Elon Musk Urges Deorbiting the International Space Station 'As Soon as Possible' (go.com) 287
An anonymous reader shared this report from ABC News:
Elon Musk called this week for the deorbiting of the International Space Station (ISS) "as soon as possible."
"It is time to begin preparations for deorbiting the [ISS]," Musk wrote in a post on X on Thursday. "It has served its purpose. There is very little incremental utility. Let's go to Mars."
In a follow-up post, Musk said he was planning to recommend to President Donald Trump that the station be brought down "as soon as possible" and that the 2030 timeline for deorbiting be moved up to two years from now.
Jordan Bimm, space historian and professor of science communication at the University of Chicago, told ABC News what he thinks was one of the most important findings to come out of ISS research: "that microgravity affects the body in lots of deleterious ways." "That leads to your bone loss, muscle loss, changes in the fluid inside our bodies that are normally being pulled down by Earth's gravity, changes to the eye and vision loss and things like that. We have gotten good data on how that progresses over time, and importantly, we have developed countermeasures for these things as well, including resistance training or running on a treadmill, things like that..."
Jordan Bimm, space historian and professor of science communication at the University of Chicago, told ABC News what he thinks was one of the most important findings to come out of ISS research: "that microgravity affects the body in lots of deleterious ways." "That leads to your bone loss, muscle loss, changes in the fluid inside our bodies that are normally being pulled down by Earth's gravity, changes to the eye and vision loss and things like that. We have gotten good data on how that progresses over time, and importantly, we have developed countermeasures for these things as well, including resistance training or running on a treadmill, things like that..."
So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Musk's government work creates a conflict of interest that is so huge that it is blatant, outright corruption. This cannot stand.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
The fail-fast tech used in SpaceX rockets leave it vulnerable low-probability failures than an engineer can imagine but that testing does not reveal because they just don't happen often enough. For unmanned flight that's no big deal: you lose a payload now and then in exchange for a drastic reduction in launch price.
For manned flight, losing a payload means dead people. So of course SpaceX wants to shift the mission ratio further in favor of unmanned missions. He wants the inevitable dead astronauts resulting from the fail-fast design method to come as far in the future as possible.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Elon is just mad that NASA decided to not use him to be the savior of the astronauts"
What the fuck are you talking about?
"December 2024, NASA announced that Williams and Wilmore would return on a newly designed SpaceX Dragon capsule in late March 2025 at the earliest. But now, the astronauts and the rest of Crew-9 will come home on a previously flown Dragon capsule, the Endurance. "
So...they're coming home on a SpaceX capsule. ON. A. SPACEX. CAPSULE.
Do you have some other information?
https://www.livescien [livescience.com]
Re: So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX may be the leader in the field at present, but Musk either needs to leave SpaceX entirely and sell all his shares so he has no involvement or recuse himself from government work. There's no other ethical option. Frankly, as it stands right now, it's almost certainly outright criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, where's the "criminal?"
In the oval office. Convicted and eveything, now he's hiring goons to burn your country down and you are cheering them on. Well, good luck when the fire reaches you.
Re:Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
True. So all we have to do is give them a little admiration then go and have a shower, and humanity will have a re-useable space program that beats the anemic boards of Boeing and Northrop Grumman sucking of the teat of endlessly overblown contracts.
It's going to take egotistical maniacal single minded attention whores to overcome the established 50's mindset - this is what human nature looks like.
Past success is no guarantee of future success.
A key thing to understand about Elon Musk is he isn't an engineer, an AI expert, a rocket scientist, a neuroscientist, nor even a particularly good programmer. He is to those disciplines as a devoted reader of popular physics books is to a real physicist. Reading A Brief History of Time lets you talk intelligently about a lot of physics concepts, but without doing the hard work of learning the equations you're never going to be in a position to publish even the simplest of papers.
Musk is a very energetic mirco-manager who wants to be all of the above, and is in a position to pepper some real top experts with questions, but is well past the level where he's going to put in the necessary grinding so is stuck at the level of popular science book understanding.
His companies thrive while he's learning since he's willing to immerse himself in the low level details and give the technical folk what they need. But eventually his ego takes over and he thinks he knows better than the technical folks, and things start going sideways. There's numerous examples:
- His braindead idea of the minisub for the Thai cave rescue (a real engineer would have thought through the problem a lot more than that).
- His ridiculous FSD timelines, along with his insistence that vision alone would be sufficient.
- Founding the Boring companies based on the flawed idea that the main difficulties with tunnel building was making holes.
- The Cybertruck
- Catching the SpaceX rocket with chopsticks (a rare case where the engineers managed to make his idea work! So the concept isn't completely broken.
And that's just the technical stuff. Did he really think that throwing out Nazi salutes wouldn't have an adverse impact on sales? And at the "We, Robot" event what was going through his head when he instructed engineers to teleoperate Optimus units and try to mislead people into thinking they were autonomous?
It's obvious that Musk's decision making has become more and more erratic over the years, and he's been pushing dubious technical ideas into his companies. It's like all the folks who think that Trump is a genius who would be an amazing President because he's rich. Nope, he had a mix of luck, some specific talents, and a bunch of inherited wealth, none of which translated into being a good President.
Musk had a great run, but there's countless signs that its over. No need to ignore the obvious and pretend he'll continue to deliver.
Re: (Score:3)
So what - let him - who cares?
I, personally, don't like policy decisions being made by a petulant child in the midst of a tantrum. I'm not a Musk hater. I'm not a Musk supporter. I acknowledge and appreciate what he's done with SpaceX and Tesla, unquestionable his company's contributions to society. I am abhorred by his recent pivot to "Dark Maga", and the associated haphazard decision making. To the "who cares" point: I wouldn't want someone with his current attitude and mentality running a Dennys, much less anywhere near our govern
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA has been trying to fine SpaceX $633,000 for failures during one of its fail-fast launches. Now Musk is gutting the FAA and had Trump install a yes man as the head.
Re: (Score:3)
Outright and transparently obvious corruption is what Americans voted and gave Trump a super majority to do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, when will the Heritage Foundation be torched and its members put against the wall?
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Informative)
The majority did not vote for that (or the plurality that is, Trump didn't quite hit 50%).
2024 election:
Trump votes: 77,302,580
Votes cast: 155,238,302
Eligible voters: 244,666,890
US population: 340,110,988
So, Trump received the support of 49.8% of people who voted, 31.6% of registered voters, and 22.7% of Americans. Not exactly a super-majority or a mandate in the real world. But in the current world of newspeak, it apparently is.
Re: So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that Musk's government work creates a conflict of interest that is so huge that it is blatant, outright corruption. This cannot stand.
Most voters don't seem to care about overt and blatant corruption. They obviously should and it be legislated out or some supreme court justices replaced. As long as the politicians lie to them and say what ever they want to hear, add some USA is #1 populism and on top throw on a dog whistle or two, they seem content slowly boiling in their pot.
Re: (Score:3)
Most voters don't seem to care about overt and blatant corruption.
They would, if they could figure it out for themselves, but they can't, as they have limited mental capabilities. I am not trying to imply that Slashdot is filled with geniuses, but you are more likely to find someone with more mental capacity here than you would in the general population.
Most people live a life of superstition and of what they can see. They can see as far as their neighbors and family. That is okay, it is not meant to be an insult. The rest of the work is layered in thick fog for them, so
Re: So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know what Musk and SpaceX would do with their commercial Space Program. He talked big about going to Mars, but, talk is cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
Bro is off his meds...
Actually, I think his "meds" might be a big part of the problem.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
A real astronaut called out Elon on his bullshit, so Elon wants to destroy the ISS because his feefees got hurt.
Not even making that up. The call for deorbiting the ISS came almost immediately after Andreas Mogensen corrected something stupid Musk said [rollingstone.com]. This isn't about profit, this is just pettiness.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
There doesn't appear to be any other logical explanation and it does fit with Musk's increasingly petty behavior.
The Mars trip requires the ISS, that's where all the "Long periods of time in space" research is done. At worst it doesn't conflict with it. There's no logical reason for Musk to pretend going to Mars means destroying the ISS except him being a petty asshole because an astronaut dared point out Musk was lying in public.
Re:The logical explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
It’s because of the chaos of the people involved. They rely on flooding the zone, so that discussion is hampered.
Did Elon say it because he really thinks that deorbiting will save some maintenance costs? Who knows anymore? He’s moved on to other things and probably wont address it, already saying incorrectly that the astronauts were there for political purposes (he thinks they said NO to make him look bad, not because it was a waste of resources, they had planned for the contingency.
But then Elon had to make some controversy to make him look better in the exchange, and then immediately (probably since he was thinking about it) went to deorbiting the ISS.
This company won the contract to do that. It will take years of planning, I didn’t hear from him “Space-X has a plan already in place to deorbit ISS and reduce costs”, no, he just threw out insults and then an ultimatum. Why should we keep giving him the benefit of a doubt, that his reasons are genuine?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
...constantly having to defend agains shit that people make up...
Trust me, a lot of people are very, very familiar with that problem. Of course, Musk is one of those people making it up in the first place...
He really needs to get off social media and spend time with his children.
Agree with you on the social media. He also probably needs to stop taking so many drugs. As for spending more time with his children... I'm not sure if that's a good thing for them or not. Based on accounts by the child he declared to be dead since they were killed by the "woke mind virus" he might be an unhealthy person for a child to be around.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's only famous because he wants to be. He's a billionaire who made himself a celebrity.... on purpose. There are 100s of billionaires you've never heard of or from. If he didn't want this all he had to do was shut the fuck up and enjoy his money. I have no sympathy. He's a thin skinned little Nazi goon.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc [wikipedia.org] is a logical fallacy, dude.
Argument from fallacy [wikipedia.org] could very well apply your argument as well.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, landing humans on Mars will do exactly nothing for space research which could not be achieved cheaper and more reliable with probes. And "second Earth" is not a good argument either, because people growing up on Mars will be unfit to live on Earth, because they would not withstand Earth's gravity. All it would do is split the human species in half, and the one half has to subside the other for the next centuries.
Going to Mars is like climbing Mt. Everest. Yes, it's an incredible feat, and it proves human abilities, but other than fame, you don't get anything out of it, and I refuse to pay for the endeavor of some fame-drunken people with my tax money.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I'd agree, except Musk's pettiness in similar matters is the stuff of legend. Remember the cave submarine?
A propensity for certain behavior, followed by potentially matching behavior with little indicating an alternate cause, puts the conclusion outside "post hoc" territory.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
Argumentum ad hominem is, "This guy is a jerk, don't believe him."
Repetition of the past is not ad hominem: "This guy has done this thing in the past. He says this time is different. Don't believe him."
Look at it this way: does Trump's history of lying mean that nothing he says should be accepted as truth without further verification? Yes, yes it does. He could be telling the truth the way a stopped clock is right twice a day, but you have to check first.
As for the ISS, it's basically the only manned spaceflight we still do. If we stop it before we start other manned spaceflight we have a break in continuity where we lose the people experienced with manned spaceflight.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Informative)
Both arguments are fallacies [wikipedia.org].
They're not both fallacies (and certainly not the genetic fallacy.
Whether someone has a history of telling the truth or lying may provide some insight into whether they are telling the truth or lying now, but ultimately it proves nothing.
That is exactly why it is not the case that both arguments are fallacies. Because Spazmania's argument was specifically not that Trump's past lying proves that everything he says is a lie. Their argument is that Trump's past lying means that everything Trump says needs to be verified and that the default should be to assume it is a lie. That's not saying that anything is proven, it's assessing a probability. To be specific, you're talking about strict Boolean logic, whereas Spazmania is talking about statistics (or fuzzy logic if you prefer.
As for your supposed contrapositive that "Does someone else's history of telling the truth mean that everything they say should be accepted as truth without further verification?", it is not actually the contrapoositive.
If you have a statement if P then Q, the contrapositive is if not P then not Q.
The original statement was "This guy has done this thing in the past. He says this time is different. Don't believe him." To convert that into an if...then statement, it should be something like "If this guy has done this thing in the past and says this time is different then don't believe him"
So the contrapositive is "if not don't believe him then not (this guy has done this thing in the past and says this time is different)". Pardon the phrasing, but this has to be broken down a bit. The P in this case is actually another logical and statement. The Q is already negated since "Don't believe him" is a logical not on "believe him" So, if we break down the Q we get:
"if believe him then not (this guy has done this thing in the past and says this time is different)".
For the P, if you not an and statement like A and B, then you get not A or B, so to break down P, the result of the contrapositive is:
"if believe him then not this guy has done this thing in the past or not says this time is different"
To make it a little more correct in english grammar that's
"If you believe this guy then this guy has not done this thing in the past or he has not said this time is different"
Now, while that does show some structural logical problems, those are based on plain english conventions when you suddenly apply rigid logical conventions (mostly based on the fact that english ands and ors are not strict logical ands and ors. Basically though, stated like that it's clear that the contrapositive is not an imperative "you must believe him if", it's an observation about normal behavior on believing "If you believe him then it's because he has not lied in the past" That does imply that people won't believe people who have lied in the past but, once again, english prose vs. strict boolean logical statements. The english prose version is more a statement of probability as in "If you believe them then it's less likely they have lied in the past" Then there's that or of course which basically works out to "if you believe them then it's less likely that they have said this time is different" Different from what, right? There's that problem with the English and vs the logical and. In english the second part of that and is a dependent statement on the first part, whereas in strict boolean logic, those terms would be independent, This is why trying to apply strict Boolean logic to an English sentence that was not formatted with the expectation that strict Boolean logic would be applied is tricky. It requires either that you ask the person who wrote it initially to restate it as a strict Boolean statement, or that you interpret. If we interpret, we can guess that it works out as:
"(If this guy has done this thing in the past and says this time is different) then don't believe him" where the item in parentheses is an a
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
Argumentum ad hominem [wikipedia.org] is a different fallacy than we were discussing, dude.
It's not an ad hominem if the person is themselves the subject of the argument. It's ad hominem when you attack a person *instead* of their argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There was no coherent thread in the argument except that you people hate Musk
Ah, Trump uses this one all the time. Especially on Judges. Does things that no rational person would not hate him after, then says "this person is unfair and biased against me, just because they hate me"!
Seriously people hate Musk _because_ of the bad things he's done and is doing. Your argument is that somehow you can't complain about bad things someone does if those bad things also cause an emotional reaction? That's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, give it a rest. We know you’re in line to gargle his balls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, dude.
You may want to mention that to this jerk:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the name for the logical fallacy where you incorrectly call out something as a logical fallacy?
Re: So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Informative)
Read your own link. Nations agreed to fund the station until 2030. Now the man with the puppet strings wants it immediately scrapped.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Musk will just accelerate SpaceX timelines, and push the ISS out of orbit, but it won't land in the Pacific because they didn't actually do all the proper planning because of the shortened timelines. Gotta deliver by Friday, bugs or no bugs. So it'll land somewhere populated. And no one at NASA to object because Musk would have sent them all emails to fire them.
So ... another case of move fast and break things. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
> This doesn't answer Musk's assertion
You know what does? Objective reality. From the link I posted;
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The amount of money he used to buy Trump will turn out to be a wise investment for him. And a nightmare for America.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of money he used to buy Trump will turn out to be a wise investment for him. And a nightmare for America.
Trump isn't the type to stay bought.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of money he used to buy Trump will turn out to be a wise investment for him. And a nightmare for America.
Putin got a far better deal for the money he spent on Trump, as did the KGB [kyivpost.com].
It is profoundly sad to see an American "leader" so eager to suck Soviet cock. Ronald Reagan is bouncing off the rev limiter in his proverbial grave,
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's sail the seas to the new world! We don't have a boat yet but since _this_ boat won't get us there, let's go ahead and sink it.
Re:So SpaceEx can profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think little Elon is just unhinged because somebody dared to call him out for a direct lie. Such a small person.
Yeah - let's send Elon to Mars... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can he take his buddy Donald with him?
Re: (Score:2)
Last thing we need is a newtype Donald Trump
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah - let's send Elon to Mars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if Kamala had a press conference and George Soros was talking over her. There would be emergency impeachment proceedings that day.
word salad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think we need something like it (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I totally agree we should focus on going to Mars, I think we need something like the Space Station for just basic research.
It seems really valuable to have something close to Earth that we can do zero gravity research from, either manufacturing or basic biological study.
Now if there's something better than the Space Station to do that from, that's a whole conversation - the current Space Station is getting a bit old now with odd leaks [livescience.com] and smells [whyy.org]... so maybe it is time to put up something new.
Re:I think we need something like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed we can barely live and survive in a space station very close by. We are a long, long ways from being able to survive on a trip to mars, let alone returning, or even staying on Mars. It's the height of hubris for Musk to think that we're even close to ready to send people to Mars, as cool as that would be (would that he is on the first mission). As impressive as Starship is, it's a long ways from being any kind of vehicle to get people to mars, or even the moon.
Meanwhile as evil plans from meglomaniac oligarchs go, Bezos plan to build manufacturing in space and extract resources from asteroids is far more utilitarian and beneficial.
The Mars thing is just a red herring (Score:2)
The thing about musk is he's basically king nerd. Just like how Trump is everything a certain class of dumb blue collar guy wants to be Musk is everything a certain class of nerdy kid who grew up playing dungeons & dragons in solitaire mode wants to be.
The overt
Re: I think we need something like it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter when you make the taxpayers foot the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
The industrialization of space. It is not just a want, it is a need!
Re: (Score:3)
Yay necromancy?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It seems really valuable to have something close to Earth that we can do zero gravity research from, either manufacturing or basic biological study.
Not just zero gravity. Zero to more than one gravity research.
To me it's silly to spend a lot of resources to go to Mars before we have even done enough scientific research to find out whether Mars gravity is enough for young healthy adult humans. Or Moon gravity.
Where's the scientific evidence that Mars gravity is enough? So far what are the data points we have? We know zero is not enough. We know 1 is enough.
We don't have the equivalent of the Navy Dive Tables ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) for gra
Re:I think we need something like it (Score:5, Insightful)
There will never be conclusive evidence that Mars gravity, and more generally the Mars environment is enough sustain a healthy life, until we send people to Mars. We can say on earth for another 1000 years and still not know. Until we do real testing with real people we will not know. Will sending people to Mars get people killed? Almost certainly. But when did human civilization become so pathetic that we are not willing to risk lives in order to explore and expand into the universe. People risk their lives every day for much less productive causes like base jumping, car racing, smoking. We are all going to die, we can either spend that life planning to do something or do actually do it. Of course this is a balance, how much planning vs how much risk we are willing to take, but that is a decision for society and the people who are risking their lives to make. Mainly the people who are risking their lives, I am not their mother.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so super critical to know that Mars gravity and environment "is enough sustain a healthy life"? The answer already is probably no, unless we go to extreme measures to protect the humans there. Your argument that people do dangerous things on Earth sure doesn't convince me that we should spend an enormous amount of money on a Mars manned space program. We can much more easily and cheaply send robots there as we've been doing for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of no less interesting conversation about space than Leon Musk would provide and SuperKendall would respond to. The constant firehose of partisan bullshit ruins society.
But let's be clear here, the only reason SuperKendall engages is because he needs to take a side on a topic his hero seeks to profit from. Regarding Mars,.Leon can "go fuck himself", Mars is his private ambition, he can take that profit incentive being used to destroy a valuable resource and shove it deep up SuperKendall's ass.
Re:I think we need something like it (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISS is basically the only manned launches we still do. If we deorbit it before we start doing other manned launches, we'll lose the continuity of experience of all the people involved in manned spaceflight.
If we want to go to Mars or anywhere else, that'd be the height of foolishness.
Why? (Score:2)
Elon Musk Urges Deorbiting the International Space Station 'As Soon as Possible'
... so that Musk can pocket hundreds of billions in taxpayer money replacing the ISS with a new one that offers no real advantages over what it replaces while leaving us with a years long gap where there will be no human presence in low Earth orbit while Elon is on the cusp of launching the first module of the new space station, any day now, it's just around the corner, third quarter of next year, maybe in six months, first quarter of next year, ... etc, etc, ad nauseam.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to hear how Elon thinks bein in that situation at least two years earlier than planned will in any way help Make America Great Again.
seriously Elon has jumped the shark. (Score:2)
Fuck off Musk (Score:2)
Most Americans
go to mars, first, please (Score:2)
Go to mars, if you can. Probably though, you can't, because there is more basic research and things to discover on the ISS that would be helpful. Otherwise, what's stopping you. You own the launch system, make it happen. Stop being a crybaby.
The ISS doesn't belong to the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
The ISS is a multinational project that does not belong to any single country. In fact, 15 countries have contributed to its creation. The main partners are NASA, Roscosmos and the European Space Agency.
Some countries might not agree with Musk, especially nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
"Belong to" does not mean the same thing to you as it does to Musk or Trump. Musk and Trump now think the USA belongs to them, so the ISS must belong to the USA since otherwise it would not be theirs. Musk speaks like his opinion on the ISS matters, there's reason for that.
You know what else doesn't "belong to" the USA? The Panama Canal. Except apparently now it does. When talking about Trump and Musk law doesn't apply, only force.
Go for it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Work to extend life to 2028 began in 2010 (Score:2)
So... the controversy is replacing the program with something new after twice the initially planned lifetime? And 2028 was the extended EOL anyway?
So this was already planned... outside chance it could be 2030, beyond that would require megabucks investment per public info.
and...
This was never the intended space station and it's not in an orbit useful for anything other than international relations. (
AfD (Score:4, Insightful)
He's also spreading lies on X last minute hoping it won't be corrected in time before Germans vote in their elections. For example, he earlier retweeted a picture of a stabbing that falsely claimed a police officer was subduing a bystander, when it was actually one of the attackers. Clearly he has dosed up on self-interest. Either doesn't bother fact checking or doing so knowingly. Of course he's gonna want to deorbit the ISS.
48 hours to explain what you did last week (Score:2)
Musk Must Go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget UnAmerican. The ISS is co-owned by 14 different countries. That makes Musk an Inhuman Piece of Shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk knows he could never be president so he did the next best thing and bought himself one.
I wonder why ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Christ, what an asshole. (Score:3)
Of course the value of the ISS means nothing to Musk the billionaire.
Of course the effort that went into building it means nothing to him.
Of course the fact that 15 countries invested in it means nothing to him.
Fuck Mars. Let's go back to the Moon first, establish a base/colony there, and see if we can survive for 15-20 years. It's RIGHT THERE, not months away.
So in case anyone was wondering (Score:3)
There is a very good reason we do not privatize air traffic control. Sure we can let Bridges fall on poor people all day long and even kill some middle-class people but you don't fuck with the airplanes.
Still his car company is gradually imploding. We're all focused on how he's gutting the government and a bunch of us are finding out that our jobs heavily depended on government contracts without us realizing it but he's still working on moving Tesla's headquarters to Texas so that he can take a $55 billion dollar pay package which is more money than Tesla has made in its entire history.
Mark my words he will get that money and when he does he will cash the stock out and let the company collapse. Better hope you're not holding on to any stock when that happens or it'll be like when GM collapsed.
People forget the major car companies can and do implode. Especially when they're facing stiff competition from better engineers and companies that are better run.
Musk has no integrity or credibility (Score:2)
Musk is an edgelord who repeatedly spews unhinged nonsense. His opinions are worthless.
This guy really is an idiot (Score:3)
At this time, a trip to Mars is completely survivable for humans, due to cosmic radiation.
Musk is grandstanding... (Score:4, Interesting)
Elon Musk’s push to immediately deorbit the ISS smacks of a big show—a calculated stunt to boost his "disruptor" image. It's a move that plays perfectly into his narrative, even though it undermines a decades-long international partnership. And it’s a win-win for him -- calling for a rapid shutdown of the aging ISS makes him come off as the fearless challenger to outdated government programs, positioning himself as a trailblazer, and he gets to play the martyr if cooler heads eventually prevail.
Musk’s demand isn’t really about safety or efficiency. He’s using this controversy to push his own agenda of private industry taking over. Unfortunately for Musk, space isn’t a one-man show. The ISS is the product of complex multilateral agreements, and any attempt to unilaterally change its deorbit timeline would not only breach these agreements but also erode trust among key international partners. NASA doesn’t have the right to override the established plan.
If other nations push back, they have plenty of options. Diplomatic protests, legal arbitration, and even operational countermeasures are all on the table. The ISS program is managed under intergovernmental agreements that require consensus on major decisions, including end-of-life procedures. Although the US does have considerable influence, these agreements mean that any drastic change (like an immediate deorbit) isn’t solely a US decision from a legal standpoint. Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and CSA can and likely will challenge any move that sidesteps the collective decision-making process governing the station. In short, NASA can't just call the shots without risking major international fallout.
For me, Musk’s maneuver is nothing more than strategic grandstanding—a self-serving stunt aimed at keeping the spotlight on his disruptive ambitions, even if it means jeopardizing an essential piece of global cooperation in space.
I'm all for Musk going to Mars (Score:3)
"Agencies will determine any next steps" (Score:3)
I hope he doesn't demand that the current inhabitants of the ISS send him a bullet-pointed list of their achievements over the past week.
EVERYBODY needs to calm down on this... (Score:4, Interesting)
no matter whether you love Trump or Musk or despise one or both. The over-emotive irrational stuff is an ignorant time waster, and I'll explain why:
1. The original planned year for retiring the ISS and splashing it into the ocean was 2015. Yup, that's right folks, 2015. It took acts of congress to extend it to 2020, then 2024, and finally 2030. Each time there were debates about how degraded it was becoming and whether it would be safe to keep it occupied so long after its design life. The reason it has been kept up there and active is primarily political - there are overlapping deals between countries for the funding, use, supplying, etc and the various involved parties have various views of how the retirement will affect their programs.
2. It's falling apart. The solar panels no longer provide enough power, and supplemental panels were recently added. The radiators are falling apart and can clearly be seen de-laminating in many photos. The Russian segment has a cracked pressure vessel that is gradually leaking station air into space, requiring more air to be constantly added. At this point, something like half of the crew time on-orbit is being used on repairs and maintenance. People tend to think that it's "in space" but actually it's in the very high atmosphere... atmospheric drag is constantly tugging on it (requiring occasional re-boosts, usually by the Soyuz, to keep it from falling back to Earth) and the whisps of atmosphere it encounters are the most-corrosive of all: atomic oxygen (we learned about this first in, IIRC the Gemini program).
3. Elon is NOT actually conflicted (in either direction, by either an early retirement or a planned one) here as some imply: He currently is making money hauling crews and supplies to the station for NASA, and will lose money, by losing those contracted missions, if ISS is splashed early... but he also has contracts to launch some of the planned commercial replacements. It's probably a complete wash to him. As long as SOME destination is up there he'll get some business regularly. Remember: the current plan is "splash in 2030" and what he recently called for is essentially "splash in 2027" (about a 6-launch difference for SpaceX which launched nearly 140 missions in 2024 and plans more for 2025).
4. Elon is probably more aware than almost anybody else of how close we are to much better, much more capable, commercial replacement stations, since he has the contracts to launch most of them. At this moment, there are several commercial stations being developed by several companies. Elon has a contract to launch the first module by Vast NEXT YEAR. That's right... by sometime in 2026 (a year before Elon proposes downing the ISS) Vast plans to have their initial module operational as a new independent space station. Sierra is working on theirs, as are others. Even Blue Origin is working one ("orbital reef"). There is a federal law requiring NASA to buy and use commercial vehicles and services where available, and once one of these commercial stations is fully operational, NASA will no longer be allowed to have their own government station anyway.
It's all good. Settle down. Have a coffee, tea, or whatever it takes to calm and enjoy the ride. We are in an entirely new era of human spaceflight and some of these old top-down mega-expensive government owned-and-operated space projects are simply at their natural end, which is as it should be. Some people were mighty freaked-out by the end of the Apollo era, and then by the end of Shuttle flights, but neither was the end of human spaceflight, nor American spaceflight. China is flying people to a newer station than ISS. India is preparing to fly people. The US has one fully-capable human spacecraft regularly flying (Dragon), Two nearly ready (Boeing Starliner, and Lockheed Orion), One a little further out (Sierra Dreamchaser) and two more in work (Blue Origin is always apparently planning/working one for NewGlenn and SpaceX is making Starship). We have multiple lunar landers in development
Re: (Score:2)
Let's have Elon go up and ride it down to make sure it's done right.
I can just picture him doing it like Major Kong at the end of Dr. Strangelove: Straddling it like a horse, hooting and hollering and waving his gray MAGA hat.
Re: (Score:2)
"He has accomplished an incredible amount, and his long-term detractors have been repeatedly shown to be almost always basing their opinions on false news, internet rumors an memes, and (I suspect) an intense jealousy. "
Making excuses for your long term ignorance by spewing more lies? Just take the loss, Musk has proven himself to be even worse that any if his detractors ever argued, and that says a lot.
"This past year has been different. "
No, it hasn't. The difference is that his behavior has become more
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Elon should de-orbit from Adderall as soon as possible.
It’s not very easy, time dilation is a major problem for anyone way down a ketamine hole.