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.