Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seanflyon t1_jd927ww wrote

Reply to comment by Riptide360 in Industry sees missed opportunity in deorbiting ISS by ye_olde_astronaut

"Nope" what? Do you honestly think that maintaining the ISS is cheap? Did you get confused and reply to the wrong comment, or do you simply have no idea what you are talking about?

6

[deleted] t1_jd9477t wrote

[deleted]

1

Riptide360 t1_jd95djg wrote

Save the hate. I just thought we could have a discussion about saving some space history by moving the station into higher orbit. No shortage of debris in space so I'm glad they are at least being responsible about the millions it will cost to deorbit ISS.

1

seanflyon t1_jdagkhy wrote

It seems like you are not particularly interested in a discussion that involves dealing with reality.

5

Riptide360 t1_jdaljtf wrote

Remember how many decades it took us to build a replacement for Skylab?

Remember how many decades it took us to build a replacement for the Space Shuttle?

The discussion on saving the ISS as a resource is useful. Lets hope most of it can be saved or it'll be decades more.

Feel free to stop participating if you don't have anything meaningful to add.

0

Riptide360 t1_jdajrhs wrote

Maintaining ISS runs about $3 billion a year. Getting that much gear up there cost $150 billion. The tug boat NASA is building for $80 million could just as easily push up as it does down. NASA wants chunks of it brought down like we did with SkyLab, albeit a little bit more controlled this time, but a hell of a lot larger.

0

zx7 t1_jdbbdhe wrote

>The tug boat NASA is building for $80 million could just as easily push up as it does down.

"Just as easily." It's much easier to deorbit something. Just decelerate it enough so that it's orbit intersects with the atmosphere. You can't just "push up" and expect the ISS to maintain a nice, circular orbit around the Earth.

3