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.