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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
After "Project BLUE BEAM" is completed the ISS will have finished its purpose and ultimate goal.

It will become more junk cluttering space




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by anonymouse876
 



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.


Or......

Put some more scientific instruments on it and send it straight into the Sun. Think of the knowledge we would learn before it is vaporized. I know it would take a little bit more money to alter it to fit a propulsion system on it but all it would really take is a rocket boost(to break orbit) then transition over to ion engines to coast into the Sun. Possible IMO...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by huntergatherer
 


Care to elaborate or source that theory of an ISS relationship to Bluebeam?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
What about a hotel? I know it sounds a bit expensive, but we are on the brink of that next step in space exploration. A new interest in space is starting to appear across the board, commercial applications are here already, indeed I believe that the second construction on the moon after the initial government funded base will be a hotel.

There are people with the kind of money you'd need, and they would pay. I'm not talking waiter service or minibars, but a basic small hotel. Not much at all in terms of luxury, the experience alone would be enough.

If the commercial sector fully entered space development, the growth would be amazing. Competition breeds results, the initial space race is proof of that. It is better now with more nations, but hundreds of companies offering travel, LEO experiences, the engineering companies, aeronautical, electronics etc, all competing together would really get things going. As with any new industry, it's expensive to begin with, but the costs will fall and soon. Look at planes, less complex I agree, but in one century, look where we are. Electronics, even faster, the computer Industry, faster again. Each advancement in each industry makes new ones grow faster than their predecessors.

I met a man who remembered everything from the introction of airplanes, tv, colour tv, jets, rockets, going to the moon, computers, the internet, he'd seen it all over the past eighty years. What an amazing set of transformations he must have seen and how the world must have changed in that time. Things are going to happen quickly, we'll see a lot of changes, it's going to be great.

Commercial applications of future technologies are going to be very interesting, anyone ever considered dilation of time theory? If that proves true, then there are very interesting times for our great grandkids.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


True, but that wouldn't be as entertaining. If NASA is gonna throw away a perfectly good space station, they should at least make it enjoyable.

Seriously though, isn't NASA gonna have to get permission from other countries to scrap their modules? If I had something invested in the ISS I'd want it back. Also, we JUST launched a shuttle mission to finish Japan's module, yet we're thinking of trashing it...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Is this a sick hoax??? it makes ZERO sense! When iw as a kid, i remember reading about NASA one day putting a space station PERMANENTLY up iin orbit..as early as 1986. Moreso, my father had this magazine book form the 1959 i used to read..it wa full of color artist conceptions of NASA and the future...colonizing mars, space stations galore in orbit! Kinda stuff yuode see in movies like enemy mine, aliens, event horizon, ect.
Now, to just let it simply de orbit and bunr up, and after hubdreds of billions of dolars invested in it? I think NASSA is huritng bad with money....thats my theory.
The dream of a lifetime with unpresidented investments, is simply gunna become jnothing more than aluminum landfill? Thats why i say its a hoax..or NASA is in fact, hiring poeple who half passed advacned mathematics and are barely capable of tieing their own shoelaces.. i dunno



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Just a theory that works in my conspiratorial thinking.

Nothing much is said about the ISS.

Lots of money spent and international cooperation for supposed space experiments



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
That's ridiculous. There was so much commotion over this thing wile i was growing up, constantly "when will it be done"? I mean, they have barely finished the thing, they have been lugging new labs up for years, and they wont even give it more then a 15 year lifespan?

seems like it served as nothing more then a temporary hotel and docking station before astronauts head to... nowhere.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I have the perfect junkyard solution.
Attach rockets to it and send it into outer space like they intend to do
to future galaxy questers.
It will probable come back at greater speed but who cares, it will burn up
faster if it meets the Earth again.


ED: Just thinking as I read a few posts above. Renovate the space station.
The blowing up and rebuilding Illuminati option is not doable here.


[edit on 7/21/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


To send the ISS into the sun would need a massive amount fuel. Essentially it would be required to loose all the Earths orbital velocity relative to the sun. Probably would require a dedicated space programme to do that in itself.



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!

Remember, the moon orbits the earth, for a spaceship to orbit the moon but not the Earth would simply be impossible. Additionally, getting to the moon over many orbits would not be any more fuel efficient than getting to the moon in a single orbit.

Trans Lunar Injection (How to get to the moon).
en.wikipedia.org...

The ISS weighs 303,663 kg, to get that into lunar orbit would require amazing amounts of energy.


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.

Even with the moons low gravity, there is still an orbital velocity of over 6,000 kilometres per hour. To land you would require all that to be lost, bearing in mind the ISS weighs 303,663kg. Then you have a 303,663kg object accelerating at 1.63ms^-2, towards a rocky surface, with nothing to slow it down except retro rockets with massive amounts of fuel, which makes it even harder to get to the moon. Unrealistic.

[edit on 24/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
[edit on 24-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by huntergatherer
Lots of money spent and international cooperation for supposed space experiments

Supposed? Nothing much is said about ISS because space travel isn't as popular as it once was, but there's nothing fake about the experiments ongoing at the ISS. Here's just a tiny bit of the publications that came directly from experiments on the station:

Chiao L, Sharipov S, Sargsyan AE, Melton S, Hamilton DR, McFarlin K, Dulchavsky SA. Ocular examination for trauma; clinical ultrasound aboard the International Space Station. Journal of Trauma. 2005 ;58(5):885-889.

Fincke EM, Padalka G, Lee D, van Holsbeeck M, Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Martin D, Melton SL, McFarlin K, Dulchavsky SA. Evaluation of Shoulder Integrity in Space: First Report of Musculoskeletal US on the International Space Station. Radiology. 2005 ;234(2):319-322.

Foale CM, Kaleri AY, Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Melton S, Margin D, Dulchavsky SA. Diagnostic instrumentation aboard ISS: just in time training for non-physician crewmembers. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2005 ;76:594-598.

Link BM, Durst SJ, Zhou W, Stankovic B. Seed-to-seed growth of Arabidopsis Thaliana on the International Space Station. Advances in Space Research. 2003 ;31(10):2237-2243.

Zhou W, Durst SJ, DeMars M, Stankovic B, Link BM, Tellez G, Meyers RA, Sandstrom PW, Abba JR. Performance of the Advanced ASTROCULTURETM plant growth unit during ISS-6A/7A mission. SAE Technical Paper Series. 2002 ;Paper # 02ICES-267.

Zhou W. Advanced AstrocultureTM Plant Growth Unit: Capabilities and Performances. 35th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Rome, Italy. Jul 11 - 14, 2005 .

Berisio R, Vitagliano L, Vergara A, Sorrentino G, Mazzarella L, Zagari A. Crystallization of the collagen-like polypeptide (PPG)10 aboard the International Space Station. 2. Comparison of crystal quality by X-ray diffraction. Acta Crystallographica, Section D, Biological Crystallography. 2002 ;58:1695-1699.

Castagnolo D, Piccolo C, Carotenuto L, Vegara A, Zagari A. Crystalization of the collagen-like polypeptide (PPG)10 aboard the International Space Station. 3. Analysis of residual acceleration-induced motion. Acta Crystallographica, Section D, Biological Crystallography. 2003 ;59(pt4):773-776.

Vergara A, Corvino E, Sorrentino G, Piccolo C, Tortora A, Caritenuto L, Mazzarella L, Zagari A. Crystallization of the collagen-like polypeptide (PPG)10 aboard the International Space Station. 1. Video observation. Acta Crystallographica, Section D, Biological Crystallography. 2002 ;58:1690-1694.

That's a lot of scientists who'd have to be putting out a whole lot of bull, all without a single whistleblower. Scientists who fake their data get found out sooner or later, especially if their whole career is based on it, and especially if they're doing things like growing protein crystals that will be compared to earth-based samples. In total, there have been 198 scientific publications to come out of ISS. My entire institute, which is a couple years older than expedition 1, has produced half as many publications despite a far more narrow focus and a far higher amount of time to dedicate to science versus upkeep.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
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?!


The whole thing was just a Reagan era pork barrel project to pump money into aerospace firms and keep the white collar Welfare game rolling. It makes sense for national security, too. Don't want a bunch of brainiacs selling their rocket building skills to, oh, North Korea, do we?

The amount of useful science it could do would never make up for the costs, even after the plan was downgraded several times and Russia and the other countries involved stuck the U.S. with most of the construction costs.

Oh, well. Maybe China will build one.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by jkrog08
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?!


The whole thing was just a Reagan era pork barrel project to pump money into aerospace firms and keep the white collar Welfare game rolling. It makes sense for national security, too. Don't want a bunch of brainiacs selling their rocket building skills to, oh, North Korea, do we?

The amount of useful science it could do would never make up for the costs, even after the plan was downgraded several times and Russia and the other countries involved stuck the U.S. with most of the construction costs.

Oh, well. Maybe China will build one.


Reagan Era? The ISS was announced in 1993 and the first peice was launched in 1998. The money invested has continued through that time, even with the current leadership.

[edit on 25/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I believe that what you are seeing happen, Shuttle, Space Station, Even the F-22 maybe more cancellations are the result of successful US black programs that will render all the above obsolete. I also believe it is the reason our efforts for Orion are very lack luster. Orion is simply a cover program until they are ready to let the world see what they have done.

I only have hearsay evidence from my years in the USAF and some family that worked for various Contractors over the years to point to for my speculation.

It would not be black if I could link it!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
I believe that what you are seeing happen, Shuttle, Space Station, Even the F-22 maybe more cancellations are the result of successful US black programs that will render all the above obsolete.

Pretty darn evil to keep launching astronauts on the deathtrap that is the shuttle if they're on the verge of releasing this amazing tech far beyond anything we've seen, don't you think? That's one reason why I don't believe such a thing exists; no astronaut would be risking his or her life and wasting their career (especially the scientists on board) if it was just to keep the lid on more advanced technology, especially since we already lost two crews, and anyone who let them die for it is just pure evil.

The station is being decommissioned in 7-10 years because it'll be past its intended lifespan at that point, and continuing to fly it past that point is just asking for disaster, much like the many close calls on MIR (truly a miracle no one died before they finally brought it down). Constellation is taking so long because NASA doesn't have the money it needs to go at full pace, and in fact our President may or may not decide to continue the mission beyond low earth orbit. I seriously doubt it's because they some super-secret way to get the same job done for almost nothing and absolutely no risk, it's a simple matter of politics. We won't be making it to the moon within one President's term limit, so our current President has no political motivation to make it happen; he wouldn't be around to see political benefit from any success, his successor would. I've long thought that's why Constellation is doomed to be cut back or cut out altogether.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I had a plan to visit the station. ... this year

I already contacted the space adventures company that provides mission 2 the space station.

I can't believe the station will de - orbit in 2016. What a waste of money, the money could be used on better stuff.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by 2Unknown]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I am suspecting, and have been so for a long time that the space stations main purpose is to test weapons in space. Weapons like lasers. I am not joking;

The solar arrays generate enough power for using it for a laser shooting down on rocks.

If this whole 2012 thing is true, then the space station will serve as a home for people up there?!!........

But However, Russia will build a new space station called

Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex after the decommission of ISS in 2020. The main purpose of the new station will be deep exploration to mars...

So i dont know who said it will de orbit in as early as in 2016!!



[edit on 19-8-2009 by 2Unknown]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join