Difference between revisions of "ISS into the Pacific"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Controversial Question:: Removing unsupported assertion.)
(Controversial Question:: format)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
'''Pro: Keep the ISS:'''
 
'''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]]).
+
*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]]).
  
  
 
'''Con: Discard the ISS:'''
 
'''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.
+
*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.
  
  

Revision as of 06:11, 30 April 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).


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.


Please add your comments to the Discussion tab of this page.


The purpose of these controversial questions is not to come to finial answers or even to reach consensuses. It is simply to explore the breadth of opinion in the Lunarpedia community.