, as I've said before, it's the americans & the chinese that look like the most likely candidates. europe are a bit more blase about it in my opinion, sure they'd love to be the first to get there but they're not going to rush anything.

Trial & error, get up there & try stuff out, don't sit down here thinking about it. Jazz the station up a bit, expand it at least 4 fold & start experimenting, forget how plants react to 0 g, dedicate it to developing propulsion etc. whatever else they need

Can't expect to build something so far from the environment it's to be used in & expect to make decent progress. Have to test in real conditions not simulated. Simulated never has the variables.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I remember, and still care very much. Personally I think the Hubble should be connected to the ISS, via detachable/reattachable telerobotic interface.

It would be a match, made in the heavens.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
As Nasa recently celebrated another anniversary of space exploration what are people's thoughts amidst the financial crisis if the International Space Station still warrant's further funding?

Let's discuss Nasa's participation in the ISS.

Whilst its said that NASA's budget represents a very small fraction of the US budget as opposed to the high point of the Apollo program where it made up a more substantial amount.

Should NASA simply just scrap further flights to the station and begin to divert funds into the Constellation program?

Most recently the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was pushed back from being launched in 2008 to 2009 and there is discussion of the Mars Science Laboratory being cancelled or delayed.

Since it may not be feasible to continue with both programs simultaneously without some sort of cutback.


[edit on 8-10-2008 by tarzan]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarzan
As Nasa recently celebrated another anniversary of space exploration what are people's thoughts amidst the financial crisis if the International Space Station still warrant's further funding?

Considering that the station is so close to being completed with all of the hardware already built and just the last pieces waiting to fly, I can't imagine abandoning it now. That's like quitting a marathon 25 miles in. Not only would it be throwing away millions already invested in the hardware sitting on the ground, it would be a breech of contract with other nations who helped us build it. If we ever hope to collaborate with other space programs in the future we must follow through as best we can now.


Should NASA simply just scrap further flights to the station and begin to divert funds into the Constellation program?

No for the above reasons, plus it would lengthen the gap of time where we as a nation will have no manned launchers in operation. The funds for the final shuttle flights are largely already committed with hardware built, external tanks being readied, astronaut training being completed, etc. Whatever funds you could divert would be a drop in the bucket and at this point throwing money at the problem will not bring Ares I online significantly sooner.


Most recently the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was pushed back from being launched in 2008 to 2009

Which had NOTHING to do with money or budget issues. It was simply a trading of places with an Air Force launch to relieve schedule pressure and provide more launch opportunities later.


and there is discussion of the Mars Science Laboratory being cancelled or delayed.

Cost over-run, granted, but it can't compare with maintaining some kind of manned presence in space for as long as possible to honor our committments to friendly nations.


Since it may not be feasible to continue with both programs simultaneously without some sort of cutback.

If they could stick to budget and not go over significantly it wouldn't be a problem.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
i.usatoday.net...

A time lapse recreation of the assembly of the international space station over the years since '98 Very cool graphics.

Wake up dead thread!





...I don't even feel a pulse


[edit on 11-3-2010 by rusethorcain]



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Wake up dead thread!

...I don't even feel a pulse


[edit on 11-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

In an attempt to do my part to awaken the thread, here's my take on the ISS...

I never thought the ISS would be a huge benefit to Mankind -- i.e., I doubt its usefulness as something that would affect our everyday lives through "zero-g manufacturing" or things like that.

However, it is a very useful and invaluable tool for teach humans how to live and work in space. The lessons we learned by simply constructing the ISS in orbit and the methods we utilize to simply live there are lessons we could never learn any other way.

If humans ever want to venture to Mars (and eventually beyond), the knowledge we acquired simply by building the ISS and living there will be essential.

With the ISS, it was the journey (the construction) that is the important thing; not so much the destination (the finished product).



[edit on 3/12/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Personally I think the Hubble should be connected to the ISS, via detachable/reattachable telerobotic interface.

It would be a match, made in the heavens.


But that would not be possible. The ISS is at 51.6 degrees orbit and hubble is at 26 degrees orbit. And also, hubble is at a higher altitude of around 350 miles than the 220 miles of the ISS. And, in order to change the inclination by one degree itself would take lots of rocket power. And hubble does not have any rockets attached. A shuttle has to go and attach it. And that would necessitate a shuttle launch to hubble which is not possible since the shuttle is due to retire this year with only 3 flights remaining. If I remember correctly during last years servicing mission, the astronauts also installed a device that would give kill hubble and command it to enter earth.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join