The cynical person inside of me says of course they want to get rid of it. Once it's "completed" there's no more money for the contractors, so they'll naturally want to get rid of it in favour of a new boondoggle.

Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

I wonder what the international partners will have to say about this.

They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

Can't they just send it out into space for a Klingon battle cruiser to blow it up as target practice in 2384 or something?

7of7: They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

this. its a well known tactic- shut down something visible and popular. NASA *could* manage to take funding cuts (or lack of funding increase) from other, not quite so popular areas, but this should get the message across to congress that they don't think their funding is adequate.

there's no way that space station is coming down. I don't care how big our recession is.

NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

I_C_Weener: NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

7of7: They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

That's, um, apples and, I don't know, Volkswagens...

While it's true that NASA has trouble sticking to deadlines this has absolutely nothing to do with why the Mars rovers are still in operation. Their expected lifespan was 90 days. The fact that they're still running more than five years later is a testament to how well they were built.
Now, if you want to talk about missed deadlines, we can discuss innumerable missed shuttle launches or even the next robot to go to Mars, the MSL.
Spirit and Opportunity, on the other hand, are two shining success stories.

Pre-emptive garbleblocker.

Alacritous: Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

timujin: Spirit and Opportunity, on the other hand, are two shining success stories.

Exactly. They had completely arbitrary deadlines and when it became obvious the deadlines were arbitrary NASA extended them. The same will happen to the ISS.

7of7: Exactly. They had completely arbitrary deadlines and when it became obvious the deadlines were arbitrary NASA extended them. The same will happen to the ISS.

Ah, I see the problem, you don't understand what the word "deadline" means and are trying to apply it where it doesn't fit.

/hint: expected lifespan != deadline

Bored Horde: Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

the only thing that might be feasible for them is asteroid mining and that's a long way off. other than that there's not much out there for them.

ninjakirby: Pre-emptive garbleblocker.

Alacritous: Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

We're only spending about $375 on education? Whoa, no wonder our children isn't learning.

timujin: /hint: expected lifespan != deadline

Call it what you want. The 2016 date is arbitrary.

Although, I think the scientists at NASA would mutiny if they were to actually try and deorbit the thing that early. That might be fun to watch.

TFA: This, at least, is NASA's plan, pending a change in policy. There's no long-term funding on the books for international space station operations beyond 2015.

In other words: This isn't NASA's fault. They want funding. And I can think of no other program short of feeding the hungry that's more important than NASA.

I_C_Weener: NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

I think that space tourism companies would be happy to buy the station and convert it into a hotel and/or laboratory.

7of7: Call it what you want. The 2016 date is arbitrary.

Actually, it's not arbitrary. NASA has funding for the IIS through 2015, so they have to put a plan in to deorbit in 2016, otherwise we're just left with another piece of space junk. In order to continue using the IIS, congress will have to approve funding.
While this may seem like a money grab or posturing on NASA's part, it's really just SOP. Without that guarantee of funding, they have to have their next steps laid out, anything else would be irresponsible.

timujin: Actually, it's not arbitrary. NASA has funding for the ISS through 2015

Fiiiine, just stop yelling at me, jerk. My point is that this will be shown in the media as though NASA is just planning to get rid of the ISS in 2016 when that's almost certainly not going to happen.

7of7: timujin: Actually, it's not arbitrary. NASA has funding for the ISS through 2015

Fiiiine, just stop yelling at me, jerk. My point is that this will be shown in the media as though NASA is just planning to get rid of the ISS in 2016 when that's almost certainly not going to happen.

So NASA has to stop planning for all eventualities to stave off negative press? Engineering always gets bad press for perfectly normal industry practices, so fark it.

a prominent critic of human spaceflight, physicist Robert L. Park

What kind of douche is a 'critic of human spaceflight'? Shutup douche, getting off this rock is going to essential to our survival as a species someday.

7of7: Call it what you want. The 2016 date is arbitrary.

It's my understanding that everyone involved had to build things to last until 2016, and not plan on them being up there any later. Since NASA didn't build every part, there's a lot more contractors involved to check with, and a lot more parts to test and confirm than in a smaller project.

Also if they screw it up, 6 lives are on the line. Yeah, we might be pissed about the ISS being deorbited, but if it exploded (or worst yet crashed into a populated area) I bet we'd be even more pissed.

Not to say funding isn't a part of it, but there are other reasons that have to be considered as well.

pnjunction: a prominent critic of human spaceflight, physicist Robert L. Park

What kind of douche is a 'critic of human spaceflight'? Shutup douche, getting off this rock is going to essential to our survival as a species someday.

Why? It's been good to us for the past 6000 years, hasn't it?

Bored Horde: pnjunction: a prominent critic of human spaceflight, physicist Robert L. Park

What kind of douche is a 'critic of human spaceflight'? Shutup douche, getting off this rock is going to essential to our survival as a species someday.

Why? It's been good to us for the past 6000 years, hasn't it?

It was good to the dinosaurs for a long time too.

That agency has become about 95% public relations, about 5% science, and 100% bureaucratically inefficient. Time to completely obliterate it, get rid of the staff, and start from scratch.

bronyaur1: That agency has become about 95% public relations, about 5% science, and 100% bureaucratically inefficient. Time to completely obliterate it, get rid of the staff, and start from scratch.

Really 95%? I had no idea they had 19 PR people for every engineer over there, outrageous!

FTFA: "Give it to China. Let them support the damn thing."

Well they did pay for it to begin with.

GooberMcFly: FTFA: "Give it to China

In thousands of little fiery pieces.

Maybe someday NASA can take a whack at building a space station that isn't disposable.

Bored Horde: Why? It's been good to us for the past 6000 years, hasn't it?

And it will be good to us for the next 27 years, until the kilometer-wide asteroid Apophis slams into us.

pnjunction: What kind of douche is a 'critic of human spaceflight'? Shutup douche, getting off this rock is going to essential to our survival as a species someday.

Usually scientists and physicists that know the math.

Getting off this planet requires technology far beyond our space canoes (reliable, light, high-power energy sources for one (which is useful ELSEWHERE)). You don't learn how to build Nimitz class carriers by continuing to navigate the Mississippi on a raft.

It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

impaler: Getting off this planet requires technology far beyond our space canoes (reliable, light, high-power energy sources for one (which is useful ELSEWHERE)). You don't learn how to build Nimitz class carriers by continuing to navigate the Mississippi on a raft.

Yes it does, and the space station can be used to perform research in the area. We didn't get Nimitz class carriers by sinking our first canoe and giving up.

ninjakirby: Pre-emptive garbleblocker.

Alacritous: Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

Word to your mother. Killing the ISS after so much time and investment, and while it still has so much potential, makes so little sense that the idea alone should create a singularity of stupid in the head of whoever thought it up.

It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

Sure, though you could argue that neither would be what they are today without their use in the space program. Here, though, is a very short list of some of the things we have thanks to the manned space program (I left out things we'd have gotten from solely robotic missions):

- Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.

- Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.

- Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure oxygen for patients.

- Fire-fighting systems that battle blazes with a fine mist, rather than environmentally harmful chemicals.

- Sunglasses that block certain types of light - blue, violet, and ultraviolet - that could hurt the eyes. These sunglasses block the hazardous light, while allowing light that is good for vision to pass through the lens.

- Air filtration systems that can kill all types of harmful bacteria - even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better than 90 percent efficiency.

- Water purification methods using ions (an atom or group of atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge). Used in water filtering systems to remove lead, chlorine, bad taste and odor. Newer purification systems also remove contaminants such as perchlorate and nitrate.

- Disposable diapers.

- Devices for collection and real-time analysis of blood, and other bodily fluids, without the need for centrifugation. Huge potential for hospitals and for remote units to monitor individuals with health problems.

- Devices used to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.

- Compact laboratory instruments for hospitals and doctor offices that analyze blood in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes.

- Cutters using small explosive charges used by emergency rescue personnel to quickly extract accident victims.

- Gas leak-detection system used by Ford in natural gas-powered car.

- New breathing system for firefighters made up of a face mask, frame and harness, warning device, and air bottle. Weighs one-third less than old gear.


There's a whole bunch more, but I think that's enough to make my point.

impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

How about "get us off this rock before another rock kills us."

pnjunction: Yes it does, and the space station can be used to perform research in the area. We didn't get Nimitz class carriers by sinking our first canoe and giving up.
No one said to give up.

Manned space exploration is a subset of space exploration.

As I also stated, we need OTHER technology before we can effectively get off this rock. SPEND MONEY DEVELOPING THAT TECHNOLOGY.

BTW, when I say "other technology" FUSION is the big one. Interstellar space crafts need energy, and lots of it.

timujin:
There's a whole bunch more, but I think that's enough to make my point.
Doubt it. I doubt even those things owe their existence to manned space flight.

Just look how desperate your list is. "Disposable diapers"? You honestly think that if astronauts didn't use diapers, no one would have thought to put plastic and absorbent tissue together?

Besides, disposable diapers predate manned space flight.

Link (new window)

Hobodeluxe: Bored Horde: Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

the only thing that might be feasible for them is asteroid mining and that's a long way off. other than that there's not much out there for them.

What about Helium-3 and sunlight?

Here's a good read on the over-hype of manned space flight:

Link (new window)

I would like to launch an unbridled spackle bomb in space.

gorgor: I would like to launch an unbridled spackle bomb in space.

And you've probably already got a pic of it.

impaler: Just look how desperate your list is. "Disposable diapers"? You honestly think that if astronauts didn't use diapers, no one would have thought to put plastic and absorbent tissue together?

Besides, disposable diapers predate manned space flight.

wow, you found the one thing I put on there as a joke (because of the fracas in Florida a while back) and focused solely on that...

as for the rest, while you can always say that those things might have been developed independently, they were developed for manned space flight and have since been used elsewhere.

It's like saying that without war, we would probably have developed rocketry independently. Sure... maybe, but it was a military need that funded and drove it and now we can send people (or robots) into space because of that.

The point is, though, that while those were just some of the benefits that have trickled down into civilian life, those are not the reason we need to pursue manned space flight.

The reason is that we, humanity, have three choices:
a. Starvation and disease due to massive overpopulation
b. Government mandated population control
or
c. Get off this rock

and if we choose a or b, it won't matter in the long run anyway, eventually something is going to come along and wipe out all these eggs we're keeping in one basket.

timujin: and if we choose a or b, it won't matter in the long run anyway, eventually something is going to come along and wipe out all these eggs we're keeping in one basket.

That's the kind of thinking that stupid people like Dr. Stephen Hawking think too. What a bunch of morans.

timujin: as for the rest, while you can always say that those things might have been developed independently, they were developed for manned space flight and have since been used elsewhere.

And if we spent money research actually technology that is directly useful, that list would be ten times larger, and have another list of spins offs to boot.


timujin: The reason is that we, humanity, have three choices:
a. Starvation and disease due to massive overpopulation
b. Government mandated population control
or
c. Get off this rock

Pipe dream.

Even if we could get to mars as easily as going to the Antarctic, we would still be farked. As far as doomsday, "OMFG! What if an asteroid kills us all!" We would be just as wise going to the moon than mars.


Yes, I know people don't like to hear reality, but that is reality...

Here's an actually perfect analogy.

People in California want to get to Japan, so they try to swim there. Obviously they don't make it, so they keep trying to make their swimsuit better.

People like me say, "no point, won't do anything," and their response is "well, we have to try!"

Until one can make an ocean going vessel, they aren't going there. Right now our technology allows us to make swimsuits. Continuing to swim in them gets us no closer to the actual technology we need.

TheGreatZarquon: gorgor: I would like to launch an unbridled spackle bomb in space.

And you've probably already got a pic of it.

Just need zero G's.
http://tinyurl.com/krdehm
(copy and paste, NSFW)

impaler: BTW, when I say "other technology" FUSION is the big one. Interstellar space crafts need energy, and lots of it.

First, we're not going to build interstellar spacecraft with the materials we have on Earth. There's not enough stuff here, and it's prohibitively expensive to launch it all.

Second, we don't have to leave the solar system for a couple billion years. But keeping humanity confined to one planet in that solar system is both limiting and dangerous.

So we get humans into space to colonize other worlds and to harvest materials for use on Earth. Especially things like heavy metals that are very rare here but readily available on places that lack plate tectonics like the Moon, Mars and asteroids.

impaler: Even if we could get to mars as easily as going to the Antarctic, we would still be farked. As far as doomsday, "OMFG! What if an asteroid kills us all!" We would be just as wise going to the moon than mars.

If we could get to Mars as easily as getting to Antarctica (which you can actually visit fairly easily if you really want to), how far away would be a real achievement at that point? I mean, I can go to the Antarctic continent if I save up some cash. It's not that difficult to do.

gorgor: http://tinyurl.com/krdehm

That guy is definitely about to achieve escape velocity.

impaler: People in California want to get to Japan, so they try to swim there. Obviously they don't make it, so they keep trying to make their swimsuit better.

People like me say, "no point, won't do anything," and their response is "well, we have to try!"

Until one can make an ocean going vessel, they aren't going there. Right now our technology allows us to make swimsuits. Continuing to swim in them gets us no closer to the actual technology we need.

Your analogy is flawed. Our spacecraft are more like canoes than swimsuits. And there are things applicable to ocean travel in canoes that also applies to ships. Stuff like how to keep the ship clean and how to get make sure you have enough drinking water.

Even if we could get to mars as easily as going to the Antarctic, we would still be farked. As far as doomsday, "OMFG! What if an asteroid kills us all!" We would be just as wise going to the moon than mars.

Mars is a lot more habitable than the moon. Much larger repositories of water, sufficient gravity to make terraforming worthwhile, and four times the surface area.

And developing the technology on Earth for use in space isn't going to work. We need to test it how it's going to be used, not in some simulator.

eqtworld: What about keeping the shuttle program as our only method getting to space for 30 year?

The space shuttle has acquitted itself with honor. It's done very well considering what it had to do. accidents aside.

ninjakirby:
Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

So would retiring the space shuttle program and creating a new program that shares no similarities with a program that has been running for over 20 years and has the support of a ton of internal engineers at NASA...

...oh wait.

ninjakirby:

Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

Yeah, wouldn't want all that valuable, umm, stuff they do on there to go to waste.

The ISS is nothing more than a convenient reason for LEO space "exploration" to continue. It's relatively safe and keeps shuttles flying.

The ISS/Shuttle Program sucks ass. But, I did SEE the ISS the other night. That was cool.

you're all worrying over nothing, I just saw that the world ends in December 2012 anyway, so only a few lucky people will be able to ride up in there the extra 4 years. Sheesh.

1) why not just sell it to some rich idiot?

2) I doubt my car will last until 2016.

Not sure if this has been said yet but.....Wouldn't it cost more money to deorbit it than to just let it sit up there where it isn't bugging anyone?

FTFA:NASA has a strategy built on President George W. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration

OK, can we please just throw every thought the man ever had into the garbage bin and pretend it never happened?

But a prominent critic of human spaceflight, physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland, said putting astronauts on the space station is akin to "flagpole-sitting." He argues that the station fundamentally lacks a mission.

Well golly, there's an unbiased source. This must be one of those guys that wants to capture the spirit of human endeavor by sending robotic weed wackers into space. Good luck with that fella.

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Yeah, wouldn't want all that valuable, umm, stuff they do on there to go to waste.

The ISS is nothing more than a convenient reason for LEO space "exploration" to continue. It's relatively safe and keeps shuttles flying.

The ISS/Shuttle Program sucks ass. But, I did SEE the ISS the other night. That was cool.

Yeah we can totally do space experiments and test the effects of long-term space exploration on the human body in that other vessel that we have...

'keeps shuttles flying'? I suppose that's all the Hubble is good for as well? One might say that if they were completely ignorant as to what it's used for.

eqtworld: We've averaged about 4 per year, and 2 of the 5 Space Shuttles blew up de-formatted killing de-existifying all on board and destroying de-structuralizing the entire vehicle.

FTFY

pnjunction: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Yeah, wouldn't want all that valuable, umm, stuff they do on there to go to waste.

The ISS is nothing more than a convenient reason for LEO space "exploration" to continue. It's relatively safe and keeps shuttles flying.

The ISS/Shuttle Program sucks ass. But, I did SEE the ISS the other night. That was cool.

Yeah we can totally do space experiments and test the effects of long-term space exploration on the human body in that other vessel that we have...

'keeps shuttles flying'? I suppose that's all the Hubble is good for as well? One might say that if they were completely ignorant as to what it's used for.

No, Hubble has a purpose. What is the purpose of the ISS? Long term microgravity environments were thoroughly studied on Mir. What space experiments are you talking about? The only experiment ever conducted on ISS is the same one they always do - can NASA keep people alive in space?

eqtworld: Original design specs were to do a launch ever two weeks.

We've averaged about 4 per year, and 2 of the 5 Space Shuttles blew up killing all on board and destroying the entire vehicle.

It costs more per pound to get into orbit than with a disposable craft.

We are basically going back to making the Saturn V after the disaster that is the Shuttle program

As I recall the plan was for flights every 6 weeks, and they actually managed to pull that off for a while there.

and yes there were accidents, but look at what the hell they're doing. Sending people into space strapped to a big bomb.

They don't have a disposable craft that'll carry people yet. So the cost is going to be less because it has less to do.

And as for the replacement for the shuttle being a single use craft, I put that down to politics.

Gevis: Not sure if this has been said yet but.....Wouldn't it cost more money to deorbit it than to just let it sit up there where it isn't bugging anyone?

It's orbit is too low, even the tiny amount of atmospheric drag it encounters will eventually bring it down.

Contrabulous Flabtraption: The ISS is nothing more than a convenient reason for LEO space "exploration" to continue. It's relatively safe and keeps shuttles flying.

I used to think this until they launched the water recycler. Then I saw that it's actually a decent testbed for some systems they'll need for colonization and long-term spaceflight.

Not to mention that there's going to be a need for the ability to run experiments in microgravity. I think that NASA should sell slots on the ISS for running experiments from private industry. They'd just have to forego the whole "We're going to publicize and televise everything that happens" aspect. But with a permanent lunar base, this wouldn't be an issue because I'd much rather watch lunar exploration.

impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

The answer is easy. The mere act of humans exploring unknown territory in person is as important an aspect of any exploration as the scientific discoveries made.

Nobody cares if you send a robot to climb Mt. Everest.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

The answer is easy. The mere act of humans exploring unknown territory in person is as important an aspect of any exploration as the scientific discoveries made.

Nobody cares if you send a robot to climb Mt. Everest.

And one more point: remove the human aspect, and you lose public interest. Lose public interest, and you lose funding. Lose funding, and kiss your entire program goodbye.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

The answer is easy. The mere act of humans exploring unknown territory in person is as important an aspect of any exploration as the scientific discoveries made.

Nobody cares if you send a robot to climb Mt. Everest.

actually, that would be a pretty massive accomplishment for robotics...

The problem with low orbit is, well, theres nothing there to work with. The ISS was an exceuse to go nowhere and mill about for a few decades while contractors sucked up leftover NASA funds.
It wasn't much of a plan from the start.

The space station is growing old unusually fast because its construction took unusually long thanks to the shuttles launch delays. We didn't have a big rocket to put it up in one go, and it needed to be assembled between small payload deliveries, so most of our science time was spent in construction.

Its important to bear this in mind because right now they are arguing between spending money on a big new rocket and using a smaller shuttle derived one to do the job (after multiple missions and construction) because the contractors say shuttles can save money this time around.

So... yea, theres even more trouble brewing.

Gevis:

Not sure if this has been said yet but.....Wouldn't it cost more money to deorbit it than to just let it sit up there where it isn't bugging anyone?

Not if the gyroscopes, attitude thrusters and whatnot fail over time so that you can no longer control where it comes down. (And it *will* come down eventually.)

Neglecting it and having it fall on New York City years later might be slightly more expensive than a controlled deorbit.

Alacritous: The cynical person inside of me says of course they want to get rid of it. Once it's "completed" there's no more money for the contractors, so they'll naturally want to get rid of it in favour of a new boondoggle.

Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

I wonder what the international partners will have to say about this.

That is cynical, but I doubt your right. People have spent a majority of their life on this project, say 20 to 30 years. You think they're happy with only using the ISS for five years after its complete?

The reason they are targeting 2016 for de-orbit is because they don't have any money. Hell there isn't even money for Constellation. The whole manned space program is on the verge of being farked completely.

The Icelander: Contrabulous Flabtraption: The ISS is nothing more than a convenient reason for LEO space "exploration" to continue. It's relatively safe and keeps shuttles flying.

I used to think this until they launched the water recycler. Then I saw that it's actually a decent testbed for some systems they'll need for colonization and long-term spaceflight.

Not to mention that there's going to be a need for the ability to run experiments in microgravity. I think that NASA should sell slots on the ISS for running experiments from private industry. They'd just have to forego the whole "We're going to publicize and televise everything that happens" aspect. But with a permanent lunar base, this wouldn't be an issue because I'd much rather watch lunar exploration.

That's another problem. Is NASA even thinking about systems/hardware to simulate gravity? Fu*k working in microgravity, that will get us exactly nowhere in space exploration. To reach anything beyond the moon, artificial gravity must exist.

Contrabulous Flabtraption: What space experiments are you talking about? The only experiment ever conducted on ISS is the same one they always do - can NASA keep people alive in space?

How about these? ^{(^)}

A gaggle of materials science experiments, a bunch of human spaceflight experiments, including immunological response to space flight, experiments on how things burn in space, and experiments with Delay Tolerant Networking, which is important for communication in planetary exploration, manned or not.

Katie98_KT: 7of7: They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

this. its a well known tactic- shut down something visible and popular. NASA *could* manage to take funding cuts (or lack of funding increase) from other, not quite so popular areas, but this should get the message across to congress that they don't think their funding is adequate.

there's no way that space station is coming down. I don't care how big our recession is.

We should use it until 2020 at least, for the investment we've put into it.

way south: We didn't have a big rocket to put it up in one go

I agree that it would have been nice to put it up in fewer launches, but doing it in one launch is limits both the size of the station and is capabilities.

Regarding manned space exploration or even colonization: Fusion is not the critical element to either. Sure, it will be necessary for doing anything beyond our solar system, but our current level of technology is at or near a point were we could establish permenant outposts in earth orbit, on the moon, or even mars. Whats holding us back? Orbital launch is increadibly expensive, particularly to higher orbits. Fusion isn't going to change that, other then reducing the amount of fuel we need to launch. What we need is a cheap and reliable orbital launch platform. There are promising developments in that regard, but they are either barely reaching low orbit, or still very expensive. If we could launch into orbit for a tenth or a hundreth the cost we pay now, we could do alot more in space for alot less. I'm not sure what form that would take, rail guns, space elevator, a dirt cheap reusable shuttle, or something different, but we should worry alot more about that then fusion. IF we get to the point that we have done all we can do in our own solar system and still don't have fusion, then focus on it...

I_C_Weener: NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

Not so fast bucko, Space X barely has any experience at not having unsuccessful launches and while Spaceshiptwo will be a step in the right direction it still isn't LEO. Private spaceflight is in its infancy, and they're going to learn it isn't easy or safe.

From TFA: "If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee.

The Sunken Cost Fallacy, let me show it to you.

ninjakirby: Pre-emptive garbleblocker.

To be fair, we have more kids than space shuttles, though they seem to cost the same.

ninjakirby: This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

If it's truly a boondoggle, then spending the money to keep it in orbit would stupider -- but, alas, the politically palatable solution.

On a related note, it looks like the anti-NASA trolls are in full force in this thread. It amuses me how they can keep rolling out the "what have you done for me lately" line, while city (city!) governments can always managed to find hundreds of millions in tax dollars to finance specialized stadiums. Oregon's bid for the then-Expos was the most hilarious example; anyone remember that?

When was the last time funding, say, a baseball stadium with tax dollars led to an invention or finding that benefited humanity? As long as tax-subsidized sports is 100% inefficient, I'll forgive NASA for its less-than-optimal efficiency. I don't consider it acceptable; it's a matter of non-dumbass priorities.

Subby is a retard. 100 million $100 bills = $10 Billion.

FTA ...will cost $100 Billion.

ninjakirby: Pre-emptive garbleblocker.

Alacritous: Getting rid of the thing a mere 5 years after it's completed is just about the stupidest thing the American Government has ever done in relation to space exploration.

Seriously. This has to be posturing for funds, because deorbiting the ISS would be simply foolish.

Hah hah hah!

2009 Budget
# Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)

* $644 billion - Social Security
* $408 billion - Medicare
* $224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
* $260 billion - Interest on National Debt

$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation

bbfreak: Hah hah hah!

Comparing mandatory to discretionary spending is a bit disingenuous. Stuff like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't paid for out of the same block of money as, say, education or the DoD.

But it's pretty telling that we spend more just to fuel our military than we do for all of NASA.

The Icelander: But it's pretty telling that we spend more just to fuel our military than we do for all of NASA.


You're right. These apples are nothing like those oranges.

eqtworld: The Shuttle has been such a farking disaster that it is most likely there will only be 8 more manned missions to space by the US during the 8 to 10 years.

That's the spirit that sent men to the moon!

/why doesn't html have a sarcasm tag?

way south: We didn't have a big rocket to put it up in one go

well, we did, but it's currently being used as a lawn ornament...

bbfreak: The reason they are targeting 2016 for de-orbit is because they don't have any money. Hell there isn't even money for Constellation. The whole manned space program is on the verge of being farked completely.

Oh, if this Iraq war had never happened. The money spent on Iraq (and its continued rebuilding) would finance NASA for another 540 years.

The Icelander: Contrabulous Flabtraption: What space experiments are you talking about? The only experiment ever conducted on ISS is the same one they always do - can NASA keep people alive in space?

How about these? (^)

A gaggle of materials science experiments, a bunch of human spaceflight experiments, including immunological response to space flight, experiments on how things burn in space, and experiments with Delay Tolerant Networking, which is important for communication in planetary exploration, manned or not.

That's a good list, but materials experiments don't need humans. Look, all I am saying is that the ISS is NASA's way of avioding anything resembling true - and therefore dangerous and expensive - space exploration. It gives their rockets some place to go, it gives contractors jobs to do, and it gives the public something to be "amazed" by. But it, like the shuttle, is so far diminished from its original vision it's almost unrecognizable.

All this crap about "worth" and 'value" and "the numbers don't add up" and "things we got (didn't get) from the space program" is just that...it's crap.

There's a fundamental issue here:

Exploration.

Either we continue to go places we haven't been, or back to places we don't yet understand, and try things we haven't tried, and study things we don't understand...or we don't.

The former costs money.

The latter relegates us to the animals so many sub-humans claim we are.

eqtworld: What about keeping the shuttle program as our only method getting to space for 30 year?

Well it was meant to last 25 years. Just that all the funding for a replacement dried up way long ago.

Someone posted in an earlier thread about the Moon that NASA was expecting to launch a Saturn V every sixty days and built the Vehicle Assembly Hanger expressly for prep on 4 rockets at a time with two crawlers to move them to the pads. The shuttle was a white elephant.

I may not understand how the usa's funding works for nasa, and there's days where I think nasa itself is a waste of money, but that just seems stupid

bubbaprog: Oh, if this Iraq war had never happened. The money spent on Iraq (and its continued rebuilding) would finance NASA for another 540 years.

In another thread I calculated that, with conservative estimates, the Iraq war would have bought 56 Moon landings. That money would have gone to engineers, workers, contractors and support personnel in the United States. Talk about a stimulus package.

Alacritous: eqtworld: The Shuttle has been such a farking disaster that it is most likely there will only be 8 more manned missions to space by the US during the 8 to 10 years.

That's the spirit that sent men to the moon!

/why doesn't html have a sarcasm tag?

Just use a span tag and CSS:

<span class="sarcasm">That's the spirit that sent men to the moon!</span>

rdu_voyager: Just use a span tag and CSS:

<span class="sarcasm">That's the spirit that sent men to the moon!</span>

<span class="sarcasm">Wow what a great idea.</span>

Hey, you're right. It works! Thanks.

ninjakirby:

That is one awesome graph.

Bored Horde: I_C_Weener: NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

Most communications satellites are way higher than the ISS.

look. we can deorbit the thing and make it worth it. just deorbit it right onto one of kim jong il's palaces.

Russ1642: Bored Horde: I_C_Weener: NASA will be obsolete by then...replaced by Branson's Virgin space flights, and other private ventures. We'll have McDonald's and Starbucks on the moon before NASA gets back there.

Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

Most communications satellites are way higher than the ISS.

The ISS is at 350 km, in LEO. GEO is at 42,000 km

Our children are falling behind the rest of the world for no other reason than our education funding isn't large enough. If only we stopped wasting money on NASA and moved it's funding into education.

The Bible proves all other religions are wrong.

dragonchild: On a related note, it looks like the anti-NASA trolls are in full force in this thread. It amuses me how they can keep rolling out the "what have you done for me lately" line, while city (city!) governments can always managed to find hundreds of millions in tax dollars to finance specialized stadiums. Oregon's bid for the then-Expos was the most hilarious example; anyone remember that?

I've never found this line of argument convincing. We've wasted a lot of money on project X, therefore we can give NASA loads of money.

"What have you done for me?" is a fair question for any publicly-funded science program, and NASA should be able to point to deliverable scientific results like any other science research agency.

Dear NASA,

Sgt. Pepper: "What have you done for me?" , lately



Sincerely,

J. Jackson

Sgt. Pepper: I've never found this line of argument convincing. We've wasted a lot of money on project X, therefore we can give NASA loads of money.

It doesn't have to be convincing. Feel free to hate on NASA all you like.

That said, this is a form of budget triage. If you're getting, say, an unverifiable 10% RoI on NASA but a guaranteed zero percent RoI in tax-subsidized professional sports (and every uncompromised economic study conducted on this decisively and unanimously conclude pro sports do not stimulate economies; they just move them around), then kill off the obvious waste of money before you start complaining about something that actually does good once in a while. Pro baseball still has an anti-trust exemption, for chrissakes.

FWIW, I'm also a sports fan, so I'm all for private investment in them -- just not tax subsidies. But companies generally don't pursue science unless there's money to be made off it, so science will always be dependent on government spending to a large extent.

Again, feel free to hate NASA. Just get your priorites in an order that isn't laughably hypocritical. NASA can be a target of budget cuts, sure, but the only reason to put them at the top of the list is blatant anti-intellectualism.

This reminds me of a co-worker, who the week he finishes paying off one car, he goes and trades it in to buy another new car, no matter the condition of the old one.

timujin: 7of7: They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

That's, um, apples and, I don't know, Volkswagens...

While it's true that NASA has trouble sticking to deadlines this has absolutely nothing to do with why the Mars rovers are still in operation. Their expected lifespan was 90 days. The fact that they're still running more than five years later is a testament to how well they were built.
Now, if you want to talk about missed deadlines, we can discuss innumerable missed shuttle launches or even the next robot to go to Mars, the MSL.
Spirit and Opportunity, on the other hand, are two shining success stories.

I see that joke went over your head.

eqtworld: Alacritous: eqtworld: What about keeping the shuttle program as our only method getting to space for 30 year?

The space shuttle has acquitted itself with honor. It's done very well considering what it had to do. accidents aside.

Original design specs were to do a launch ever two weeks.

We've averaged about 4 per year, and 2 of the 5 Space Shuttles blew up killing all on board and destroying the entire vehicle.

It costs more per pound to get into orbit than with a disposable craft.

We are basically going back to making the Saturn V after the disaster that is the Shuttle program

Of all Mankind's achievements I have to say the Saturn V is one of the best, you yanks can be proud of that one :)

On the topic of lightweight power for space flight, I have high hopes for the Polywell reactor, aka the wiffleball. They recently had a peer review and the American ONR renewed their contract.

TheGreatZarquon: Killing the ISS after so much time and investment, and while it still has so much potential, makes so little sense that the idea alone should create a singularity of stupid in the head of whoever thought it up.
"Singularity of Stupid"? That is so awesome it's the X-ray that escaped as the idiots head imploded!

dragonchild: It doesn't have to be convincing. Feel free to hate on NASA all you like.

I'm not hating on NASA, I'm asking for intellectually honest arguments for funding it. Every other scientist that get a taxpayer grant has to show a cost/benefit for his/her research.

That said, this is a form of budget triage. If you're getting, say, an unverifiable 10% RoI on NASA but a guaranteed zero percent RoI in tax-subsidized professional sports...

You miss the point. I get that sports subsidies are a waste. That doesn't justify spending extra money on NASA. If I said: the Iraq war was a mistake, so let's give my perpetual motion research project 20 billion, you'd object.

First, everyone here who believes the headline that NASA is just shooting money into space doesn't understand the most basic points of economics.

HINT: ALL THE MONEY STAYS HERE ON EARTH

You can't spend money in space - there is no Burger King there. All that money is spent here in the USA, on engineers who design things and employees who build them and even the astronauts who fly on the spacecraft. It's 100% stimulus spending because all these people who get paid own houses or rent, buy cars, buy food, and buy other stuff at Wal-Mart.

The Icelander: impaler: BTW, when I say "other technology" FUSION is the big one. Interstellar space crafts need energy, and lots of it.

First, we're not going to build interstellar spacecraft with the materials we have on Earth. There's not enough stuff here, and it's prohibitively expensive to launch it all.

Second, we don't have to leave the solar system for a couple billion years. But keeping humanity confined to one planet in that solar system is both limiting and dangerous.

So we get humans into space to colonize other worlds and to harvest materials for use on Earth. Especially things like heavy metals that are very rare here but readily available on places that lack plate tectonics like the Moon, Mars and asteroids.

You think it's prohibitively expensive to launch all the materials needed to build interstellar craft from Earth? How expensive will it be to launch all the materials needed to colonize other worlds with humans, then for them to recover needed resources from other worlds, and THEN to launch those materials from those worlds to get them back to Earth to use them here?

Also, if you understand the lifecycle of the sun, Earth has less than 1 billion years left with human life on the planet.

Wikipedia: During its current life in the main sequence, the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason why life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land. The increase in solar temperatures is such that already in about a billion years, the surface of the Earth will become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.

As a ballpark figure, I'd say we have 500 million years to get our act together as the climate slowly heats up. That seems like a LONG time, but we've got to "front load" as much progress as possible so that we can be ahead of other unforeseen incidents that we can't prevent. It's only a matter of time before an asteroid strikes Earth with possibly devastating effects, and we might not be able to prevent that even with the best technology that we might develop in the future. We've got to get humans into "lifeboats" by colonizing other worlds in the universe with as much speed as possible, lest human intelligence become extinct.

mrmopar5287: As a ballpark figure, I'd say we have 500 million years to get our act together as the climate slowly heats up.

Not to sound flip, but in 500 million years we could make a decent stab at moving Earth's orbit outward by a few million miles.

mrmopar5287: You think it's prohibitively expensive to launch all the materials needed to build interstellar craft from Earth? How expensive will it be to launch all the materials needed to colonize other worlds with humans, then for them to recover needed resources from other worlds, and THEN to launch those materials from those worlds to get them back to Earth to use them here?

Earth resources are prohibitively expensive. How much copper, aluminum and iron do you think you'd need to build a ship to sustain a large population of humans for the couple thousand years it'll take to get to another star? We've already got people stealing copper from the power grid to sell it.

The only way to bring the costs down are to harvest the materials from the asteroid belt for use in building the ship. And the cost of launching from asteroids is virtually zero, since their gravitational force is so small.

Think of it this way: If you had shown the Dutch a picture of the island of Manhattan from 2006 and said that this island would turn into a metropolis, they wouldn't have thought that they'd be bringing all the iron and stone and wood from Europe. They'd understand that you'd build things with what you have available, in iterative steps. We're not going to go from LEO to Alpha Centauri in one go.

Not to mention that there's enough Helium-3 on Neptune and Uranus to power hundreds of thousands of generation ships.

Read the book "Mining the Sky" ^{(^)} for more information.

theorellior: Not to sound flip, but in 500 million years we could make a decent stab at moving Earth's orbit outward by a few million miles.

Simple way to do it would be to use gravitational tugs or mass drivers to put asteroids in a reverse gravitational slingshot to the Earth. That way, the angular momentum of the asteroid would be added to that of the Earth, boosting it into a higher orbit.

But the disadvantage is that there's a chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth, and it still requires that we use humans to at least maintain the mass drivers or space tugs.

impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

SPACE PEN!!!

You don't set a date to bring down a space station. You try to keep it going until you can't. Eventually accidents happen and you can no longer mitigate the risks and only then do you give up. A couple collisions, a couple fires, a couple modules becoming uninhabitable. Eventually everyone knows it's time to get out and let it burn. That's how Mir ended and that's how ISS should end. Part of the value of a space station is experiencing its deterioration and learning the lessons of emergency response, jury-rigging, and how to improve everything next time. Yes, it puts astronauts at risk but that's pretty much their entire job, to learn how to avoid dying in space. If we shut it down arbitrarily we're not getting our money's worth.

If Russia can find the money (probably partnered with China), you can bet they'd be willing to keep ISS going way longer than NASA thinks it should keep going. Once the shuttle is no longer flying the US will not have a physical means to prevent Russia from doing whatever they want with it.

Too many comments so I don't know if this was already said: Isn't it the International Space Station? Also, what harm is just for the US to stop using it and leave it up there. If someone else wants to use it, great. Why destroy it?

BackAssward: Too many comments so I don't know if this was already said: Isn't it the International Space Station? Also, what harm is just for the US to stop using it and leave it up there. If someone else wants to use it, great. Why destroy it?

Thank You!!! I scanned 116 other comments before you pointed out the obvious.

Thanks NASA for all your hard work looking after things, but just cause you can't continue to fund it doesn't mean you can take the toys with you when you leave.

IF I CAN'T PLAY WITH IT...NOBODY CAN PLAY WITH IT!

/I'll sit down and be quiet now

$100 Billion?
Hell, we've spent far more than that on individual company bailouts just this year and none of those banks or corporations do much science, either.

They also don't provide a platform where the nations of the world can actually try to work together instead of fighting all the time.

I love Star Trek as much as the next guy but for those who are so concerned about starvation and over population, it would be infinitely easier to harvest the oceans and terraform our deserts than it would to break the laws of physics as we know them to find a class M planet somewhere that may not even exist.

Face it, you just want to fark green slave girls and make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. So do I but instead of using the space program to flee this planet, maybe we could just fix this one first.

Once again, I feel ashamed to be an American.

Mugato: I love Star Trek as much as the next guy but for those who are so concerned about starvation and over population, it would be infinitely easier to harvest the oceans and terraform our deserts than it would to break the laws of physics as we know them to find a class M planet somewhere that may not even exist.

Face it, you just want to fark green slave girls and make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. So do I but instead of using the space program to flee this planet, maybe we could just fix this one first.

Sure. And considering all of NASA's budgets since it was founded is still less than the TARP bailout, let me ask you.... which dollar do you think you're getting a better return on investment from?

Even if NASA were just a jobs program, which many people say it is, at least it's a jobs program that produces scientific advancement.

Mugato: Face it, you just want to fark green slave girls and make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

Who doesn't?

Mugato: I love Star Trek as much as the next guy but for those who are so concerned about starvation and over population, it would be infinitely easier to harvest the oceans and terraform our deserts than it would to break the laws of physics as we know them to find a class M planet somewhere that may not even exist.

It's not really a matter of starvation and overpopulation - that takes care of itself in the form of a self-stabilizing population level.

The concern that us futurists have is that the sun will eventually burn out. Like I said in my previous post, Earth has about 500 million years left of human survival; assuming that something else doesn't happen first to wipe us out of the history of the universe. I do have a desire to see my offspring survive as far into the future as possible, and continue to create advancements that let humans (and all other sentient beings that may exist in the universe) to live rich and rewarding lives. That means getting the human race off of a single ball of rock so as to not have all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Hobodeluxe: Bored Horde: Let me know when a corporation manages to get something beyond geosynch orbit

the only thing that might be feasible for them is asteroid mining and that's a long way off. other than that there's not much out there for them.

Strip-mining Luna might be worth it. Or Mars.

I mean, really, no environment to impact, and you can dump as much CO2 as you want.

Of course, that won't stop the hippies from wharrgabling against it.

Mugato: I love Star Trek as much as the next guy but for those who are so concerned about starvation and over population, it would be infinitely easier to harvest the oceans and terraform our deserts than it would to break the laws of physics as we know them to find a class M planet somewhere that may not even exist.

Face it, you just want to fark green slave girls and make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. So do I but instead of using the space program to flee this planet, maybe we could just fix this one first.

Science Fiction based in space would have no audience if not for humanity's constant desire to explore. We will go into space just as surely as our ancestors wandered into new lands and across unknown seas. It's in our nature, and as long as nothing destroys us first, we will spread out into the galaxy eventually.

mrmopar5287: The concern that us futurists have is that the sun will eventually burn out. Like I said in my previous post, Earth has about 500 million years left of human survival; assuming that something else doesn't happen first to wipe us out of the history of the universe. I do have a desire to see my offspring survive as far into the future as possible, and continue to create advancements that let humans (and all other sentient beings that may exist in the universe) to live rich and rewarding lives. That means getting the human race off of a single ball of rock so as to not have all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

True. We don't know how long it will take to learn how to survive beyond earth, and we don't know exactly how much time we have before we need to know. We know it's a very hard problem. It makes sense to start as early as possible and be as ready as we can be when the time comes.

The naysayer argument that all things end and we and should accept eventual extinction is foolish. The human species is unique because no previous species was capable of thinking about the fact it could go extinct, or that it might have a choice in the matter. Knowingly accepting extinction would be just as unprecedented as making the attempt to defy it.

Intentionally neglecting space exploration and letting everyone and all progress be wiped out would be stupid. If there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, is every one of those civilizations supposed to die with their planets? Says who? If any life has ever achieved interstellar migration, their first step was defeating those among them who didn't want to go.

Why de-orbit and waste all the money put in to the property. Treat it like real estate and sell it.

Also they said there was no money for space based on
* $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other
* $26 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration & National Science Foundation

A good part of the people getting Unemployment/Welfare could get some training and then be put to work working and building on the projects for the National Science Foundation and NASA.

NASA detractors were the same in the 1960s:

WWII is long over and just because Russia wants to send things into space doesn't mean WE should. What a waste of money? Crazy astronauts! You got your head in the clouds.

We should be spending that money on Earth, on education and tanks and stuff. They aren't worth funding for unknown unforeseen "inventions" from 1958 on. I don't see any reason why we should be flying around to other planets or the moon with robots OR humans. What a dumb idea.
================================================================
It's that ignorant and short-sighted attitude that would have cast a mini-Dark-Ages on all of this:

Wiki NASA SPINOFFS (new window)

Now, people are still the same. Just because they can't understand that NASA is one of our only pure research organizations. They invent unexpectedly. They don't set out to revolutionize, they do things that are HARD, that stress the creativity and imagination of the best scientists. And when they do that, they create and develop unique new things that benefit humanity.

But, I'm sure YOU, Mr. Dark Ages, know which programs are better for them right now, and what should and shouldn't be funded.

Keep the ISS in space!

anyone else remember the space station in the 70s... skylab?

dj42: But, I'm sure YOU, Mr. Dark Ages, know which programs are better for them right now, and what should and shouldn't be funded

Okay, calm down, FutureBoy. I'm all for space exploration. I had SETI running on two boxes for three years looking for shiat. My only point is that the Earth isn't just a "rock" and there's a lot of research that can be conducted right here that might help up there.

And if you think colonizing other worlds is going to bring this world together, I have a Death Star to sell you.

General Vayo: I mean, really, no environment to impact, and you can dump as much CO2 as you want.

To dump CO2, first you need oxygen.

MrBentor: A good part of the people getting Unemployment/Welfare could get some training and then be put to work working and building on the projects for the National Science Foundation and NASA.

I'm not sure I'd want the same people who are on welfare to be the ones working for NASA.

impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

its well known that Velcro was the result of manned space flight. If the Vulcans had not crash landed on earth and befriended a kid in a mining town then sold a sample to pay for his college we would not have it today.

whenIsayGO: I'm not sure I'd want the same people who are on welfare to be the ones working for NASA.

why not you would never have to worry about them getting feet and meters (new window) mixed up, they don't have a clue what a meter is.

Plans to come out of retirement in 2016.

/hot like molten de-orbited space junk

pnjunction: a prominent critic of human spaceflight, physicist Robert L. Park

What kind of douche is a 'critic of human spaceflight'? Shutup douche, getting off this rock is going to essential to our survival as a species someday.

Fundies man, they don't see it important since jesus is coming

NASA might not get a chance to do a controlled de-orbit.

Kessler Syndrome (new window)

cardex: impaler: It's funny how pissed people get when one rationally criticizes MANNED space flight. Ask them why, and you usually get "TANG!!! VELCRO!!!" which were ironically not invented by any space program.

its well known that Velcro was the result of manned space flight. If the Vulcans had not crash landed on earth and befriended a kid in a mining town then sold a sample to pay for his college we would not have it today.

I used to be foreman on a velcro ranch, until a lint storm wiped us out.

There is an easy solution to this dilemma.

By 2016, shouldn't the first private space port be completed on earth?

Put a few more modules on the space station, or have a private company pay for it, and make it a resort/research facility. We can have private companies (eg Virgin Galactic) take payloads, experiments, and people up.

It will be like a GPS-type deal, fund it with corporate money and let everyone use it.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

I used to be foreman on a velcro ranch, until a lint storm wiped us out.

Should have diversified into dental floss.

eqtworld: What about keeping the shuttle program as our only method getting to space for 30 year?

I was miffed why Nasa abandoned a fully re-usable space craft in favour of the Ares. Now I actually read up on it I'm 110% excited for it.

Following the Stacking on Twitter.

Also phsyched for the LRO to start snapping Apollo sites.

maxheck: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

I used to be foreman on a velcro ranch, until a lint storm wiped us out.

Should have diversified into dental floss.

Thanks for that. I watched the whole thing. One of my favorites. Now I'm gonna make my nephew watch it.

Angry taxpayer. I grew up loving NASA, however I'm learning to hate them.

Fear_and_Loathing: Angry taxpayer. I grew up loving NASA, however I'm learning to hate them.

I know that in this thread that I vaguely ridiculed the idea of colonizing other planets to escape Earth's inevitable destruction!!! but your precious tax dollars are spent a lot more wastefully than anything that is given to NASA. And I'm not talking about the welfare mothers.

People who complain about how their tax dollars are used annoy me. You're paying the same amount no matter what they use it for and it's all money that doesn't even exist anyway.

Gsm136: eqtworld: What about keeping the shuttle program as our only method getting to space for 30 year?

I was miffed why Nasa abandoned a fully re-usable space craft in favour of the Ares. Now I actually read up on it I'm 110% excited for it.

Following the Stacking on Twitter.

Also phsyched for the LRO to start snapping Apollo sites.

NASA's abandoning Ares...


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-07 1 409,0,2316961.story

This ISS nonsense has bothered me from the day it started. Sure i had it pointed out to me while i was smoking a cig outside a hockey game, but otherwise it seems as if its as much of a waste as the shuttle program. Why the hell should we continue to fund the thing when we have bigger geopolitical goals to accomplish on the moon? It represents a mere pleasure yacht to the king of the netherlands, while the king of portugal is out there learning to navigate and conquer the new world.


I could see it being valuable if it was outside our magnetosphere, but as it is not, there is nothing to be learned except for micro-gravity reactions. We don't even intend to go to other bodies without some form of artificially induced gravity, so wtf? Might as well deorbit the thing early and spend the money finishing off a new heavy lifter to inch us closer to our ultimate destination. You want to see how a plant will grow in micro-gravity? Send a capsule.

7of7: They're just saying that so they'll get more funding. NASA can never stick to deadlines anyway. Remember how long the Mars rovers were supposed to operate? 90 days. They're up to several years now.

The ISS was always supposed to be brought down around that time frame, Its just that NASA has been way behind schedule in getting the ISS completed. I really hope somebody changes the schedule, the ISS has way more life left in it than that.