Nasa Says ISS Coming Down in 2016

[Firehead2k]

The ISS was never intended for staying up there for a long time. One of the main puposes was to research getting stuff in and out of space, research on prolonged exposure to space, etc. All done in order to eventually build something bigger and better.
Although decomissioning it in 2016 would be a shame, it will eventually outlive it's usefullness...

 

[Detson]

NASA exists to subsidize American aerospace, and to encourage kids to pursue a career in the sciences with the promise of a job post-graduation. There seems to be 2 NASAS, one concerned with legitimate research, and the other pandering to the public with this manned spaceflight garbage. Until we invent some magical vehicle to get the cost to orbit down, everything except probes and satellites are expensive boondoggles.

 

[baov]

that's 4 years after the end of the world!

 

[nukemaster]

This is indeed a colossal waste of money. All that work getting it up there and then just drop it? why not just let it orbit for a few years and see if the money comes in.

As for hitching a 50mil ride into space, next time get you new ships ready before getting rid of the old ones. Was that such a hard concept?

As for money, this should not have been a issue, this is bigger then all of us(getting into space).

 

[10tacle]

[citation][nom]daimerous[/nom]NASA sucks. They waste hundreds of billions of dollars each year. And what gets me is that NASA is a privately owned. It is not part of our government, and yet tax dollars are spent to support it.[/citation]

Huh daimerous? NASA is most certainly an agency of the US government. NASA.gov ring a bell? Maybe you are confusing private contractors that do work for NASA. Geeze dude, fact much?

 

[Guest]

kevin parrish needs to be fired asap.

 

[pythy]

Should get Richard Branson to buy the ISS and use it in conjunction with his Virgin Galactic business. Maybe do a bit of renovation and turn it into a billion star hotel!!

 

[Darkk]

NASA needs to be commercialized via corporate sponsorships. Look what it did for NASCAR racing and other sports. Alot of technology was developed and trickled down to consumer products.

So I wouldn't mind if the space shuttle look like a NASCAR car before launch. It shows companies believe in the spirit of innovation and new technologies. Also much needed cash for NASA to keep things going.

 

[stevo777]

lol, this is just the "Hubble" strategy. They said they wouldn't work on Hubble and that was just so they could get more money for it. The ISS will still be running well into the 2020's.

 

[Guest]

This Michael Suffrendini guy (NASA space station program manager) is just one man talking. He does not set NASA space station policy. He is just a program manager, and his job will disappear once the program is finished.

Anyway, the ISS DOES NOT belong to the US. It belongs to the dozen of countries who contributed to its hardware. The US does not even has exclusive rights to enter or stay in the station, nor solely control its operations. The same international team does, and their rights and ownership of the ISS is set out in a treaty. That makes it the Congress who has the final say in the US portion of the ISS. But that portion is only about 50% - the other 50% owned by other countries. If the US no longer want anything to do with the ISS, other owners will simply buy up the US share. And the Russian and French are more than able to get up there with their own crafts and operate the ISS.

 

[jdog2076]

[citation][nom]newbie_mcnoob[/nom]If they found oil on Mars we would have a colony there in a heartbeat.[/citation]

You understand that it would take exponentially more energy to transport that oil back to earth than could ever be gotten out of the oil itself?

 

[fans 6]

what the fuck is this? billions of taxpayer dolalrs to waist!!!! we could have been on fucking mars if we didn't waist money on this.

 

[hattermadattea]

"throwing away years of progress and taxpayer money"

sorry, but that bugs me... they are throwing technology/equipment paid for by taxpayer money/invenstments, not taxpayer money.. (unless nasa elected to keep bags of us taxpayer money on the ISS?)

 

[eddieroolz]

The biggest waste of money yet!

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]jdog2076[/nom]You understand that it would take exponentially more energy to transport that oil back to earth than could ever be gotten out of the oil itself?[/citation]

*facepalm*

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]Jokemeister[/nom]NASA seem to be very good at burning up lots of money.[/citation]

You seem to be forgetting something.
This is billions and billios of dollar being invested in both space fliggt and modern technology. The fact that we get a big shiny space is just an awesome bonus.

This will survive past 2015 because the masses will want it to, so funding will somehow be found.

 

[ossie]

Deja-vu: reminds me of Skylab...
And these clowns (nasa) are pretending to prepare to get (again?) to the moon?
Wait, they're busy burning taxpayer money to promote AGW (ueber-clown Hansen)... it's much more lucrative, especially in view of more government imposed taxes.

[citation][nom]michaelahess[/nom]Greg_77, every space flight beyond our orbit needs to be slingshot, not exactly a new thing.[/citation]
Partially correct, but with help from a third (high mass) space object. Look up "angular moment"... then you might get it.
To evade the gravitational field of earth, you need to attain at least the first cosmic speed by own propulsion means.

 

[dwhapham]

The ISS was a colossal waste of money and resources in the first place. We could have easily gone to Mars or began creating a colony on the mooon with 100 billion dollars. Even so, bringing the station down only a couple years after it's been completed is probably the dumbest things I've yet heard to come out of Nasa. I feel like we are slowly being lead back into the dark ages of space travel...

 

[doc70]

That goes to show you that NASA, as a Government agency, has no future. After all the money and effort put into something to just diss it out is completely irresponsible.
Maybe Sir Branson could take over and move on ISS, that would be cool...

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]On a second thought, even if we'd just abandon station,and let it rotate around the earth like the moon, it'd cost us next to nothing.Bring in some plants and perhaps one could use it as a bio plant in space!But even if we'd just abandon the station,and leave it for the next generation, that'd probably be the wisest thing to do.Just make sure it'snot going to fall into orbit with earth,and everything will be ok.[/citation]

you don't know much about orbiting objects , the space station wont just "stay" in orbit , being a smaller orbiting body it's orbit would eventualy decay and fall tot eh earth if unattended any way , bassically ending with the same result (or worse if it isnt forced into a controlled decay and strikes something other than teh ocean)

point being it's eitehr keep giving it maintance and fuel to keep it in orbit or force it down in a controlled manner , the only regretable thing is thye arnt going to sue it much before doing so