• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

International Space Station Comes Together

I knew the ISS was a big deal but I had no idea how many components it has. Human ingenuity continues to amaze me.
 
I like the ISS. It is a good stand in for now. But I would prefer the Constellation project over it since that at least gives a future to reach for. The ISS just kind of looks like a very expensive science lab. Now if it were to expand to be a construction yard, then I would be behind it fully. But as it is, it seems kind of a waste. I mean where do we go with it. Will it be like Mir? After 2020, are we really going to just let this thing fall back to Earth?
 
hallam said:
I like the ISS. It is a good stand in for now. But I would prefer the Constellation project over it since that at least gives a future to reach for. The ISS just kind of looks like a very expensive science lab. Now if it were to expand to be a construction yard, then I would be behind it fully. But as it is, it seems kind of a waste. I mean where do we go with it. Will it be like Mir? After 2020, are we really going to just let this thing fall back to Earth?
Click to expand...

Actually they would be letting it fall in 2016. So 6 years of being a finished station and then done.

There are actually plenty in Congress talking about that seeming like a waste given the tens of billions of dollars poured into the project and getting that little return. So we might see the station get a life-extension (depending on how costly it would be to maintain). Its alright having a space station to work on longer-term space stays but did we really need a $100 billion station for that? For something that's only in low Earth orbit? Seriously we should have spent that money on research into ways of leaving Earth's gravity well for cheaper. Stuff like a space elevator or perhaps a bit more practically a space launch loop. Those are the thing which are going to open up the solar system to humanity, not a space station which can have many of its functions duplicated by the space shuttle program (why not just launch a shuttle and leave it up there for longer? You could use the other shuttles to ferry supplies and its way cheaper than a dedicated station...at least until we get a launch loop up and going). Hell it might even be cheaper as cost estimates for a launch loop run from $10 to $30 billion...though the real figures might be somewhat higher when you factor in research costs. None the less a launch loop could easily pay for itself with a few years as we could be launching things into orbit for as little as $3 per kilogram...that's one percent of the current cost to get things into orbit today. That would be a far better human achievement than anything the ISS can do.
 
I think John Lennon said it best. "Come together, right now, over me"
 
Civil1z@tion said:
Actually they would be letting it fall in 2016. So 6 years of being a finished station and then done.

There are actually plenty in Congress talking about that seeming like a waste given the tens of billions of dollars poured into the project and getting that little return. So we might see the station get a life-extension (depending on how costly it would be to maintain). Its alright having a space station to work on longer-term space stays but did we really need a $100 billion station for that? For something that's only in low Earth orbit? Seriously we should have spent that money on research into ways of leaving Earth's gravity well for cheaper. Stuff like a space elevator or perhaps a bit more practically a space launch loop. Those are the thing which are going to open up the solar system to humanity, not a space station which can have many of its functions duplicated by the space shuttle program (why not just launch a shuttle and leave it up there for longer? You could use the other shuttles to ferry supplies and its way cheaper than a dedicated station...at least until we get a launch loop up and going). Hell it might even be cheaper as cost estimates for a launch loop run from $10 to $30 billion...though the real figures might be somewhat higher when you factor in research costs. None the less a launch loop could easily pay for itself with a few years as we could be launching things into orbit for as little as $3 per kilogram...that's one percent of the current cost to get things into orbit today. That would be a far better human achievement than anything the ISS can do.
Click to expand...

It has already been extended to 2020.

ISS partners asked to assess Station extension to 2025 – potentially 2028 | NASASpaceFlight.com
 
this is going to be so awesome but what about the U.S. cutting back on the budget for the space programs... will this affect it?
 
Civil1z@tion said:
Actually they would be letting it fall in 2016. So 6 years of being a finished station and then done.

There are actually plenty in Congress talking about that seeming like a waste given the tens of billions of dollars poured into the project and getting that little return. So we might see the station get a life-extension (depending on how costly it would be to maintain). Its alright having a space station to work on longer-term space stays but did we really need a $100 billion station for that? For something that's only in low Earth orbit? Seriously we should have spent that money on research into ways of leaving Earth's gravity well for cheaper. Stuff like a space elevator or perhaps a bit more practically a space launch loop. Those are the thing which are going to open up the solar system to humanity, not a space station which can have many of its functions duplicated by the space shuttle program (why not just launch a shuttle and leave it up there for longer? You could use the other shuttles to ferry supplies and its way cheaper than a dedicated station...at least until we get a launch loop up and going). Hell it might even be cheaper as cost estimates for a launch loop run from $10 to $30 billion...though the real figures might be somewhat higher when you factor in research costs. None the less a launch loop could easily pay for itself with a few years as we could be launching things into orbit for as little as $3 per kilogram...that's one percent of the current cost to get things into orbit today. That would be a far better human achievement than anything the ISS can do.
Click to expand...

If they let it fall, there will be a lawsuit from PETA. There IS life aboard the ISS, in the form of mold. LOL
 
then lets hope they will actually see it in ways that can help us actually progress with future space exploration.
 
I agree, lets hope. But then I think about Mir....how many people even remember Mir or Skylab if you prefer? And then how many people Mercury and Apollo?
 
Civil1z@tion said:
Actually they would be letting it fall in 2016. So 6 years of being a finished station and then done.

There are actually plenty in Congress talking about that seeming like a waste given the tens of billions of dollars poured into the project and getting that little return. So we might see the station get a life-extension (depending on how costly it would be to maintain). Its alright having a space station to work on longer-term space stays but did we really need a $100 billion station for that? For something that's only in low Earth orbit? Seriously we should have spent that money on research into ways of leaving Earth's gravity well for cheaper. Stuff like a space elevator or perhaps a bit more practically a space launch loop. Those are the thing which are going to open up the solar system to humanity, not a space station which can have many of its functions duplicated by the space shuttle program (why not just launch a shuttle and leave it up there for longer? You could use the other shuttles to ferry supplies and its way cheaper than a dedicated station...at least until we get a launch loop up and going). Hell it might even be cheaper as cost estimates for a launch loop run from $10 to $30 billion...though the real figures might be somewhat higher when you factor in research costs. None the less a launch loop could easily pay for itself with a few years as we could be launching things into orbit for as little as $3 per kilogram...that's one percent of the current cost to get things into orbit today. That would be a far better human achievement than anything the ISS can do.
Click to expand...

I think more important, or maybe of equal importance for space exploration is finding ways to incorporate artifical gravity into spacecraft. The effects of zero, or micro-gravity on human physiology are fast and debilitating. If we are going to have long term space colonization, we need to be able to make sure we can replicate the gravity produced naturally by earth. Our formation in utero is affected by gravity and there have been studies done on rats in space where there were some noted physiological difference on baby rats who were unable to turn over for a period of time(whereas they naturally can right after birth ). So gravity replication is of a high importance, I would say equal to that of speed of travel.
 
Without a space shuttle replacement, we're up **** creek. There is no viable space truck right now, and one that is low maintenance.
 
WI Crippler said:
I think more important, or maybe of equal importance for space exploration is finding ways to incorporate artifical gravity into spacecraft. The effects of zero, or micro-gravity on human physiology are fast and debilitating. If we are going to have long term space colonization, we need to be able to make sure we can replicate the gravity produced naturally by earth. Our formation in utero is affected by gravity and there have been studies done on rats in space where there were some noted physiological difference on baby rats who were unable to turn over for a period of time(whereas they naturally can right after birth ). So gravity replication is of a high importance, I would say equal to that of speed of travel.
Click to expand...

hmmm true true, but in-order to achieve this artificial gravity it would actually in my opinion have to be one really big generator... i see it like a magnet... when you place a magnet around metal nothing really happens... start spinning it and you get slight attarction. :] finding a way to get a magnet that big and to have it where it only attracts us and not the ship also so it doesnt compress and kill us.... there the challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom