Difference between revisions of "ISS into the Pacific"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Controversial Question:)
(three pros, a con, and a couple of typo fixes)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
*It can be an important safety station on our way to the Moon (see [[Orbits]]).
 
*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
 
*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:'''
 
'''Con: Discard the ISS:'''
Line 17: Line 19:
 
*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 pharmacuetical advances that were used to sell the space station plan to congress.
  
  
Line 23: Line 26:
 
----
 
----
  
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.
+
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.
  
 
----
 
----
  
 
[[Category:Controversial Questions]]
 
[[Category:Controversial Questions]]

Revision as of 21:32, 17 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 pharmacuetical 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.