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.

 

NASA to junk space station in 2016

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
After spending 100 billion on a space station which has orbited since 1998... NASA is planning to deorbit and let it burn in 2016...

I mean wth? That's 5.5 billion a year just to let it burn? Not including the maintenance costs...

NASA to junk space station in 2016

Can't they just let it float around up there?

[edit on 15-7-2009 by postmeme]




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
THis makes perfect sense to me.

NASA has been acting like a retard since 1969. With the exception of VERY few missions, they have completely waisted their time and our money. So as far as NASA is concerned: WHY start acting smart now?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by postmeme
 


You would think that they could add some new technology, reinforce the outer shell somehow (lead paint? :lol
and add those new ion drives over the next 6 years, then move it to an orbit around the moon as a base of operations instead of letting it simply burn up..

It seems a pretty big waste if you ask me..

This almost proves to me that the ISS is only the tip of the iceberg of the space technology that is available to the worlds bigger governments.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It cant float forever, it is always under the effects of gravity which causes the orbit to deteriorate even today the station performs "orbital boosts" everytime a shuttle or progress cargo vehicle arrives. And to place it in orbit forever would need the computerized systems to work on forever, but as we know, all systems deteriorate and eventually fail which might endanger the crew if they are in it(recollect mir). So, in my opinion, it is the right thing to do.

But the russians have some other plans for the ISS, provided it is approved.

I made a thread about it some time back; but no one noticed it.

You can go through it here




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
That does seem like a horrible waste, and as you mentioned, why not let it stay in orbit, theres plenty of other stuff floating around up there.

Does NASA envision themselves as being advanced enough in 2016 to throw away all that work because we have these plans to put a base on the moon as a replacement or something? I don't see that happening, honest.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by JKersteJr]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
All things must end.
Mir

Skylab


No one ever thought it would be up there forever. From 2007:

The level of interest among non-NASA agencies to use the ISS could ultimately decide how long the space station remains in operation beyond its current 2016 design lifetime, they added.

"Technically, the space station could fly to 2020 or 2022," Gerstenmaier said, adding that a decision on whether to extend the station's lifetime would have to be made around 2014. "What really drives the practical lifetime of the space station is how useful it is and does it fit a niche."

www.foxnews.com...

[edit on 7/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by postmeme
 


What a waste, so it costs one tenth of a TRILLION dollars to get only 17 years use of that money, with the full station only just completed?! NASA is quickly becoming a joke in my opinion, they have little direction and apparently all of their PhDs came from a Cracker Jack box as they are constantly having issues with nominal things like measurement systems, losing plans on how to build a Lunar capable spacecraft, and a constant showing of de-evolution in space progress in my opinion.

NASA knew they would eventually have to do this(like they do everything else), but they still pumped all that money into the station when they probably could have taken a much more economic approach to this temporary station. Instead they go all out, but hey what is 100 billion dollars?

It seems that after the shuttles came out NASA has gone down hill in a big hurry. I hope they get their stuff together soon or the USA will be about 3rd or 4th on the totem poll of space exploration. This just goes to show you that no real space exploration may be possible until the world stops being dependent on incentive based monetary systems that have taken over ambition and the innate curiosity we as a species have, or used to anyways.

I really hope there is some truth to the "secret space fleet" rumors(which I think there is but that is another thread,lol) because if not then NASA is all we have and wow, that would be bad news if they keep this up.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I have an idea on how to expand the space station at a fraction of the cost of building it in the first place. Now I don't know if anyone else has thought of this but......
Orion is set to fly to the ISS as a resupply vehicle / personell carrier in the mid 2010's. The Ares Rocket system has a version for low earth orbit and another version for moon/mars missions and NASA plans to use this vehicle to build a permanently manned moon base.
For the purpose of this thread lets concentrate on the low earth orbit version.
OK. This is where I think NASA is putting too much emphasis on a moon base straight up and needs to put more emphasis on bang for your buck (I'm Australian.)
Lets say in 6 or seven years time NASA launches Orion to the ISS. At the top of this monster new rocket (compared to Saturn series) they have a tiny metal upside down martini glass with the bottom broken off with 4 to 6 astronauts inside. More efficient than a massive rocket with a round nosed airplane bolted to the side (the shuttles design is for drag to slow it down on re-entry, so how bout the drag on the going up phase?) so therfore less fuel.
So what can we do with the saved fuel? I know! Lets put more gear on!
How about a cylinder with a 30 degee taper on each end with tapered flanges that keep the whole thing like a conventional pipe cut off at 90 degrees that sits OVER the orion capsule? Take off the flanges in space and put an airlock in the middle to attach it to the current ISS. The outside could have removable panels to attach life support units or waste filtration units or solar arrays. (Make them plug in to the same socket like LEGO tm)
It would have to be plugged at each end to make it habitable, the plugs could be reused as more sections get bolted on. Eventually you get a toroidal shape withe the ISS attached to the inner side like an embryo attached to the inside of a womb.
Once the superstructure is up there and the life support etc are in place you could attach a solar panel to each module and make it like a giant sunflower. Use any excess power to rotate the station to simualate gravity and soon enough you have a kind of shallow space nine. (or one). You could cut each module off the ISS that gets superceded without sending a massive object into the atmosphere.
Once the new station is complete send up enough sections for a moon version. Move each section to orbit using Ares and build to same specs, send up more radiation sheilding and putter off to the moon. The Apollo guys got there in a few days, what does it matter if it takes a few months to get there? Save on fuel!
Once in luna orbit Ares Heavy lifter seems expensive. Ares low earth orbiter to ISS, ISS to Luna space 9 at a lower speed, luna space 9 to infinity and beyond.
There's only one question I haven't got an answer for.....Am I nuts?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JKersteJr
, why not let it stay in orbit,

The orbit would naturally deteriorate anyways and to leave it would mean it would become a junk-hazard in space for all the stuff we really need up there like weather and military and communications sattilites.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
For the moon version boost it a bit on each orbit so that eventually it breaks orbit and gets slingshot to the moon. Only use a fraction of the fuel? NASA, I'm free to work weekends!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JKersteJr
, why not let it stay in orbit,

The orbit would naturally deteriorate anyways and to leave it would mean it would become a junk-hazard in space for all the stuff we really need up there like weather and military and communications sattilites.


I understand it's gonna deteriorate and eventually must be retired, I guess if I was an astronaut I wouldn't be too thrilled about spending extended periods of time in something that is decades old out there.

However, would it really become that much of a hazard to satellites considering the "sea" of junk already out there?

A 1999 study estimated there are some 4 million pounds of space junk in low-Earth orbit, just one part of a celestial sea of roughly 110,000 objects larger than 1 centimeter -- each big enough to damage a satellite or space-based telescope.

Space.com



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by platoman
 


I like your idea but do you have a viable plan to stop the decaying orbit? Also do you have a plan to push it to the Moon?

[edit on 7/16/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 



But what does Suffredini really think? As he told the Augustine Commission, "My opinion is it would be a travesty to de-orbit this thing."

www.universetoday.com...

Well said and I can't agree more. At least someone in NASA seems to be thinking straight,lol. Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I say “Send it to the moon”. Seeing as it cost a truck load of money to send stuff to the moon why not send something that is already up there. Why trash it when we can recycle it? We could use it when we get there and even if it crashed with the moons low gravity and a few retro rockets it could be put on the moon in one piece, more or less. When they get around to building the moon base someday they will have a big pile of building material there waiting on them. It would not take a whole lot to get it there if done right. Just put it in a higher orbit and let it get higher each time. After a hundred or some orbits it could be let free to go to the moon. Who cares how long it takes to get there. In fact the slower the better. The slower it impacts the more you have to recycle when you get there. There is better ideas out there I am sure but this sure beats the crap out of just trashing it in a fireball. As for that matter send it to Mars. If it was put in high orbit over Mars it could be used if we every get there. Anything beats burning it up.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by fixer1967]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by postmeme
 


Mind that its not NASAs station...

ARE you sure?
The Russians and the Europeans do have a say at this too.
I think its unlikely...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
NASA needs to get the chipmunks out of the wheelhouse. Even if it wouldn't serve as a research station, it could be used for something else. Radioactive/biological storage, perhaps? Stopover between Earth and the moon/Mars? Burning that expensive hunk of metal is just a waste.

Actually, since NASA wants to bomb the moon (another stupid idea), why don't we just aim the ISS at that? At least let 'er go out with a bang.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by platoman
 


- ive read that half a dozen times and still cannot work it out.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by anonymouse876
 


YeS!

What a thought!

After turning this place into a complete dying junkjard, why not waste what's allover too? After all we don't care! Do we?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join