If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   International Space Station, which had been scheduled to deorbit in 2016, then 2020, will continue circling Earth until at least 2020 or the next time NASA needs to threaten it over budget reductions   (nytimes.com) divider line 42
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

593 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Jan 2014 at 9:41 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-27 08:16:10 PM
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
 
2014-01-27 08:20:42 PM
The whole idea behind de-orbiting it was that there would be a bigger, badder space station (With blackjack and hookers!) up there to take it's place.

Outside of China docking a few transit capsules and calling it a space station a la Skylab, there is nothing else up there for scientific research and studies in microgravity.

Given the focus on international cooperation and space sciences has been less than grand as of later, there might not be anything up there until SpaceX builds it in the near future.
 
2014-01-27 08:24:35 PM
"...which had been scheduled to deorbit in 2016, then 2020, will continue circling Earth until at least 2020"

???
 
2014-01-27 09:46:34 PM

calbert: "...which had been scheduled to deorbit in 2016, then 2020, will continue circling Earth until at least 2020"

???


Sorry, that was suppose to be 2024.


hardinparamedic: The whole idea behind de-orbiting it was that there would be a bigger, badder space station (With blackjack and hookers!) up there to take it's place.

Outside of China docking a few transit capsules and calling it a space station a la Skylab, there is nothing else up there for scientific research and studies in microgravity.

Given the focus on international cooperation and space sciences has been less than grand as of later, there might not be anything up there until SpaceX builds it in the near future.


In 2008/2009 there was supposedly serious talks by NASA to deorbit the thing due to lack of budget.



NASA already planning 2016 de-orbit of International Space Station, making room for the 100 million $100 bills they will just shoot into space to replace it

It seems unwise to de-orbit the International Space Station after 25 years of assembly and only five years of operational life
 
2014-01-27 09:48:11 PM
WHAT could go wrong.


www.gannett-cdn.com
 
2014-01-27 09:53:06 PM
It's a myth. It's all being shot on a sound stage in L.A..
 
2014-01-27 09:55:12 PM

hardinparamedic: The whole idea behind de-orbiting it was that there would be a bigger, badder space station (With blackjack and hookers!) up there to take it's place.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-27 09:56:52 PM
Well subby, it's not like fuel just grows on trees.

If there's a serious threat of not maintaining the space station, it's better to de-orbit it over the ocean rather than just letting it fall wherever it might happen to go.
 
2014-01-27 09:57:20 PM
That flying outhouse will be chopped into the Mars-Humanity-Explorer.
Provided they can better protect it from radiation outside of low Erf orbit.

/Park it in geo-stationary orbit and study the effect of radiation on the pitiful Human body.
//Satellite companies will fight that abuse of their space.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-27 10:32:18 PM

Jodeo: WHAT could go wrong.


[www.gannett-cdn.com image 540x304]


Someone could hire Sandra Bullock to make a movie?
 
2014-01-27 10:36:32 PM
Can they make it crash into someone when it finally comes down? Sarah Palin maybe?
 
2014-01-27 10:40:42 PM
we need to spend more money destroying this planet and less money exploring for new planets to destroy. its simple logic.

Defund NASA entirely.
 
2014-01-27 10:58:40 PM
Subby, threats need to somehow frighten a person into action to prevent harm to a thing they have vested interest in. No one cares about ISS because it had little reason for existing to begin with and now, without the Shuttle, has no reason to continue to exist. It is a waypoint to nowhere.
 
2014-01-27 11:08:36 PM

Gleeman: hardinparamedic: The whole idea behind de-orbiting it was that there would be a bigger, badder space station (With blackjack and hookers!) up there to take it's place.


The most refreshing anime on the market. Full of "fark logic".
 
jvl
2014-01-27 11:20:58 PM
It would be a shame if we got rid of the low-orbit Space Station which produces no science of value and redirected that money to useful endeavors like exploring Mars.
 
2014-01-27 11:27:35 PM
Flabtraption, that was hardly as good as the nutter's tries, but I'll rise to it anyway.

The research going on at the ISS is getting ever MORE relevant to Earth life.  Living in microgravity brings on and magnifies/ accelerates the symptoms of aging, and dealing with those symptoms in long-duration spaceflight brings key insight into gerontological  and anagathic research on Earth. Add to that the work on protein folding and crystal growth in microgravity, The deeper we explore into space, at the same time, the deeper we delve into ourselves, learning the secrets of the most intricate machine of all.  Also, space station spin-offs are constantly popping up in useful Earth applications. The technology used int he ISS water recycling system was recently deployed in some remote villages in Mexico, Iraq, India, and elsewhere, to provide clean drinking water where the local water was disrupted or contaminated.  You take clean water for granted in most countries, but really, we wake up t a motherfaring miracle every morning, to have clean tap water.  In these villages, the kids were getting sick from animal-contaminated water sources. Too sick to attend school. Sick enough to pull one or more parents in from their work to care for them, and to spend their meager fortunes on medicines to defeat the infections and parasites. Sick. poor, and uneducated, those kids were doomed to a downward spiral of existence.  In comes this magic silver box with a solar panel on top, and out of it comes this miraculous clear fluid of life... that's farking transformational.  That annoying noise that means you  burned the dinner again? Compact smoke alarms were developed for Skylab. Telemedicine applications on Earth? A NASA innovation, first developed to treat astronauts remotely.

I could go on, but NASA does a good job on their annual spin-offs magazine/report .pdf. goggle one up and you'll find something surprising there.
 
2014-01-27 11:30:37 PM
While I hope the ISS stays on a long time, there should be a second station built in something closer to equatorial orbit, as well.   But NASA is having an internal debate about maybe putting the next one out at a Lagrange point to enable easy reach of NEO rendezvous missions to asteroids or comets.  While that debate goes on, maybe someone will build that space hotel after all, since there will soon be a number of commercial vehicles able to reach it.
 
2014-01-27 11:34:20 PM
Failmitter's alleged headline should read "will continue circling Earth until at least 2024". NASA certified it until 2028 if funding doesn't run out.
 
2014-01-27 11:51:07 PM
By the time 2024 rolls around, it may be like an orbital Washington's hatchet. What with replacement modules an add-ons.
 
2014-01-28 12:15:35 AM
OK, smarter-than-me folks: why de-orbit it rather than building on to it or replacing certain components?

I mean, a car I can understand: building more parts onto a car becomes counter-productive at some point, but that's a whole mass-velocity-gravity thing. Does shiat work more-or-less the same in space?
 
2014-01-28 12:16:17 AM
Why not send up some modules to start nudging it somewhere else, like say towards the moon so it could be used for building material for a moon base...?
 
2014-01-28 12:27:11 AM

Fubini: Well subby, it's not like fuel just grows on trees.

If there's a serious threat of not maintaining the space station, it's better to de-orbit it over the ocean rather than just letting it fall wherever it might happen to go.


Which is why we need a space elevator.

The primary obstacle to creating one is the difficulty of getting a sufficiently huge mass into low orbit to act as an anchor. If we can figure out asteroid capture (several companies are already on it), we'll have that taken care of.
 
2014-01-28 01:20:31 AM
Arcadian: some smart questions.  My answers:

They are going to add or swap modules on it, at least once, maybe twice.  They're scheduled to remove one old Russian module, and add on one of the Bigelowe Aerospace inflatable modules, which is ironic, since the inflatable module was originally developed by NASA, then rejected "for reasons", the tech license sold to Bigelowe, who has had his own inflatable station modules in orbit for years now... and now that they are commercially proven, he's contracting them back to NASA.

As to moving it out of that inclined orbit... well, it *is* possible, but not economical to do, on account of the amount of expensive  and heavy fuel it would take to move something that size into polar or equatorial orbit. it would, they have repeatedly worked out, be cheaper to build a new station from scratch in the desired orbit. Though if you used solar-electric thrusters or solar sails, it would be cheaper, but that method would take years to achieve the change and the station would be worn out by then from exposure to monatomic oxygen, radiation, heat/cold cycles, and micro-meteroid erosion, etc.

Why that sucky orbit in the first place, then?  It was a compromise orbit, designed to fit the profile for both equatorial launches from Florida, and more-inclined orbits from the Russian base, so both partners could fly rockets to it.
 
2014-01-28 01:22:59 AM
I'd like the slipstick boys or gals to tell me if it's as heinous an amount of delta-vee required to kick the ISS into an Earth-Moon lagrange or trojan point, as it would be to alter the orbit.  Then we'd use it as a base for asteroid prospecting.
 
2014-01-28 01:27:37 AM
Just auction the thing off. It'll be a bit of a fixer-upper, but somebody will buy it.
 
2014-01-28 01:31:20 AM

Emposter: Which is why we need a space elevator.

The primary obstacle to creating one is the difficulty of getting a sufficiently huge mass into low orbit to act as an anchor. If we can figure out asteroid capture (several companies are already on it), we'll have that taken care of.


Of the rather long list of "obstacles" to creating a space elevator, I don't think counter mass is even a consideration.

I think first on the list of obstacles would be breaking the laws of physics to magically provide orbital velocity to the ascending module. Normally that takes A LOT of ΔV. Without it, the module will try to wrap the cable (made out of what now?) around the planet to the west.

All things considered, though, it makes much more sense than a suggestion I heard to put a space elevator on the moon. the cable would have to reach well beyond Earth-moon L1 (56,000 km from the moon). Stolen from Wikipedia: " To suspend a kilogram of cable or payload just above the surface of the Moon would require 1,000 kg of counterweight, 26,000 km beyond L1."
 
2014-01-28 01:33:52 AM
 
2014-01-28 02:22:56 AM
Just to spitball some fantastical ideas, and since someone mentioned asteroid capture, how much work would need to be done to nab a decent sized rock and carve a space station into it? Are there any objects out there made of materials that would be a good radiation shield? How would such a "craft" be designed if possible?
 
2014-01-28 03:23:46 AM

Any Pie Left: I'd like the slipstick boys or gals to tell me if it's as heinous an amount of delta-vee required to kick the ISS into an Earth-Moon lagrange or trojan point, as it would be to alter the orbit.  Then we'd use it as a base for asteroid prospecting.


Wikerpedo says kicking something from a low earth orbit to any of the L-points takes between 3.5 & 3.75 km/sec of DeltaV depending on which L-point you're headed to.  Going from a 28 degree LEO to Geosync takes 4.25km/sec of DeltaV, so going from the 51 degree inclination of the ISS down to Geosync is going to take chunk more of DeltaV.

/Not a rocket scientist
//Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night
///Have been playing a crapton of KSP.
 
2014-01-28 03:30:22 AM

DarthBart: Any Pie Left: I'd like the slipstick boys or gals to tell me if it's as heinous an amount of delta-vee required to kick the ISS into an Earth-Moon lagrange or trojan point, as it would be to alter the orbit.  Then we'd use it as a base for asteroid prospecting.

Wikerpedo says kicking something from a low earth orbit to any of the L-points takes between 3.5 & 3.75 km/sec of DeltaV depending on which L-point you're headed to.  Going from a 28 degree LEO to Geosync takes 4.25km/sec of DeltaV, so going from the 51 degree inclination of the ISS down to Geosync is going to take chunk more of DeltaV.

/Not a rocket scientist
//Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night
///Have been playing a crapton of KSP.


Relevent to you since you mentioned.

http://xkcd.com/1244/
 
2014-01-28 06:55:24 AM

Any Pie Left: By the time 2024 rolls around, it may be like an orbital Washington's hatchet. What with replacement modules an add-ons.


That would almost be ideal, I think.  It's pretty modular.  Send up new modules regularly, disconnect and deorbit ones that have reached EOL.  If you come up with a better connection system, send up and A+B adapter module. It's sort of how I'm building my space station for Kerbal.  Want more/different capacity?  Send up a new module, dock where appropriate.

Eventually I'd boost it into a slightly higher, more stable orbit.  One though - rather than just deorbit EOL modules, eventually I'd want to set up some sort of recycling facility - even if it only converts trash and such into extra shielding.  A pound in orbit is a pound in orbit.  Even if it takes 10 pounds to give something as effective as 1 pound of material from earth, the reuse/recycling should save loads of money(resources).  Perhaps a solar smelter.
 
2014-01-28 08:05:28 AM

ArcadianRefugee: OK, smarter-than-me folks: why de-orbit it rather than building on to it or replacing certain components?

I mean, a car I can understand: building more parts onto a car becomes counter-productive at some point, but that's a whole mass-velocity-gravity thing. Does shiat work more-or-less the same in space?


Station keeping is necessary in LEO. Also it regularly needs to be realigned so it faces the correct direction. Mass and distribution of such mass is very important.
 
2014-01-28 08:24:55 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Jodeo: WHAT could go wrong.


[www.gannett-cdn.com image 540x304]

Someone could hire Sandra Bullock to make a movie?


I enjoyed that movie.  It wasn't great but it was full of nice effects, and had lots of suspense.  It wasn't exactly smart but it wasn't nearly as stupid as other big budget effects films tend to be.  I wish I had seen it in the theater though.
 
2014-01-28 08:36:18 AM

Mentalpatient87: Just to spitball some fantastical ideas, and since someone mentioned asteroid capture, how much work would need to be done to nab a decent sized rock and carve a space station into it? Are there any objects out there made of materials that would be a good radiation shield? How would such a "craft" be designed if possible?


There are lots of asteroids that would make excellent shields. The problem is that hollowing them out.  The necessary equipment would be heavy and require a lot of power.  You would need a nuclear power source and a bunch of tools that aren't even invented yet.  Getting all of this into orbit is one thing but tools wear out, reactors need servicing, and people need to be rotated back to earth.  It's a great idea but honestly by the time we are able to economically lift that much mass into orbit we'll be able to just build a 'traditional' space station with more room and better facilities anyway.
 
2014-01-28 11:50:57 AM

kim jong-un: ArcadianRefugee: OK, smarter-than-me folks: why de-orbit it rather than building on to it or replacing certain components?

I mean, a car I can understand: building more parts onto a car becomes counter-productive at some point, but that's a whole mass-velocity-gravity thing. Does shiat work more-or-less the same in space?

Station keeping is necessary in LEO. Also it regularly needs to be realigned so it faces the correct direction. Mass and distribution of such mass is very important.


So... um. Do we need more boosters... or more struts?
 
2014-01-28 01:47:57 PM

Egoy3k: Mentalpatient87: Just to spitball some fantastical ideas, and since someone mentioned asteroid capture, how much work would need to be done to nab a decent sized rock and carve a space station into it? Are there any objects out there made of materials that would be a good radiation shield? How would such a "craft" be designed if possible?

There are lots of asteroids that would make excellent shields. The problem is that hollowing them out.  The necessary equipment would be heavy and require a lot of power.  You would need a nuclear power source and a bunch of tools that aren't even invented yet.  Getting all of this into orbit is one thing but tools wear out, reactors need servicing, and people need to be rotated back to earth.  It's a great idea but honestly by the time we are able to economically lift that much mass into orbit we'll be able to just build a 'traditional' space station with more room and better facilities anyway.


Hm, so it's more of a future novelty home for rich people idea, then?

/still neat to consider
 
2014-01-28 01:51:05 PM
If it stays up there long enough, eventually it could be bought out by some now upstart company like SpaceX or Virgin Galactic to use as their arrivals terminal.
 
2014-01-28 08:01:32 PM
Old news is old.
 
2014-01-28 08:33:38 PM

poisonedpawn78: we need to spend more money destroying this planet and less money exploring for new planets to destroy. its simple logic.

Defund NASA entirely.


In that case, ideally humanity should of stayed in Africa as a bunch of tribes right? The march of progress has been through exploration and science. If you are so opposed to science and exploration, why don't you stop using your computer? Don't go to the hospital ever again too.

We spend less than 3 percent on science in the United States. Peanuts compared to social spending and military spending. Also, want humanity to learn to live more efficiently? Manned spaceflight is what you want to invest in then. A manned Mars mission for example with current technology, would require humans to be more self sufficient than ever before. That means new technology that could certainly be used here on earth.

People like you annoy me. Our species has come so far thanks to science and exploration. Giving up isn't going to get us anywhere.
 
2014-01-28 08:41:32 PM

jvl: It would be a shame if we got rid of the low-orbit Space Station which produces no science of value and redirected that money to useful endeavors like exploring Mars.


I think regardless of your feelings about ISS you should want us to get as much out of the station as possible. 100 billion dollars invested, and you just want to chuck it into the ocean before we've got our money's worth? Plus if you really want to stimulate commercial success in low earth orbit, ISS can become an attractive destination. Especially as Space X expands its launch capabilities, and drops the cost of maintaining the station even more.

I agree that ISS was a boondoggle, and if I could go back in time and change how the station was built I'd do so. As long as we have access to this capability though, we should get the most out of it as possible.
 
2014-01-28 10:00:47 PM

bbfreak: People like you annoy me


Sarcastic people?
 
2014-01-29 03:31:27 AM
*throws poisonedpawn78 out the Quest airlock*

Stay in the trees then, primate.

The future of mankind does not need you.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report