Author Topic: International Space Station being shut down in 2016 AKA NASA retardedness  (Read 1091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hollywood

  • Member
Wow, ridiculous. Spend all this time and money over a decade just to shut it down?  ::)

Despite nearing completion after more than a decade of construction, and recently announcing some upcoming improvements to accompany its full crew of six astronauts, NASA plans to de-orbit the International Space Station in 2016. Meaning the station will have spent more time under construction than completed.

The fact that the ISS has already had $100 billion dumped into it over the years is reason for criticism over the proposed de-orbiting. Proponents of the extra-terrestrial shelter feel 2016 would be too soon to let the 700,000 pound craft crash into the Pacific Ocean. Critics against it say it wastes too much money with few tangible outcomes.

Many of the station's research programs have already been cut and the US Space Shuttle program is ending in 2010, which leaves few big-ticket programs left on the agenda (save for the station's yet-to-be-installed Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which searchers for dark- and anti-matter).

But don't count the ISS out yet--while 2016 is the currently planned decommissioning date, NASA says they're conducting a study about potentially extending the lifespan of the structure into the 2020's.

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/nasa-de-orbit-international-space-station-2016

 :maf :maf :maf :maf

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Remember that huge Super Collider we almost built? That was pretty awesome too.
©@©™

Bebpo

  • Senior Member
Are you fucking kidding me?

Now where am I going to get a job in 2020 :(

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
We live in space already.
vjj

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
ooh, and maybe chop people in half with swords made of solid light!

...not going to happen. Speed of light is a constant. In all likelihood, we're never getting off this rock. Which isn't such a bad thing, because it's the only vaguely habitable thing in a gazillion light years.

vjj

Bebpo

  • Senior Member
I seriously had this small dream that I would at least visit the station in my lifetime.

I'm very bummed about this news :(
Now I need to change that dream to visiting the moon colony.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
In Mass Effect, they discover alien ruins on Mars that gave them access to superlight freeways of space that can allow them to go above the speed of light and therefore bang blue chicks.

So we at least have to go as far as Mars.  It's our duty.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
well, we're going to need to go SOMEWHERE just to mine rare earth metals and such. We can't go on recycling them from old mobile phones for too long.
vjj

T-Short

  • hooker strangler
  • Senior Member
get your ass to mars

also, yeah, seems like they aren't expecting enough orbital correction flights after shuttle goes offline? Soyuz does these burns as well, but I doubt that they will double their flights to compensate. hehe
地平線

Bildi

  • AKA Bildo
  • Senior Member
We live in space already.

:rofl You fuckin' smartass.

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Why does the new NASA spaceship look just like Apollo?
PSP

ManaByte

  • I must hurry back to my comic book store, where I dispense the insults rather than absorb them.
  • Senior Member
Why does the new NASA spaceship look just like Apollo?

After Columbia NASA decided they would never build an orbiter that can be hit by falling debris during liftoff again.
CBG

T-Short

  • hooker strangler
  • Senior Member
Why does the new NASA spaceship look just like Apollo?

Well, the upper stages on both Ares I and V actually use an uprated Apollo engine, so they are sort of related!
地平線

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Why does the new NASA spaceship look just like Apollo?

After Columbia NASA decided they would never build an orbiter that can be hit by falling debris during liftoff again.

Why not just build more durable craft?  Going back to a 50-year-old design doesn't make too much sense!
PSP

ManaByte

  • I must hurry back to my comic book store, where I dispense the insults rather than absorb them.
  • Senior Member
Well unlike the Apollo capsules, the Orion is reusuable. It's also cheaper. It costs NASA millions every time they're forced to land the shuttle in CA.
CBG

Ganhyun

  • Used to worship Muckhole. Now worships Robo.
  • Senior Member
I want my Mars colony!
XDF