Difference between revisions of "ISS into the Pacific"
Jarogers2001 (talk | contribs) (three pros, a con, and a couple of typo fixes) |
(reformat) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = | + | {|align=right |
| + | |__TOC__ | ||
| + | |} | ||
| − | ===Controversial Question: | + | <font size=5> Discuss: Should we drop the International Space Station in the Pacific?</font> |
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Controversial Question:== | ||
'''Should we now stop the massive expense of completing the International Space Station (ISS) and deorbit it into the Pacific?''' | '''Should we now stop the massive expense of completing the International Space Station (ISS) and deorbit it into the Pacific?''' | ||
| − | + | ===Pro: Keep the ISS:=== | |
*It is our best laboratory for learning to live and work in space. | *It is our best laboratory for learning to live and work in space. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 21: | ||
*It provides a platform for testing the effects of long term exposure to the harsh environment of space on various materials which could be used in future spacecraft and outposts. | *It provides a platform for testing the effects of long term exposure to the harsh environment of space on various materials which could be used in future spacecraft and outposts. | ||
| − | + | ===Con: Discard the ISS:=== | |
*Living and working in zero-g in low Earth orbit is very different from living and working on the Moon. | *Living and working in zero-g in low Earth orbit is very different from living and working on the Moon. | ||
*The expense of this program is ruinous. | *The expense of this program is ruinous. | ||
| − | *The ISS has failed to provide the promised medical and | + | *The ISS has failed to provide the promised medical and pharmaceutical advances that were used to sell the space station plan to congress. |
| − | + | ===Please add your comments to the Discussion tab of this page.=== | |
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 04:32, 27 May 2007
Discuss: Should we drop the International Space Station in the Pacific?
Controversial Question:
Should we now stop the massive expense of completing the International Space Station (ISS) and deorbit it into the Pacific?
Pro: Keep the ISS:
- It is our best laboratory for learning to live and work in space.
- It can be an important safety station on our way to the Moon (see Orbits).
- Avoiding being sued for breach of contract and destruction of property by JAXA, RSA and ESA is important
- The ISS represents a significant and under-utilized investment in orbital infrastructure.
- It creates the need for cheaper space transport systems which could reduce the payload costs affecting future lunar/orbital outposts.
- It provides a platform for testing the effects of long term exposure to the harsh environment of space on various materials which could be used in future spacecraft and outposts.
Con: Discard the ISS:
- Living and working in zero-g in low Earth orbit is very different from living and working on the Moon.
- The expense of this program is ruinous.
- The ISS has failed to provide the promised medical and pharmaceutical advances that were used to sell the space station plan to congress.
Please add your comments to the Discussion tab of this page.
The purpose of these controversial questions is not to come to final answers or even to reach consensus. It is simply to explore the breadth of opinion in the Lunarpedia community.
