digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

NASA: Use the ISS as an Interplanetary Spaceship

washingtonpost.com — The ISS, you see, is already an interplanetary spacecraft -- at least potentially. It's missing a drive system and a steerage module, but those are technicalities. It could fairly easily be retrofitted for operations beyond low-Earth orbit. In principle, we could fly it almost anywhere within the inner solar system.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 16, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

114 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • listrophy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+66It *is* designed to survive thrust. The ISS is constantly losing altitude due to the (extremely thin) atmosphere. Every so often, when a ship arrives, it gets boosted a few kilometers.

    Here's the real issue: the ISS isn't designed to survive the high radiation doses of space outside of Earth's protective magnetosphere. That is a *much* bigger problem.
  • cdigioia, on 07/16/2008, -1/+22NASA DID NOT WRITE THIS. A WRITER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST DID. (yes it's meant to be shouting)

  • TheOtherOne135, on 07/15/2008, -7/+27If it wasn't designed and put together with the intention for it to survive thrust intact, hooking up an engine to it seems like a REALLY bad idea.
  • Enternal, on 07/16/2008, -0/+18Wait, I don't think this idea was from NASA. It's from the author himself.
  • e2superman, on 07/16/2008, -2/+20Step 1. Attach Engines
    Step 2. Fire Engines
    Step 3. Oh Sh@#$
    Step 4. Hit self on head.
  • rebotfc, on 07/16/2008, -2/+15Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
    Dark Helmet: No, no, no. Light speed is too slow.
    Colonel Sandurz: Light speed is too slow?
    Dark Helmet: Yes. We're gonna have go right to... ludicrous speed.
  • solesoul, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13I know its implausible guys, but c'mon, let me at least pretend their on their way to making the Enterprise!
  • slvrbullet87, on 07/16/2008, -1/+11How about we dont make everything about the war in iraq, NASA was underfunded before this war.
  • RyeBrye, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9"But, our skeptics will sputter, this will all cost far more money than the Constellation program. Who'll pay for it?

    Actually, it will in effect save all the money we've already spent on the ISS..."

    SUNK COSTS DO NOT MATTER. Who gives a crap if you already have some floating tin can out in space - if it costs more to retrofit it than it does to build a new one, it makes more economic sense to just build a new one.
  • Tankslap, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9I guess the fact that my car does not have the wings to allow it to fly is also a "technicality".
  • pradaaddict, on 07/16/2008, -3/+10Phase 1: Attach Steerage & Engine
    Phase 2: ?
    Phase 3: Dead Astronauts
  • DeskFlyer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7Jazz and Awol, that's our team...
  • HerbertWest, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Ghost Ride The Station!


    (sorry)
  • offput, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Well, the current bureaucratic bloat in NASA plus the incredibly low budget (which is made smaller still by the bureaucratic bloat) are causing NASA to become obsolete. I know that NASA gets billions each year, but it's still less than during its peak, which is when NASA actually got ***** done. Plus the billions they receive are still only around half a percent of the US budget. What NASA needs is an infusion of new ideas and money.

    Maybe sending the ISS to the moon is stupid, but I'd rather we had a daring but fallible space agency than a byzantine and incompetent space agency.
  • paradexes, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Worked for the Fantastic Four.
  • Mononuclear, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/1 ... many well thought out reasons why this is a horrible idea. Some even from rocket scientists.
  • subgenius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Please see the same thread in Slashdot (hours ago) or Nasawatch.com for some intelligent comments on why this is a 'bad idea.' Benson is a douchebag that has no space science training.
  • ratboy4001, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Oh, shut up. If its not mrbabyman, its somebody else. At least, mrbabyman promotes interesting articles such as this.
  • SerifTheRobot, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Yeah, but we can't use shields to simulate a lesser mass than what's really there, like Chief O'Brien did in 'Emissary."
    Oh lord, I've done it again.
  • Ovalteen, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4What if a meteor or something hits it in Earth orbit? Hell, it's probably more at risk from space junk than anything in open space. Otherwise agree with you though.
  • rearlgrant, on 07/16/2008, -7/+11Damn, someone already posted "Dear NASA: That is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever read..."
  • case42tlc, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4It's not NASA's idea, and it only seems dumb to really stupid people. Like you..
  • Khast, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4They've gone plaid!
  • Kazaki, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Am I the only one who thinks we should practice making colonies on the moon first?

    I just don't understand it, it's right there!
  • JonTheGoose, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4What do they have to lose?? How about the poor sap who has to drive the thing.
  • CATSCEO2, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Step 5. ???
    Step 6. Profit!
  • nullview, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Actually, the new ion engines have very little initial thrust. Current engines exert about the same force as a sheet of paper does held on your palm. Their advantage is their 'burn time' resulting in much higher speeds eventually (i.e. after months of burning) than the traditional chemical rockets. So using those, placed appropriately wouldn't result in the 'crumple effect'. Slowing down when you reach your destination could be a problem though, but smarter guys than I can solve that I'm sure.
  • inactive, on 07/16/2008, -3/+6Come back in a few years when you have a degree in aeronautical engineering, and a working understanding of the ISS.
  • feliks2, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Damn, and someone already posted "Wait, I don't think this idea was from NASA. It's from the author himself."
  • stephenmeb, on 07/15/2008, -3/+6That seems like an amazing but incredibly inefficient and haphazard way of interplanetary travel, especially since we have started on "Constellation".
  • paradexes, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3The idea in the article is not a dumb one. But it certainly has some logistical challenges. It would be in a sense the first real attempt at space travel beyond the moon to another planet. Seeing that the space station is designed for long term sustainability, it works. But then if a meteor or something hits it...well thats 158+ billion in the *****.

    Still a good idea and thinking in the right direction.
  • Annix, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Go sit at the back of the bus.
  • ikrit2006, on 07/16/2008, -3/+6they're on their*
  • TrevorBradley, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3One of the suggestions was to use ion thrust. Slowly, but constantly raise the orbit.

    (Has an urge to play "Orbiter" again)
  • ratboy4001, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Your not alone, but money is the problem. There is barely a budget to go to Mars, so practice and then go to Mars? No money.
  • Chirp08, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Step into the party, disrupt the whole scene
  • TheAuditor, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3It would be irradiated massivly outside the van allen belts
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I could see it being moved to a "way station" near the moon or in orbit around the moon. but around the solar system? i dont think so.
  • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3It could be possible with a multi-billion dollar restructuring of the ISS. You would have to build some type of radiation shielded skin to put the modules in, using a stronger structure to tie the modules into an actual frame capable of handling the possible stresses. Quite an undertaking.

    Needless to say, just changing everything around like a jigsaw puzzle and adding the radiation shielding, propulsion, gravity module, extended life support, etc... would probably cost more then we have already spent on it.

    If it were a truly Global venture, which no one will ever agree to, it might have some benefits for an extended scientific mission to mars, where the science labs would prove useful. Otherwise you might as well just go with a smaller spacecraft built specifically for the mission, and go for the PR landing without doing much of any real science there.
  • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3It could be possible with a multi-billion dollar restructuring of the ISS. You would have to build some type of radiation shielded skin to put the modules in, using a stronger structure to tie the modules into an actual frame capable of handling the possible stresses.

    Needless to say, just changing everything around like a jigsaw puzzle and adding the radiation shielding, propulsion, extended life support, etc... would probably cost more then we have already spent on it.

    If it were a truly Global venture, which no one will ever agree to, it might have some benefits for an extended scientific mission to mars. Otherwise you might as well just go with a smaller spacecraft built specifically for the mission, and go for the PR landing without doing much of any real science there.
  • aussiessuck, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2It'll be fine. Give it a go!!!!
  • pigboyohboy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2"All the billions already spent on the space station would pay off -- spectacularly -- if this product of human ingenuity actually went somewhere and did something."

    If we can't figure out what to do with it when it is close at hand then I can't imagine why it would suddenly become useful somewhere else.
  • gbrmn, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Nice idea, but alas reality gets in the way...
  • unxconformed, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2As others have noted, there is all kinds of work would need to be done to retrofit the ISS to leave its current orbit. The cost of doing this would far out way just starting from scratch a different orbiting base. Plus the ISS needs constant resupply, if it were out at the moon you would still need the Ares class rockets to get supplies out to it. The whole thing would be a mess and likely end in human life lost from trying to use the ISS for something it wasn't designed to do.

    This article should be burned for its ignorance on the subject. Don't give people false ideas on things that are totally impractical and so inefficient. It just spreads ignorance into the general population which is already at extremely high levels...
  • daeus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2This guy writes on the ISS all the time so he must know abit about what he is talking about?

    I'm frustrated about the pace of finding out what is going on in the rest of the Galaxy/Universe, things like this cant be a bad thing, its not designed for thrust but ION thrust technology is very gentle I believe?
  • mark076h, on 07/16/2008, -5/+7How about we just end the war in Iraq and use that money for space exploration, if we spent the amount of money we have in Iraq on NASA we could have colonies on Mars by now.
  • Ossuary, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4Maybe a slow gentle tug into a lunar orbit instead of local thrusters? A crumpling effect would seem to be waiting to happen.
  • eh123, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2The person who wrote the article doesn't understand physics either.
  • sanman, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2steerage?
  • Aroundtheworls, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Tinfoil body wraps ought to do the trick.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.