NASA Plans to De-Orbit $100B ISS in Q1 2016

[jefferiestubes8]

Michael T. Suffredini, the NASA space station program manager, has announced that despite the fact that the ISS is only now nearing completion, there are already plans to de-orbit the station. The last of the components for the ISS are set to be in place next year and according to Suffredini, the station is currently planned to crash back to Earth in 2016.

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Plans+to+DeOrbit+100B+ISS+in+2016/article15680.htm

original source

Possibly with some lobbying in the next 5 years they will get funding to not go forward with this current plan.

 

[FordSVT]

There is a topic in misc on this as well as some discussion in this forum on the topic here as well.

All I'll say in this thread is what I said there:

^I think all that needs to be said about NASA's statement can be summed up by the last paragraph of the linked article:

"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 NASA's way of publicly calling attention to the issue. They're waving their hands at Congress for money and permission to carry on the mission. 2016 is a long way away in political years. It might as well be 2060."

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

 

[FordSVT]

^It's not the NASA program manager's fault. He's not releasing this press note because he wants to de-orbit the damned thing, he's releasing it because at the moment they have no money funded from Congress for the station's budget beyond 2015. It's not the executive branch telling NASA they have no money for it. The White House can increase or reduce their budget if they feel there is a need, but most administrations aren't going to be eager to announce billions in future NASA spending during a recession. It will get done but it will be through the House.

The plain truth is that NASA plans 5,10, and 20 years ahead conceptually and based on the budgets they have allocated at the time. It's rare that a politician looks at anything beyond the next election unless he or she absolutely has to.

 

[Deks]

Core fault: money

Get rid of it already.

 

[Squiggy]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

It's not up to the President. It's up to Congress.

 

[Data Holmes]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

It's not up to the President. It's up to Congress.

And democrat congresses hate the space program.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Squiggy....Well supposedly. Seems the executive branch is promoting all the ideas these days, and some puppet in the House starts the paperwork for it.

THIS IS NOT A CONDEMNATION OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION (I've certainly got personal feelings on that matter, but this isn't the place or time for that discussion.), but an observation of how things have been going in DC for quite some time. I'd much prefer the executive branch work more as a manager than the starting point for new laws and legislation.

Everyone that wants to be president talks about what they're gonna do when all they should be doing is signing or vetoing, and shaking hands with, conferring with, or condemning heads of state. 'cept Peroit of course and see how far that got him? LOL

Maybe this isn't the place for THIS discussion either, Mods feel free to axe it if you so choose.

 

[Squiggy]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

It's not up to the President. It's up to Congress.

And democrat congresses hate the space program.

I'd love to see whose ass your pulled that out of.

And while not on the pretty chart, since the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 2006, NASA's budget rose by 700m for FY2007, 1.5b for 2008, and decreased by 100m for 2009. The 2010 proposal is for an increase of 1.5b.

You might wanna take note that the last Republican Congress slashed NASA's budget by 500m in 2006.

Will there be anything else, or would you like me to school you again?

 

[Data Holmes]

The dems were the leaders of the charge to kill the space program. And while neither party really treats the program all that well, it seems that dems fund more in the way of science programs and probes while republicans buy into the idea of manned missions big time (while at the same time spending same or less).


Do you have a chart of budget vs presidential admin too?

 

[Neopeius]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

What is the value of the International Space Station?

 

[Data Holmes]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

What is the value of the International Space Station?

Not much beyond a platform of achievement and science.

 

[Squiggy]

The dems were the leaders of the charge to kill the space program. And while neither party really treats the program all that well, it seems that dems fund more in the way of science programs and probes while republicans buy into the idea of manned missions big time (while at the same time spending same or less).


Do you have a chart of budget vs presidential admin too?

Where have the Republicans funded manned space flight? Bush told NASA to go to Mars but didn't give NASA any damned money to do it, which is why NASA is being forced to end the shuttle program.

Presidential admin is irrelevant. Congress funds NASA, not the White House.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

What is the value of the International Space Station?

Since there is no other manned orbital research facility, I'd say it's pretty damn valuable.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

What is the value of the International Space Station?

Since there is no other manned orbital research facility, I'd say it's pretty damn valuable.

Agreed. Earth gravity and Arctic and Utah/North Dakota/ Florida Keys NASA underwater stations do not accurately simulate a space station or moon base.

 

[SeerSGB]

Time to fire off some letters to ye' olde congressmen.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Hey Squiggy, can you do a chart like that showing the color of the executive branch? Miight prove interesting seeing how some of those upturns line up.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[ncc74302]

Hey Squiggy, can you do a chart like that showing the color of the executive branch? Miight prove interesting seeing how some of those upturns line up.

Wow thanks Squiggly. That's pretty telling right there...

 

[Data Holmes]

The dems were the leaders of the charge to kill the space program. And while neither party really treats the program all that well, it seems that dems fund more in the way of science programs and probes while republicans buy into the idea of manned missions big time (while at the same time spending same or less).


Do you have a chart of budget vs presidential admin too?

Where have the Republicans funded manned space flight? Bush told NASA to go to Mars but didn't give NASA any damned money to do it, which is why NASA is being forced to end the shuttle program.

Presidential admin is irrelevant. Congress funds NASA, not the White House.

Like I said, republicans buy into the idea of manned space missions... they just don't pay for them. Democrats fund space programs but don't like manned missions.

Interesting.