International Space Station to be de-orbited in 2016??

[CorporalClegg]

Well, if they do decide to cancel the program, I think they should just blow it up in space. And film it.

That way everyone will know if there really isn't any sound in space or if Hollywood was right all this time.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, if they do decide to cancel the program, I think they should just blow it up in space. And film it.

That way everyone will know if there really isn't any sound in space or if Hollywood was right all this time.

Well, physics tells us that there's no sound. But it'd still be funny to see the Mythbusters try and do it.

Or give it to Michael Bay.

 

[RJDiogenes]

They've got to be kidding.

Hopefully, this is just an attempt to get public support. It would be insane to destroy this thing so soon. It was insane to destroy Skylab and Mir. Bloody Hell....

Mir was a orbiting scrap-heap being held together with duct-tape and glue. It was well past its time to be destroyed.

It doesn't matter. Mir and Skylab were important historical artifacts; it was stupid to destroy them.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Or give it to Michael Bay.

PPfft. He'd just turn something awesome into something fucking stupid.

 

[Trekker4747]

They've got to be kidding.

Hopefully, this is just an attempt to get public support. It would be insane to destroy this thing so soon. It was insane to destroy Skylab and Mir. Bloody Hell....

Mir was a orbiting scrap-heap being held together with duct-tape and glue. It was well past its time to be destroyed.

It doesn't matter. Mir and Skylab were important historical artifacts; it was stupid to destroy them.

So what were they supposed to do? Keep using them besides the enormous cost of maintaining several orbiting platforms? Keep them around for the sake of nostalga even though they could pose a danger?

They were junk, useless for the future picture, and they needed to be gotten rid of. There's enough junk floating around in orbit, we didn't need two VERY LARGE pieces of junk orbiting up there with parts that could potentialy break off and pose a danger to other objects in orbit.

I get the "idea" of keeping them because of their "value" to history but it just wasn't practical or worth it to do it. And deorbiting them in a way to preserve them just wouldn't of been practical at all.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't see why they couldn't have been boosted to a higher, stable orbit; there are plenty of inactive satellites up there.

 

[Trekker4747]

I don't see why they couldn't have been boosted to a higher, stable orbit; there are plenty of inactive satellites up there.

Too much trouble and expense for little or no gain?

Russia's space program wasn't all that fantastic when they de-orbited Mir. IIRC there was even some question on whether they'd even be able to de-oribit it safely.

 

[FordSVT]

You guys are overreacting. Note perhaps the most important part of the article: the end of it.

"The cost of the station is both a liability and, paradoxically, a virtue. A figure commonly associated with the ISS is that it will ultimately cost the United States and its international partners about $100 billion. That may add to the political pressure to keep the space laboratory intact and in orbit rather than seeing it plunging back to Earth so soon after completion. "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."


This is probably, at the moment, political posturing on the part of NASA. 2016 is a long time in politics, but when you're running an organization like NASA that actually does, on paper at least, look a decade ahead, they can only plan with the funding they have. This is an attempt to pressure Congress into giving them more money.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

Or give it to Michael Bay.

PPfft. He'd just turn something awesome into something fucking stupid.

Not to mention locate it in the wrong orbit. I'm sure he sucks at astronomy just as much as geography.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't see why they couldn't have been boosted to a higher, stable orbit; there are plenty of inactive satellites up there.

Too much trouble and expense for little or no gain?

Russia's space program wasn't all that fantastic when they de-orbited Mir. IIRC there was even some question on whether they'd even be able to de-oribit it safely.

In Skylab's case, yes, given the state of the Space Program at the time, it would have been too much trouble and expense; which is part of the fail.

Mir, I don't know; I don't see how an orbital boost would be more trouble than a controlled re-entry.