NASA to De-Orbit International Space Station In 2016

If they can keep the HST operational for over 20 years, there's no reason the ISS couldn't stay up for at least 30.. The suits at NASA better think twice about a planned 2016 de-orbit. This would be a very unwise and costly PR blunder.. Over $100 Billion spent, 15 years of construction time, and costing 7 astronauts' lives!
If money's the issue, maybe the space agency should do what the Russians are doing...space tourists. They could also sell ad space on the orbiter and ISS nodes. This alone could bring in 100's of millions of dollars a year..
They would be better off cutting some Mars missions are planetary probes before axing the ISS in 2016 IMO.

UNBELIEVABLE... This is just another item on a LONG list of stupidity that is titled NASA.

Ten years ago...THEY DIDN'T THINK OF THIS TEN YEARS AGO?!?! SELL IT! LEASE IT! I'm fairly certain that some private party SOMEWHERE would buy it to make it a million dollar a night hotel.

I swear NASA should be decommissioned, all their patents and research should be auctioned off, and the space program should be private and funded by grants.

I am so sick of hearing how much NASA is SCREWING the American people out of a good space program.

This is disgraceful. Mir was operational for 15 years before it fell into the drink! The only thing that shocks me more than the briefness of the ISS's lifespan is the fact that NASA is willing to lose face by tanking the project so quickly.

What a monumental waste! This while Africa continues to starve.

Sell NASA to Bill Gates. Problem solved.

I didn't think that NASA was actually the controlling group for the ISS. I remember reading at one time that NASA was actually forced to participate in the ISS as some kind of a concession to the Russians. If it is truly an INTERNATIONAL space staion, I'd hate to think that the US is footing the bill.

If we are, then maybe the Euros or the Russkis want to buy it :)

While I'm the first on the list to see Third World countries given relief, there's a lot to be said about the money spent here as well. Many of the discoveries and research will help people on the backend as new technologies are put to use to help them.

So while it may be a huge waste to see the station ditched, there's no need for the long face.

Put the blame where it belongs, this is not NASA's decision this is a funding issue from Washington. No money form Washington = stations de-orbit.

You have to be kidding me. After all the effort to get this station built and working. The only thing they should be thinking about is how long can they keep it in orbit and what upgrades and improvements can be made.

One more reason Virgin Galactic and Sir Richard Branson will be the new leader of the final frontier. Can't trust the government to do anything right these days...

I call BS on this article, where is the proof that anybody has actually said that? Furthermore, it's an International Space Station, there are three different groups of people that have invested time and money into the project that would happily take it over should NASA be retarded and give up our stake in it.

Funding, funding, funding! Don't get mad at NASA, get mad at the government for cutting so much from NASA. The suits at NASA get it, the suits in DC have no clue what's going on.

Okay, let's not freak out too much. Maybe ditching the space station in 7 years is too soon, but the thing has been up there for quite a while already (although in incomplete form), and it can't last forever. Space is a very hostile environment, and constant exposure to extreme heat and extreme cold and radiation and micrometeors will cause it to wear out after some period of time, and we don't want to have anybody living on it when the risk of a leak or fire or power failure becomes too great. We saw that happen with the Mir station. Maintenance can extend its lifespan, but in the end the crew will be spending all its time doing maintenance and nothing else.

Did we spend too much money on the ISS? Yes.
Did it take way longer than expected to complete? Yes.
Could that money have been better spent somewhere else? Probably.

But a lot of knowledge of how to construct things in space has been gained. We learned from previous projects like Skylab and Mir, and future projects will be better because of our experience with the ISS. And now that we have a better idea of how expensive and time-consuming these projects are, we can make better decisions about how many more we want to pursue.

This is why the private sector will make it to Mars first, because Nasa keeps on getting its funding cut, along with being forced to cancel it's projects. I'm sure we'll have a bunch of space stations in the 2030's, depending upon technology, money, and desire I guess.

"Many of the discoveries and research will help people"

Name one discovery or new technology that has been developed on the ISS. For that matter, name one developed during the entire space program.

On the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, we've gotten no farther than John Glenn did, orbiting the earth. We've just got a bigger, more expensive capsule now.

It's high time that NASA was eliminated and their mission turned over to private enterprise.

Okay, the ISS may outlive its usefulness a bit earlier than expected, but why have it burn up in the atmosphere and crash into the ocean?

There's 100 Billion of tech and materials up there. Put some boosters on it and aim it at the moon. We'll need a moon base someday and raw materials will be expensive to fly over there. So if we can salvage the ISS for a future moon base, all the better.

This obviously about money. Obama does not want to have to spend money on a new shuttle and without it the space station is useless. The present shuttle is alredy obsolete and a new one will take years and billions to build.

I think the real reason is that ISS is far too big a target for space junk. By NASA's estimates, it has a very high probablity of failure due to a space junk collision. Extending the lifespan to 2020, which is what the Russians would prefer, increases the odds to 1 in 6. I call this option Russian Roulette.

I think this is the reason we have an emphasis on Moon, Mars, and Beyond for future plans - we NEED to get above the space junk because leaving huge targets in LEO can lead to LEO becoming unusable (look up "Kessler Syndrome"). As for private space flight, note that the Bigelow Aerospace stations are inflated and very small - thus making a comparatively safe destination as a small, shielded target.

I think Inspectorudy is on the right track. This smells of the Washington Monument syndrome: whenever your budget is in jeopardy, always close down your most visible asset. The average American couldn't name anything else NASA has in space, except possibly the Hubble. Threaten to shut down the ISS, and you get the headlines you want.

It's clear the fabulously successful public school system has run out of experiments from elementary school children to run in outer space and it's time to close the floating exhibit.

The whole rosy Star Trek Federation We Are The World future is looking a bit cloudy, too.

And $100 billion to starving Africans would only find its way into the pockets of the kleptocrats who are causing the starvation in the first place. Africa could easily feed itself -- and the world -- were its riches not being stolen by its own tyrants.

@dontbother
"Name one discovery or new technology that has been developed on the ISS. For that matter, name one developed during the entire space program."

Don't be ridiculous. They're responsible for thousands of patents and many technologies you probably use every day. Long-distance telephone communication? Props to NASA. Water filters? Props to NASA. Battery powered tools? Props to NASA.

I'm not saying NASA does the best job, and I do believe the private sector will do better, but you gotta give credit where credit is due. To say the space program hasn't invented anything useful is just sheer ignorance.

rodreilly

NO WAY can this be right. 2016? No way. Please go back and check your sources.

It makes no sense because:

NASA cintracted a COTS program with SpaceX and OSC for ISS resupply. These companies won't be flying resupply missions any earlier than 2012, if then. The Ares/Constellation/Constellation system won't be up and running any earlier than 2016, and -- while the eventual destination is the Moon -- it is intended as the U.S. transportation to the ISS. These timelines make absolutley no sense if the station is going to be de-orbited in 2016.

Go back and check your sources again.

rodreilly

I really, really think this is misinformation. I could be wrong, but it doesn't smell right.

Ground Control to Major Tom,

So you're going to de-orbit, burn up in the atmosphere, and sink a perfectly good ISS into the Pacific Ocean because you're done playing with it?

NASA, haven't you heard about CraigsList and eBay?

Having grown up with Chesley Bonestell, Astounding, and MFSF I am disappointed and disgusted that we are no further along than we are. My prescription is

1. Delay any grandiose plans until the X-37 gives us some results. The limiting factor to space today is materials science. I can't believe we don't have a better solution than those shuttle tiles. Maybe some kind of magnetohydrodynamic effect or directed energy would work to negate the friction of re-entry (blue sky!).

2. Return NASA to its R&D roots, like its predecessor NACA. Get the government out of the transportation business. Government generally fails at running things; aviation got a boost when the government contracted out delivering the mail.

3. Be realistic about motivation. Exploration to the new world was driven by commerce and greed. There is currently no commercial or greedy reason to go to Mars or the outer solar system. However, just extend the range of the Virgin Galactic Space Ship II a little and you're going LA to Tokyo in a couple of hours. With the right aircraft and infrastructure, that should be a much bigger money-maker than space tourism. Again, materials science leads the way.

4. Forget concepts like Ares / Constellation. They are non-starters for serious space operations. Who would fly LA to NYC if at the end they were deposited in the Hudson river in a tin can under a parachute? Direct concepts are very short-sighted; we need to have an earth to LEO capability with a true station, from which missions can be launched with the appropriate vehicle and propulsion. If we're serious about exploring the solar system, we need high energy propulsion systems like nuclear, which are best assembled, tested and deployed from space.

I'm as eager as the next guy to get to Mars, but let's do it right, with nuclear propulsion and plans for a permanent manned presence.

I think this is the mis-matching between Old systems and newly developed systems. Repairing many times cost a lot of money. No wonder why U.S is under Business Crisis. :)

MYO HAN HTUN (a) KO TOE

I've looked at all these common sense ideas both sides and I agree with every word from all of you people, and we are All right. So is NASA. Keep it up there forever, we took the time Money Effort Sacrifice, to boost all that mass into space. Use it as a crew quarters, a fuel or air station. Open Source the ISS as an interactive learning platform. Use it to build something bigger/newer/MorePermanent. Space hospital. Or simply a hulk that we park at our tail Lagrange for picking parts and recycling. The money NASA receives is NOT it's own. Neither is ISS. As anyone can see from all of us on this webpage popsci has for us here, WE WANT TO KEEP ISS IN SOME USEFULL FORM. To pay itself off. To serve as a monument. HELL, OBAMA, CALL IT AN INTERNATIONAL PARK BY ACT OF CONGRESS, is this what your room fulla smart people told you? They shoulda, 'cause this one is really gonna piss people off when this gets around to the WE THE PEOPLE, not to mention the international PEOPLE who are using their precious resources up as they boost our mass for US. Start a Planetary Solar Project and dedicate it to photonic energy collection and research. Space Watercooler for the astronauts to stand around in the middle of their shift, but DO NOT WASTE MORE OF OUR, MINE, WE THE PEOPLE'S money. Or the monies of our partners all over the world who help US reach for something more. Godspeed, Challenger, may you fly forever.

The ISS is too high in latitude (inclination) to be useful to the USA launching east from Kennedy Space Center. Payload has to be sacrificed because more energy is required to reach the ISS from Kennedy. It is in an extremely poor position for the US to utilize as a jumping off point.

The orbit was chosen so the Russians could participate, they would only launch Soyuz close to the latitude of Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Also, I understand the romantic idea of a space plane, but wings are just useless dead weight in space. Sometimes you just need to get few guys and their luggage into orbit, and the direct, man-in-a-can approach is far more economical.

And lastly, until we start being realistic and moving forward on Nuclear fission NERVA type engines, we aren't going anywhere.

Well I guess I'm old enough to be able to add some critical information concerning the ISS and why it is no longer considered worth maintaining.

Under President Clinton a decision was made to alter the orbital attitude to allow the Russians to be able to launch vehicles to supply the ISS, to cover in case of American failures (many to be sure) and to allow for the overall participation of the Russian space program, its people and resources. This was really the beginning of a wider movement to make the ISS "International" and the real reason was to share the enormous cost.

What was not given any publicity, in fact great effort was made to keep the following information out of the press and other media, is that by making the presidential call to widen and include other countries and their resources, the real purpose of the ISS was destroyed.

Its original design was much larger and complex than the final incarnation. Its mission was primarily as a intermediary way station for manned Moon and Mars missions.

These interplanetary vehicles would be built on the ISS and launched from the ISS thereby removing the huge thrust requirement(= fuel and weight and $$$)to escape the earth's gravitational pull(Escape vel. approx. 7 miles per sec).

But by changing the ISS's orbit to allow the Russians to dock these mission goals were made moot.

I discussed this issue at some length about 5 years ago with the GAO expert on ISS's build,it's many design changes and anything else related to the ISS. He confirmed and expanded on the technical and policy implications stated here.

So it does not surprise me now that the ISS weighs 700k lbs, the fuel required to change its attitude and orbit back to the original design specs would prove too costly and difficult. This is what I was told - it can't be done now - and if the decision to allow the Russians access had not been made the ISS would have been scrapped altogether.

But when you consider that the shuttle is being scrapped and everything designed back to 1960 philosophies - the admonition to not reinvent the wheel - over and over - is not in NASA's vocabulary.

It's so sad that we continually repeat our mistakes in this venture called manned space flight, wasting time money and talent on a scale unheard of.

The vehicle we should have never scrapped was Gemini. A super cheap way to get two guys and a change of skivvies into orbit, and it could have evolved over the years. The Air Force had big plans for 'Blue Gemini', but, like Dyna-Soar, MOL, NERVA, etc etc, it was scrapped.

If they de-orbit it too quickly, someone could be de-healthed, or worse...de-lifed. Obviously the funding cuts are worse than we imagined. They have trickled right down and affected the professional development and training budget of the Washington Post.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

What a fraking waste I'd rather see the station sold to private groups then deorbited.
This is because of those idiotic Ares rockets eating up funding.

It's like going backwards, decomission shuttle program and what back to capsules.Build spacestationand then what let it fall out of the frigin sky.The privite sectors will eventully have all the heros, we all grew up wanting to be U.S astronats not microsoft astronats.

Are you serious what a waste of time and money. what are they going to do with it after that.

No money from Washington - they have to bailout the banks the automakers, insurance companies and anyone who needs money...

http://www.squidoo.com/top10canadianbanksites

i understand why they have to take down the station but hears an idea how about we recycle it

i mean isted of sending it into an ocean where itll probably never be seen again why dont we try to crash it in a desert and salvage what we can

i think the next time we decide to make another we should have more advanced radiation shielding and better material that would beter withstand the extream enviroment of space

on the contrary im voting for the next station to be a military outpost for quick deployment

@Captain Atom

I agree with you on the nuclear fission drive for interplanetary travel concept, however spaceplanes (although mega expensive for now) are less high maintenance to fly than a multi-piece expendable rocket used for orbital flight only.

The Space Shuttle is useful because it is capable of taking off like a rocket and landing like a plane, eliminating the need for a helicopter to retrieve astronauts from a metal can temporarily floating in the ocean (highly limited in operational scope).

Also the spaceplane concept would be feasible for interplanetary travel (in the distant future) for whenever we get to exploring celestial bodies with atmospheres that are comparitively similar to Earth's in terms of density(they would serve as landers and for orbital insertion). Aerodynamic surfaces do not have use in space but they do have use in any thick layer of gas where lift can be generated.

@kingside

Unfortunate that the ISS took this course as it meant we would be on our way into the far reaches of space a lot sooner (ironically the Russian Federal Space Agency has plans to make an orbital weigh station that could be used to park and construct spacecraft components to be used for interplanetary flight).

The U.S. should seriously consider the primary function of the ISS for a future space platform if we are to truly fly to interplanetary destinations; especially when everyone else in the world realises that shooting rockets off a launch pad into space then directly to another world is a thing of the past and should be a thing of the future when technological development provides us a more advanced alternative than the large multistaged chemical rocket.

The only reason why progress on this front is stagnated in the U.S. is because the wrong individuals are put in charge of making decisions about the path of human spaceflight.

"Welcome! to the Federation Starship SS Buttcrack!!!"

Is the ISS after its earth orbit programme not potentially useful as future moonbase components?
If we're putting in place a future moonbase, where do those parts come from?

Congress and the amerian people will gladly suport bigger nasa budgets if nasa gives them a goal and timeline that are worthy of our intrest and national pride. The current plan to return to the moon takes longer than the first time with no new technology; that is unacceptable. We could have a base on the moon manned and producing fuel for more expansive missions to mars and beyond by 2020. We learned alot with the space shuttle program let's use that knowledge to build a better bigger cheaper design rather than return to apollo type craft. Their ideas are like going back to the Wright Flyer after building the sr71. The only reason to do this is if you have a shadow program and don't want to make the tech public because it will prove you were lying for decades and cost the human lives of the astronauts of Challenger and Columbia among other crimes aganst the American public .