NASA plans to destroy the ISS in 7 years

[n2doc]

Space Station Is Near Completion, Maybe the End
Plan to 'De-Orbit' in 2016 Is Criticized



By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 13, 2009

A number of times in recent weeks a bright, unblinking light has appeared in the night sky of the nation's capital: a spaceship. Longer than a football field, weighing 654,000 pounds, the spaceship moved swiftly across the heavens and vanished.

Fortunately, it was one of ours.

The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings. Circling the Earth every 90 minutes, it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station, up high, is still bathed in sunlight.

After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts. The last components should be installed by the end of next year.

And then?

"In the first quarter of 2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft," says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.

more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html

I cannot say enough just how damaging this is for NASA. Why pour billions into a permanent station then destroy it immediately? Why would anyone ever give them money for anything other than expendable probes and other unmanned resources (telescopes) again? For chrissakes, they are sending the shuttle up to stick another piece on the ISS this week! :banghead:

[comtec]

1. unbelievable

they have GOT to get rid of all those fucking * appointees and get people in there that give a fuck about space exploration!!!

W/o the space station we are lost in space science, seriously!

The amount of research and findings we continue to get from space are astounding, and these morons want to scrap it? they are already scuttling the shuttle fleet with NO REPLACEMENT! and now this?

The US is going to become the fucking Amish of the world pretty soon. Hiding their heads in the sand from the harsh realities of the world. Nope none of that nieuwe technology thingie for us thank ye much. We're in happy with our buggies and leeches, thank you.

Thank god that at least the rest of the world is interested in space, or the human race would be completely fucked!

[joshcryer]

2. It won't happen. That's just the current schedule. That sort of language is actually intended...

...to sort of stick it to the budgetary committees and make them freak out when the masses start complaining.

I mean the ISS just got a full crew and Kibo won't even start working until STS-127 is complete. In other words, the ISS is only now realizing its full potential.

It'll last at least 15 years beyond that point, there's no doubt in my mind.

[n2doc]

4. Of course, but I personally think it is counterproductive

I serve on the UNOLS ship advisory system. We have only 1 oceanographic ship which will be within its rated lifespan in 2025. But we do not talk about "the end of oceanographic sampling" or "we won't have any ships after that point". We plan. We use these points to pressure Congress to provide funding for replacement vessels so that this won't happen. And it works, we have several in the pipleline now (it takes many years to go from planning to launch).

NASA has a habit of using this "deorbit" rhetoric all the time, the last was on Hubble. I just think it sends the wrong message.

[joshcryer]

8. Oh I absolutely agree. It sends the "we don't care about science" message.

NASA should *talk up* the technologies it has, and the access to space that it has. That's how Hubble got saved, really.

[liberal N proud]

3. That does a lot for an agency who want public funds

Just wow!

[Historic NY]

5. What...!!!! Same BS with Hubble. What are we to have a moon colony?

[n2doc]

6. Yeah, but 5 years after we build it we will have to blow it up! n/t

[joshcryer]

9. This is a signal for us to complain *really loudly* when the time comes.

We can start now but it'd be better to wait a little while until Japan and others start producing serious data.

[caraher]

7. The station was ill-conceived from the start

and it's consuming all the remaining shuttle flights. For what? If you use any traditional measure of scientific productivity ISS and the shuttle contribute very little to science. Their main contribution is to engineering knowledge required to support their activities.

The problem is the lack of a vision. As an ex-L5 Society member I appreciate pro-manned spaceflight sentiment, but we'll never had a coherent space policy so long as pro-manned spaceflight folks insist that every time we put up another can for people to float around in it's an advance for "science." We haven't had a clear vision since 1969; we throw people into orbit more out of habit and a vague sense that it's "good" that out of a careful calculation of the costs and benefits or in pursuit of an inspiring, worthy, attainable long-term goal.

If they trash ISS in 2016 yes, it will be a waste. But I can see wanting to get rid of that albatross ASAP. I think they should find some billionaire who wants to do space tourism and wash their hands of the whole thing.

[scubadude]

12. I agree with you, and remember at the time the shuttle

came into being lamenting the tremendous cuts in space science made due to cost overruns in the program. If memory serves me somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 missions were canceled. Real science suffered because of the shuttle and space station, with the rewards brought about by the shuttle to be relatively little as compared to the value of the lives lost in it's operation. We did prove we could work in space, but could have done that in ways which were much safer and less costly in terms of lives and dollars.

Some would argue that we are killing our planet and need to research how we will get off of it. I agree with that to an extent, and would support a small manned space program designed specifically to do that. What we don't need is a super expensive crash program to bringing man to Mars. We don't need another tremendously vain program that will provide little gain other than engineering.

I disagree with the notion that the moon is a dead end. It is the next natural extension for us, and would serve as a great platform for research if done wisely. Wisely and slowly. Not a crash program like the 60's moon program, but slow and reasoned program, incremental in it's expenditures and goals.

That being said a moon program must not arise at the cost of other science on robotic craft. I would suggest as a logical place to start a large new space effort programs to study the earth, done so in an effort to codify where it is at ecologically, and how man's impact upon it is changing that ecology. We need to save our earth first. We need to creat the science we will use to do that too. That kind of program could use unemployed techies like me.

Ultimately we need to control our appetites for the earths resources before it is too late. We need to control big businesses emphasis on raping the planet to feed our rapidly growing population.

My wife and I are seriously discussing becoming vegan. That will be a major battle but if you've ever personally seen a school of Tuna turn on a dime to avoid you, you'd do it too. That's my immediate space program, the space inside my stomach.

Scuba

[tocqueville]

10. the US doesn't own the ISS, this is pure US arrogance

Who owns the International Space Station?

The Intergovernmental Agreement allows the Space Station Partners States to extend their national jurisdiction in outer space, so the elements they provide (e.g. laboratories) are assimilated to the territories of the Partners States.

The basic rule is that 'each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals' (Article 5 of the Intergovernmental Agreement).

This means that the owners of the Space Station - the United States, Russia, the European Partner, Japan and Canada - are legally responsible for the respective elements they provide. The European States are being treated as one homogenous entity, called the European Partner on the Space Station. But any of the European States may extend their respective national laws and regulations to the European elements, equipment and personnel.

This extension of national jurisdiction determines what laws are applicable for activities occurring on a Partner’s Space Station elements (e.g. European law in the European Columbus Laboratory). This legal regime recognises the jurisdiction of the Partner States’s courts and allows the application of national laws in such areas as criminal matters, liability issues, and protection of intellectual property rights. Any conflicts of jurisdiction between the Partners may be resolved through the application of other rules and procedures already developed nationally and internationally.

http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAH7O0VMOC_iss_0.html

if the US wants to pull back, it's its own decision. But they cannot "dump it". They can dump their own stuff (by not participating), but not others. Europe and Russia are fully capable of maintaining the ISS with Ariane (refueling) and personal (Soyouz). This is utter bullshit and exactly the kind of stuff that creates anti-americanism.

[HeresyLives]

11. Agreed. The US doesn't own it.

Many nations do, and after all this effort they aren't about to give up their share in it.

The US can pull out, but they can't dump it.

I can't explain why anybody even said such a thing.

[joshcryer]

13. A large portion of the stations components are US "created," the Russians set precedent for...

..."ownership" of a given "part" of the ISS due to the whole "Russians use Russian tech" arguments that were going around. Russia then claimed that they would just take their part of the station and keep it up there, furthering the precedent. This is mostly political fear mongering.

[tocqueville]

14. Even if the major part is US...

the European, Japanese and Russian parts are non-negligible and neither are the costs for Russian and ESA launches (check wikipedia on this). Anyway even if the US "owns" the majority of the ISS, it cannot dump it without international agreement and solely based on NASA's economical problems . The initial dumping was planned 2020, since it was considered that the station would be worned out by that time. The USA cannot make unilateral decisions on this matter. But I agree that this is probably most fear mongering.