|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it? Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific? That would be some fireworks show. The South Pacific is pretty much standard for such events. I guess you could do it in the southern Indian Ocean, but the South Pacific is bigger. Should be pretty gaudy. When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems easier. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On May 15, 8:40*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote: "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off. Lemme guess... - Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week? - Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference? - The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares and Keith's beloved EELVs? - A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve? NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to see here, move along... Brian You got that right. A phenomenal waste of time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On May 15, 7:40 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote: "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off. Lemme guess... - Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week? - Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference? - The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares and Keith's beloved EELVs? - A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve? NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to see here, move along... So tell us o' html guru, how many hits per day does your website get? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote: On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote: Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it? Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific? That would be some fireworks show. The South Pacific is pretty much standard for such events. I guess you could do it in the southern Indian Ocean, but the South Pacific is bigger. Should be pretty gaudy. When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems easier. And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent. If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by definition they aren't competent. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT), kT
wrote: On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: wrote: On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote: Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it? Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific? That would be some fireworks show. When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems easier. And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent. If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by definition they aren't competent. What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being inaccessible in any practical sense? My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards Dale |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On May 17, 12:01 am, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT), kT wrote: On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: wrote: On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote: Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it? Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific? That would be some fireworks show. When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems easier. And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent. If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by definition they aren't competent. What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being inaccessible in any practical sense? It's already in orbit. It has to be boosted only so that it remains in orbit, a mere fraction of it's orbital velocity, depending on its drag. It took hundreds of billions of dollars to design, build, launch and construct, including shuttle and Soyuz development and operational costs. Keeping it in orbit only requires only a small fraction of those costs. But this is the new America, where retiring the SSMEs is thought to be a good thing, and we're new replacing our space shuttles with an idiot rocket design (Ares I - the Stick), while we have two other functioning rockets sitting on the launch pads, ready to go, bought and paid for. We're not talking about the brightest bulbs on the planet anymore. My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards Your understanding is very weak, let's call it non-existent for brevity. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
What is the ISS useful for?
Nothing. Incomptent AmeriKKKan design, Incompetent AmeriKKKan implementation, Incompetent AmeriKKKan management. Another Failure of AmeriKKKa in space. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:52:16 -0700 (PDT), kT
wrote: What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being inaccessible in any practical sense? It's already in orbit. It has to be boosted only so that it remains in orbit, a mere fraction of it's orbital velocity, depending on its drag. It took hundreds of billions of dollars to design, build, launch and construct, including shuttle and Soyuz development and operational costs. Keeping it in orbit only requires only a small fraction of those costs. But how would it then be reached with our current manned craft? I don't see how Shuttle and especially Soyuz development costs enter into it. But raising ISS's orbit to eliminate drag isn't a trivial thing. And as I asked before, how then do we access it? Is it just an orbital monument? My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards Your understanding is very weak, let's call it non-existent for brevity. It was a joke. Your inability to grasp that says a lot. I almost apologized to the group for even responding to you. I'll do that now. Sorry, but you are an idiot. But have a nice life anyway. Dale |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breaking News: Scott "Doc" Horowitz, the Constellation head, the INVENTOR of the "stick" (a.k.a. Ares-I) and one of the father of the ESAS/VSE plan, is leaving NASA !!! | gaetanomarano | Policy | 2 | July 13th 07 06:03 AM |
"VideO Madness" "JackO' Pissed!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 11th 06 09:38 PM |
NASA Watch: "Bob Zubrin Steps In It Again" | [email protected] | Policy | 51 | June 17th 06 01:08 AM |