The Escapist Portal > The Escapist Forums > The News Room
Topic Index
NASA Contemplating Blowing Up International Space Station

Username:Password:
Log In
 (Pages: 1, 2, 3)
1)   2 Feb 2011 02:00

NASA Contemplating Blowing Up International Space Station

image

A new idea for expanding the International Space Station could result in it being called the "Inflatable Space Station" instead.

Adding expansions to the International Space Station isn't exactly cheap, which means that NASA is considering alternative, less expensive construction methods. One possible technique would include inflating an addition, similar to "blowing up a tire", provided that NASA and Bigelow Airspace manage to reach a deal.

Nevada-based Bigelow is working to create alternative manufacturing methods for spacecraft and space modules based on its "expandable habitats". The technology has actually been tested and demonstrated via the launch of Genesis I in 2006 and Genesis II in 2007. As a result, NASA is currently weighting a proposal to use one a Bigelow Expandable Activity Module for the ISS.

If the deal goes through, the module used for the space station would be a slightly larger version of the type used for both Genesis I and II (which are currently in orbit). Theoretically, the module would be flown up to the ISS via a commercial rocket and then attached via robot.

As previously stated, the deal between NASA and Bigelow has yet to be finalized. That said, this is a really neat idea: the new technology could allow NASA to construct/place new portions of the station at a fraction of previous costs, and this is also a big step in the direction of commercial involvement with space exploration (something the Obama Administration has been touting since last year).

Source: Dvice & Space via Geek

Permalink

2)   2 Feb 2011 02:01

Am I alone in thinking there would be space nukes involved when they saw the title? :p

3)   2 Feb 2011 02:01

You know, that title is very misleading. I thought we were recreating COD:MW2.
EDIT:Damn, partial ninja'd!

4)   2 Feb 2011 02:02

Reading that title was such a huge WTF moment. Definitely works at getting attention.

5)   2 Feb 2011 02:03

The lack of space debris in this article disappoints me.

6)   2 Feb 2011 02:03

I thought this story would be about NASA making the Space Station explode.
I'm rather disappointed.

I guess space stations that are balloons are cool...

7)   2 Feb 2011 02:03

TestECull:
Am I alone in thinking there would be space nukes involved when they saw the title? :p

Totally not alone. I'm relieved, if disappointed.

8)   2 Feb 2011 02:03

Negative review. Misleading title. Would not read again.

No, seriously though. Come on.

9)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

This sounds like it would be at risk for popping. Aren't small bits of debris somewhat of a problem up there, especially at that altitude?

10)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

Intentionally misleading article title is misleading.

11)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

First when I read the title I was like

image

Then I read the actual thing and was like

image

So, yes, during the course of reading this article I turned from a cat into an owlCool stuff! Interesting technology, Hope it works! However, how safe is it? Isn't there a possibility that something sharp goes through it and oxygen escapes? I'm sure NASA would have thought of this problem and solved it years ago of course XD

12)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

I hope this goes through, might help get NASA off their asses and back into space.

13)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

Oh bugger, and here I thought there was some sort of crazy cost-cutting-artificial-meteorite-shower making plan going on.

14)   2 Feb 2011 02:04

Title: What! Now way. They are not that stupid.

Thread: Oh...That makes sense.

All commments will state what people though due to the title.

I hate captcha.

15)   2 Feb 2011 02:07

TestECull:
Am I alone in thinking there would be space nukes involved when they saw the title? :p

Yes.
Nuclear weapons in space have been illegal since 1967.

Conventional explosives however, are the order of the day for being able to manouver.

16)   2 Feb 2011 02:09

Two articles like this in one day?
Come on, The Escapist, this is becoming shameless.

However, balloon stations are interesting.

17)   2 Feb 2011 02:09

Too bad, I like the International Space Station. To me it represents all mankind pushing forward and going into space not as a bunch of nations but as one united people.

18)   2 Feb 2011 02:10

I wanted to see something go boom :(

19)   2 Feb 2011 02:11

vansau:
SNIP

And the winner of the most misleading title ever award is.....

20)   2 Feb 2011 02:12

could this balloon go to mars? why aren't we talking mars? mars is awesome! and yeah I was kinda disappointed they weren't going to actually blow up the space station too

21)   2 Feb 2011 02:13

vansau:
NASA Contemplating Blowing Up International Space Station

image

This is an awesome title.

22)   2 Feb 2011 02:13

Anarchemitis:

TestECull:
Am I alone in thinking there would be space nukes involved when they saw the title? :p

Yes.
Nuclear weapons in space have been illegal since 1967.

Conventional explosives however, are the order of the day for being able to manouver.

Says who?

I like how they're illegal in space but not on land.

At least I think they're not illegal on land, because if they were you would have just said "Nuclear weapons have been illegal since 1967"

23)   2 Feb 2011 02:15

Deceptive title is deceptive.

OT: What if the air leaked? I mean, space debris are whizzing up there at hundreds of miles per hour, and if one of them struck the inflatable space station:

POP goes the crew's skulls!

24)   2 Feb 2011 02:16

WanderingFool:

vansau:
NASA Contemplating Blowing Up International Space Station

image

This is an awesome title.

At least someone liked the title...

25)   2 Feb 2011 02:18

I am disappoint.

26)   2 Feb 2011 02:19

Misleading title is misleading.

In other news, this sounds interesting. I wonder how it will work out in the future.

27)   2 Feb 2011 02:21

theonlyblaze2:
You know, that title is very misleading. I thought we were recreating COD:MW2.
EDIT:Damn, partial ninja'd!

Yeah, I kinda got my hopes up as well when I read that title... someone should be punished for giving up my hopes like that. D:

28)   2 Feb 2011 02:21

danpascooch:

Anarchemitis:

TestECull:
Am I alone in thinking there would be space nukes involved when they saw the title? :p

Yes.
Nuclear weapons in space have been illegal since 1967.

Conventional explosives however, are the order of the day for being able to manouver.

Says who?

I like how they're illegal in space but not on land.

At least I think they're not illegal on land, because if they were you would have just said "Nuclear weapons have been illegal since 1967"

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967:

Preamble

Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.

Opened for signature at Moscow, London, and Washington on 27 January, 1967...

...Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Link
The Outer Space Treaty has been ratified by every Space-Faring nation.

29)   2 Feb 2011 02:22

My first thought was "What the hell. Did we give up on space, or are we trying to start a war." After I saw what the article was actually about, I facepalmed.

30)   2 Feb 2011 02:26

image

Sneaky sneaky aren't we escapist.

31)   2 Feb 2011 02:43

Ih8pkmn:
Deceptive title is deceptive.

OT: What if the air leaked? I mean, space debris are whizzing up there at hundreds of miles per hour, and if one of them struck the inflatable space station:

POP goes the crew's skulls!

Well keep in mind that the space station itself is whizzing up there at hundreds of miles per hour and that all orbital objects tend to orbit in the same direction; so an impact, while worrying, shouldn't be as big an issue as people think due to the speed the junk is moving at being quite reasonable relative to the stations speed. Also Im pretty sure the material is designed with this in mind.

32)   2 Feb 2011 02:44

Escapist you are a clever girl group of clever girls
image
EDIT: I got double ninja'd

33)   2 Feb 2011 02:46

inflatable spaceships? THAT IS GENIUS!!!

34)   2 Feb 2011 02:49

I dunno if I'm in outer space I'd prefer to be in a tin can than an inflatable balloon myself. How would an expanding compartment stand up to micro meteorites I wonder.

35)   2 Feb 2011 02:50

vansau:

WanderingFool:

vansau:
NASA Contemplating Blowing Up International Space Station

image

This is an awesome title.

At least someone liked the title...

Hey if I didn't like the title, I wouldn't be here quoting you :)

 (Pages: 1, 2, 3)
Topic Index

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist, Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here
Forum Jump: