Slashdot Mirror
Zvezda ISS Service Module Launches
fence writes: "The Russian Aviation and Space agency successfully launched the International Space Station's Zvezda service module. The Zvezda module was launched from the Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan aboard a Proton rocket. Check out NASA Spaceflight web for live updates on Zvezda's progress."
ISS construction: Two out of three ISS modules currently up there are Russian made (Unity[USA],Zarja[Russia],Zvezda[Russia]). NASA never had a space station in operation (Skylab was a flop), while USSR and, then, Russia were running two (Saljut and, then, Mir) and for a very long time. Result is that Russia is the only one of all ISS partners that has all "know-how", and it should not come as a surprise that the most important modules are made by Russia.
Trolling: Russian airspace engineers are the best, just consider work conditions they had to put up with all those years.
Damn I'd really liked to have seen a penguin on the side of that puppy instead.
-C
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
russian economy has never been stronger because of increasing prices on oil market. it has nothing to do with checnya, industry in checnya is ruined.
and btw yes russia came first to space. but that doesnt matter. both russians and americans stole german technology. without german v2 rockets russians nor the americans would be in the space in 50-ies and 60-ies
-- http://electronicintifada.net --
Does anyone know what a proton rocket it, roughly how it works? Thanks
Yes, the capitalist/Communist thing was a joke. It was a reference to Pitr on Userfriendly...too subtle I guess...my apologies.
Joe Carnes
Lotsa protons in the fuel and oxidizer, both.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Excuse my stupidity..
I'm not sure that this is what is meant by the commercialization of space.
> Zvezda has a Sparc station running it,
...
..."
he he, i can see it now
"This is Misson Control, today's shuttle launch will send the crew of Discovery to the new module of the ISS to hit STOP-A and reboot the onboard SPARCstation
> much more advanced then the 80386s that the
> US modules use.
aren't they '386s which are hardened against the higher radiation, etc in space??
neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
Don't forget that NASA had a 2nd Skylab built and waiting on the ground. It was ready to go up in case the first Skylab was lost. That was the good old '60s/'70s way of doing business. Why build one when you can build two for only 20% (or so) more? It's the tooling that costs the money more than the actual fabrication.
FYI, the 2nd Skylab is now in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Makes for one hell of a big exibit.
World Beach List, my latest project.
It would be nice to know how many failures the Russian rockets have had, compared to the western (USA and Europe) rockets. Some of the Russian failures were apparently covered by the Soviet government, so it may be difficult to find reliable figures.
Actually, if it hadn't been for the Russians the Americans would have been holding up the show. The lab module (Destiny) was not ready to go 18 months ago. A lot of time has been spent trying to get the software straightened out. Granted, if the service module had gone up we would have been farther along, but the delay did help cover up some problems on the US side.
World Beach List, my latest project.
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin looked like some sort of plantation owner...
Funny you should mention that, because the photo of STS-106 astronauts Wilcutt and Altman on the Shuttle update page looks like an outtake from "Strange Brew" or some similar lowbrow buddy flick. [STS-106, launching in Sept, will install Zvezda on the ISS]
Suddenly I'm struck by the remarkable resemblance between NASA's antics and SCTV. The lost Mars missions, and all the rest would fit perfectly into a "Second City Space Administration" with Daniel Goldin as "Guy Caballero".
In fact, that wouldn't be a bad revenue stream. SNL is still raking in the bucks, even though it's longer in the tooth than John Glenn. SCASA could never be nearly as tired. [This revenue model has been a natural, but overlooked, option since the second season of Miami Vice, when the budget per episode was more than the annual budget of the real Miami police unit it was -loosely- based on]
Innovation, man! To heck with this insistence on dignity! An irreverent comedy could get the memes and the dinero (as in bucks, not Robert) rolling.
The truth about trolls: They're just spammers, wasting our time/bandwidth and calling it 'free speech'
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
In some ways . . . but the biggest problem with Zvezda is the acoustical environment. You're supposed to build hardware to fit the NC40 curve (in other words, about what you'd hear if you had a normal office and not a cube =) for sustained noise patterns . . . and they haven't. It wouldn't seem loud to us, maybe, but we won't be up there 24/7 like the 'stronauts will.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use.
NASA's computer policy is a bit weird (insert your own Mac bash here), but I don't know that they're totally off-base; you want something that's stable and is not prone to bit-flipping because of the various radiation environments seen by the ISS.
It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir.
I will happily admit that long-term environmental stuff is something the Russians are good at. It's not the best living environment, but it won't kill you, either. They understand "good enough".
It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
That's simply a cost-benefit analysis. It's easier to carry on-board oxygen than it is to design hardware that has a certain leak rate. STS is designed for an on-orbit time of 28 days at maximum . . . Mir had a five-year life plan IIRC to begin with. STS carries its own atmosphere up with them; Mir/ISS/Salyut/Skylab had to be built more tightly to ensure that they weren't leaking atmosphere like crazed men.
What, you want STS to be more expensive?
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Much of that is due to the various roles of the spacecraft, though. It's not a great comparison; Soyuz is primarily a crew ingress/egress vehicle that has limited cargo capacity; the Russians use a Progress module, a modified Soyuz, to launch cargo. That lowers the launch costs, because the Progress launches can be done with more risk, etc.
The Russians do have superior heavy-lift capability. However, that heavy-lift isn't used for launching manned spacecraft. NASA, in its infinite wisdom, hasn't entered the unmanned cargo-ferrying realm . . . but then, we haven't had a space station since Skylab.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
The US is still the premier space power; more great scientific research has happened because of NASA efforts than of Russians. We've been to the moon; they haven't. The Russians are better in doing some things; overall, I'd rather fly up on American hardware than Russian hardware, although I'd rather use their rockets.
Side note: there is talk about hiring Russian rocket scientists and bringing them to the U.S. Many of the guys and gals at RSC Energiya work second jobs so that they can stay in their chosen field; some of the upper engineers drive taxis. Yeesh, but man, they can build 'em some rockets.
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
Skylab was a useless box. Its scientific value was as a test platform for some future shuttle technologies. Nothing more. It was built out of the 3rd(?) stage of the rocket it launched on and its duration was crap (about 6 months IIRC) and its value for reasearch into long term life support (which Russia got lots of from Mir) was zilch.
NASA has no experiance with space stations?
No. They don't.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
There are a bunch of pictures on space.com:
http://ww w.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/zvezda_pictu
This is a short summary of this page.
Oh, I have forgotten: :-).
Most of the probes were launched with proton rockets as well, so this is not completely off-topic
Wow, this is a great example of how we've been brainwashed about this.
During the last 5 years, Russia has had an almost constant presence in space. NASA has occasional Shuttle missions, but the Russians had ROUTINE space freighter launches that re-supplied Mir. This invalidates your 'trying to get something, ANYTHING into earth orbit' statement.
And in regards to the costs of NASA being higher because they were 'making sure astronauts come back in one piece', consider the numbers. 4 Cosmonauts have died (3 on Salyut 1 and 1 on Soyuz 1) but 7 american astronauts have died. Yet the Russians launch more often then we do.
Funny how your argument crumbles in the face of facts...
Sure, NASA's backup support module will cost more than Zvezda. However, it'll also meet safety specs at launch time, and won't need to be refurbished for the next two years just to bring it up to code. And they managed to put it together and get it launch ready in under a year.
I have a lot of respect for the Russians' achievements in space, and the fact that we're working with them instead of against them is wonderful. However, their insistence on keeping the increasingly expensive and decrepit MIR in orbit instead of fulfilling their ISS obligations is really unfortunate. I'm really glad that Zvezda's up there. Let's hope it works.
He said more or less none. If I were to count Skylab, it would probably be in the "more" category (as in more than 0) but "less" is a close option (as in so far less than Russia as to almost count for nothing?)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
> but the biggest problem with Zvezda is the acoustical environment.
Yeah, heard this on Discovery last night as well. They are sending the first crew up there with earplugs to avoid damaging their hearing. They are going to try to fit some noise-reducing things like fan muffles to try and reduce the noise level, but they said that they basically missed the operating noise-level targets. It was likend to being on a busy freeway 24/7. Not an ideal environment for an extended misson.
The other thing I saw they were lacking was micro-meteroid sheilding. I would think this is a far more severe problem? Imagine that sparc station getting hit with an object the size of a b-b travelling at, what, about 30,000 mph? (yeah, I know... I need more coffee, ok?)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Cripes.
There are alot of disimilar comparisons here, that's one of the first mistakes people make when they try and compare Russian equipment and mindset to western equipment and mindset.
The leaking shuttle: Yes, the U.S. Shuttle leaks air at a fairly high rate, especially when compared to the Saylut/MIR/Zvezda design, or even most other manned spacecraft. If you had any engineering background, you'd realize that the cylinder hull structure of Saylut/MIR/Zvezda, is optimum for building a _strong, air-fast hull_ that is light. The U.S. Shuttle's pressure hull is more akin to a rhombus, much more complex, and if you wanted to add a few more tonnes of reinforcing material to it, you could have it just as airtight as MIR or Zvezda. Of course, it's much more wisely spent saving on that weight, and using it for more payload capacity, and a little more canned air.
Soyuz vehicles, being cheaper. Well, yes they are, but a Shuttle can be reused. A shuttle could _Carry_ a Soyuz in it's entirity in it's payload bay.
A shuttle can ferry about 21,000kg of junk. Or about the weight of three loaded Soyuz TMs. Shutt;es have an orbital duration of about 1 month at maximum, and the airframe lifespan... well we're still using them, you figure it out.
A soyuz, can ferry about.. well 600kg of junk crew of three included, in it's tiny 9cubic meter of inhabitable space cabin. And stay independent on it's own in orbit for about 14 days. And it is single use.
Comparing these vehicles is pointless.
Oh GOd, the Russians bought a SPARCstation off the shelf for their station, vs our 386s. A sick truth: It dosent really matter. A PDP-12 could do the job. The original fit for the space shuttles were 5 IBM microcomputers with a whopping 99k of magnetic core memory. And the shuttle can practically fly itself from launch to landing using these. If it works, why bother changing it? I hate to tell you this, but the laws that apply to home computers, have no grounds in the aerospace industry. 80% of the computers used in the defense systems date from before 1985.
America and Russia, each has their strengths.
We have better systems integration, flight designs, and lead time on new technology and manufacturing innovations.
Russia has strong reliability in a few launch systems (because they've been around since 1965) and practical long-time manned orbiting stations, They also have more experience in Nuclear Reactors for SpaceFlight, and Nuclear-Electric Ion engines. Then again, this is the country that drove it's Space Program nearly broke trying to copy our shuttle. It cost them nearly $14 billion dollars to make their BURAN shuttle system. (double our 8 million budget) And what did they do? Fly it once, unmanned. Now all their shuttles are Resturants and Tourist attractions.
Dont bother trying to elevate either America or Russia above each other. It's a useless argument. Just be happy we're working together.
For example, if the station circles Earth to the opposite direction, you'd basicly first have to stop it from 11km/s and then accelerate it again to 11km/s to the other direction. The required fuel would be almost twice the amount that was needed to send the station up there in the first place. Well, perhaps less, as the rockets could have better efficiency than the launch rockets. But remember that Mir is not just one module...
Then there are of course the technical incompatibilities - ISS might use new docking systems (probably not though), or have some other critical differences.
But, I guess the main point is that MIR is just too old and outdated. Think about attaching a 10-year-old used 340MB hard drive to your new computer. Not worth the effort.
Is anyone else concerned they named a life support and docking module after the word for Star? I mean, they're great things, but I wouldn't want to live inside one. Do they know something we don't about it's likelihood of erupting in nuclear fusion driven flame ? ...
From the press kit...
The Data Management System is the first European hardware to be delivered to ISS. It was developed and manufactured in Europe by an industrial consortium led by Daimler-Chrysler of Bremen, Germany. ESA is supplying the system to the Russian partner in return for two flight-unit docking systems (no exchange of funds) for use with a later ESA element, the Automated Transfer Vehicle.
Two parking spots on the station in exchange for a computer system sounds like a deal to me.
Perhaps the same CPU that's in my 300M....
I'll show you how I got triple digit karma, baby.
--Shoeboy
Zvezda(rus) - Star
Baikonur(turkic) - ????
Kazakh-stan(turkic) - Kazakh country (also Paki-stan, Afgani-stan, Yanki-stan)
You're right, Russia has had over a decade of experience with space stations, whereas Nasa has more or less none. This is one of the critical reasons Russia has to play a large part in ISS. They actually know how to make a space station work. The problem is, they're broke.
I've seen some suggestions that the project would go a lot better if Russia was put into a contractor position (Which is what happened to get the first Russian module up there), where they're doing the work, but the US is financing it. That way you get Russian experience without worrying about them scrounging up the cash. Unfortunately that isn't a very viable option because of politics and pride.
The international teamwork is a nice ideal, but in the end, the US is funding the vast majority of ISS. Other countries such as the EU members, Canada, and so forth are putting in pieces here and there, but it doesn't add up to much, I'm afraid. What would be nice is to see the burden spread evenly, but it just doesn't work that way, because most countries don't have the space program the US does. Perhaps that will change in the future. China is working ardently on getting a man into space, iirc, and the UK has designs on putting a probe on Mars. So, who knows.
One way or another, it should be an interesting decade.
Pizza Hut apparently paid 1 Million $ for their logo to appear on the side of the rocket. The image is here: It seems like corporate sponsorship of space programs is going to be on the increase. In the current issue of the New Scientist, there is an interview with one of the head honchos for MirCorp, who seems to suggest that it won't be long before each of the Mir modules is corporately sponsored. Suggestions anyone. Perhaps Hoover should sponsor the module that lost pressure ? I should think it's a pretty good vacuum in there.... :-) M.
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use. It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir. It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
There are people who have stayed up at Mir for as long as a year. One of them was a female NASA astronaut who made the cover of Time when she came back. I don't think that anyone could survive in micrograivity for a decade and be viable Earthside.
Simply, the Russian space program has a lot more experience with building (and using) long duration life support systems than we do. They've also had more experience in boosting large payloads to orbit including a couple of other space stations (The Salyuts) preceding Mir.
And remember that the Proton series was designed when we were building big and fast rockets (rememberr Saturn) for the moon race. Unlike the U.S. however they didn't just throw away that technology once the moon race was over. They also didn't waste it on a clearly pointless stunt like being the "2nd men on the moon."
Think about this, there are Russian crews that have already spent enough time in space equivalent to one of the more optimistic missions to Mars.
It makes sense to include the pioneering nation in space travel for an International Space Station. And it also makes sense to include a nation which has done time and develop technology that you haven't.
Suppose the shoe was on the other foot with the Russians building the space station and the Americans "holding up the show". Would you be sympathetic to calls from Russian "rednecks" to shutdown Skylab? (Assuming of course that it hadn't already dropped out of orbit)
As far as "commercialisation", I thought this was the start of what American space libertarians have been pushing all along, i.e. let the corporates save us from NASA et. al.
As far as Chechnya is concerned... do some more reading. The story isn't quite as black and white as a 60 second TV blurb on NBC would have you believe.
He meant $10 million vs. $500 million...
this field has been intentionally left blank
BTW, in Russian 'star' means old. There're even famous anekdote based on this play of words. Naming has always been a problem :)
Helping to make everyone's day a little more surreal.
.sig Thief!! Someone stop him!!!
.Sig, go get your own! >:)
HELP! HELP!
Bad Bad naughty JoeLinux! That's my
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
don't moderate up, google's everybody's friend
Everything you wanted to know on Russian space program, but were afraid to ask :)
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Nasa's press release is here. It basically states that the launch was successful and that for the next few weeks they will be testing the module before they let Zvezda dock itself with the rest of ISS.
JOIN !LINK CLUB!
as far as I know, the other two are liberia and burma, not anywhere near south america.
disclaimer: I might be right.
I think Kazakhstan is now its own country. Why does Russia launch its rockets / space stuff from another country? After they split years ago, I think Russia would build its own new launch facilities. I wonder what type of commission Kazakhstan gets for every launch.
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
I think i've heard of that country in Risk before...
moox. for a new generation.
But if that holding tank was any indication of general design practices, Skylab was incapable of indefinite occupation.
Thats not really a strike against it, though. Skylab was not built to be replenished. It was built on a very tight budget out of left over Apollo hardware.
Given the facts that it was: a) NASA's first space station, b) built with a very small budget, c) made heavy use of old hardware (for instance, the EVA hatch was an old Gemini hatch), and they built TWO flight-worthy vehicles, it was one of NASA's most impressive achievements.
The russians didn't match it until Mir in 1981.
ISS won't match it for total habitable volume for quite some time.
And at the end of Skylab 4 (the last mission) there were supplies for another 60 days of operations.
It's too bad nasa has forgotten all they learned from the building and operation of skylab...they've managed to make almost all of the same mistakes all over again with ISS...Lets see if it takes another on-orbit mutiny to remind them of the final Skylab lession...
Remember Apollo 1?
*ducks to stop moderators from knocking his teeth out*
Free music from Jack Merlot.
The Nasa Spaceflight Web link you give commits this sin.
/.ed..?
Or are you trying to get their administrator's email box
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that NASA's testing methods are much more vigorous compared to the Russians. The russians had, what? Two manned protons blow compared to one Challenger, which happened due mostly to freak weather conditions (of course, you could say that Russia is one big freak weather condition, but I don't want to start a flame war here). I think NASA values it's astronauts more than Russia values it's cosmonauts (insert bad russian accent: "We just lost another Proton sir... oh, and five cosmonauts." "Go down to the 'Warehouse' (turns out to be a local bar) and get us a few more." :-) I think it's just the 'Made in USA' attitude of quality that shows that we Americans have more 'quality' than the next country... even the Japanese can burgle our computer designs and build a decent console system, but I would rather buy my next computer from Gateway! (of course, most of the chips would be Taiwanese... but that is another matter altogether...)
WorldMaker
Oh, I can really see NASA giving the russian space program plenty of free promotion. Just wait till the site goes down every time something good happens, and marvel at their connectivity and bandwidth when disaster strikes.
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Tairan, you're absolutely right. Baikonur is now in another country - Kazakhstan, and is leased to Russia. We have our own launching facilities at Plesetsk and Kapustin Yar, which have been used quite heavily, even in Soviet era, when Baikonur was in the same country. I can't tell you exactly why Zvezda was launched from Kazakhstan, but very probably this is because Baikonur is much better located for the orbit Zvezda has to be put on.
The "weeeehhhhhhhoooouuuuuWW!!!!" sound was the collective NASA team releasing their breath an wiping their brow with their sleeve. If this flight had gone like most of their test flights they would have been SCREWED! -"Buckawow-wow!"
WURD!!
is this unmanned? russia is the leader in unmanned spaceflight methinks.
Yes, it is unmanned for now, but it is intended to support people later. No, Russia is more often considered the leader in manned spaceflight, with their extensive experience with Mir. The longest a person had remained in space in a NASA spacecraft in the last two decades is about 2 weeks, compared to Mir which was continuously occupied for about 10 years.
The relationship between the US and Russia on this project is quite complex, and politics is playing a much larger role than it should be. Russia needs to be given a fairly important role in the project, and Zvezda is evidence of that.
Even though Zvezda being late pushed back many US components, the US wouldn't have been able to replace it without a lot of R&D money, because the US simply isn't as far along in this area as Russia.
The money makes things interesting too. Russia needs to be a big part of the project, but can't afford to be. So what I imagine we'll see happening is the US will contribute a fair amount of money to keep the Russian space program afloat.l
Now that all 3 modules are up there, we can relax and oppress the other countries. We have plenty of time before 2020 to finish the rest of the ship and launch for Alpha Centauri...
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
This is too late, anyway: On this page http://www.mcc.rsa.ru/smtv.htm you may have been watching Zvezda launch live using Real Player format. Regrettably this /. story has appeared after the module was put in orbit.
AH SHANK KATZ
KAHN HAS KATZ
A RUBIN OK
IRA BUN OK
A BAZAAR KATZ DUNK SHE HONK VIZ
A HAVANA KATZ BRED HO ZIZ SKUNK
A HAZARD BEAN KATZ HO VIZ SKUNK
A BRAVADO SANK KATZ HE HUNK ZIZ
Conspiracies everwhere! Beware hidden meanings!
John
When they they can't feed their population, do you think that the same people are going to be putting all their attention into their work?
A lot of the money is coming from the west. They know paid work is hard to find, so they will probably put quite a lot into it.
They purposely made their rockets big and fast,
Rather than slow with a low payload. Gosh what idiots. But um...... you may not realise this, but Russia was sending rockets up before the US. It is possible that the US went for a different design from the Russians to be contrary, or maybe even they had different design aims because they don't need to be compatible.
They chose SECAM to our NTSC so we would be incompatible
SECAM makes more sense when you have 50Hz supply. Don't know why they didn't use PAL though.
Comrade, am not using Capitalist pig-dog Unix system
Why should they? That would involve buying computers that can run UNIX or porting UNIX to their machines. They might as well write their own OS.
"I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function"
If anything, the chances are that this will happen as the United States is the only country in the world (besides a couple in S. America) which still uses the archaic Imperal system.. the Russians must thunk down to the US level of measurement to make their components interoperable, thus opening the possibility of a metric conversion problem.
If the US had converted to Metric with Canada in the 1950s and 1960s, NASA would've directly saved a few hundred million on their probes, not to mention other benefits (mainly in the sciences).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
that they were going to show us pictures of a Proton exploding. In the meantime, re-Christen Zvezda with a new name, attach it to Mir as a hotel for Rich Americans, and laugh at us all the way to the bank.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If, maybe, could have. The Russians did. It's not bygone possibilities that matter, it's accomplishment. The simple fact is that they are way ahead of us in space-station knowhow.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
The Russian economy has never been stronger, owing greatly to the recovery of lost natural resources in areas experiencing seditious activities (most notably Chechnya, which you seem to know a little about).
I wish it was true, but it is not!
Russian economy and agriculture is still something like 50% below what is used to be 10-15 years ago - before the country was divided and plundered in the name of capitalist ideals that the country's people and leaders had almost no clue about. When the Russian gov't tells the world that "things are looking up," they mean "compared to a total disaster" - one cannot fall down from the floor.
As far as Chechnya goes, their oil is of a very high quality, but there isn't much of it, and the whole infrastracture is destroyed.
One thing that you forgot the mention is durability. When MIR was launched in 1986 it was supposed to have a 5 year life time, about what the ISS is supposed to have, and the damned thing is still around.
Although the Russians are sound technically and scientifically, they lack one major component. They aren't sound economically. This prevents them from being completely on par, if not ahead of us, scientifically and technically.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
After the 3 manned skylab missions, it actually exceeded the experimental goals, 60% more earth observation passes, and 27% more solar viewing time, but then it was shut down, waiting on the completion of the shuttle, but due to the almost inevitable delays in a big project could not get it completed in time. They'd already given up on Saturn launchers, so when the increased solar activity caused the orbit to decay, they could not get anyone up there to correct the orbit.
If they'd decided to keep on building Apollo/Saturn 1B's, then probably Skylab would be like Mir, and exceed it's design life in orbit, instead of the 6 it actually did.
You mean Nasa knows how to throw space stations at Australia.
I used to feel it a shame that we couldn't somehow keep Skylab up longer. Then at some point, I got a chance to see a decent cross-section. There was this big waste holding tank at the bottom, and no apparent way to clean it out. Skylab was designed for a fixed mission life. No doubt it was overdesigned, and could have sustained more missions. But if that holding tank was any indication of general design practices, Skylab was incapable of indefinite occupation.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
OT, I don't know about where you live but all of the pizza huts here in colorado have been merged with taco bell. So I would be saying that I am going to the pizza bell, or the taco hut.
And, no I haven't seen Gorbichov there yet.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Or maybe it's just a Dumb Idea(TM).
Skylab 4 resupplied Skylab, the first time that an oribiting platform was resupplied from the ground.
Try imagine how silly the US names look to those whose native language isn't related to latin.
:)
Houston, John F. Kennedy Space Center...
Houston actually is almost identical with 'without trousers' in Finnish
Very interesting comment. I do think you are spot on with the choice of the Russians for the living quarters of the station. They've definitely shown that Mir's life support systems have been very resiliant. Haven't they operated 10 years beyond their expected lifetime of 4 years?
The ISS will not fail. We've got 85% of the hardware sitting around the assembly building waiting to be stuck on the shuttle. Our politicians wouldn't allow it.
NASA even had their own version of the living quarters already built and ready to launch in case the Russians failed to launch Zvezda.
And I disagree that the Russians should not have been allowed to participate. How else were we going to get the experience necessary to operate the station effectively and efficiently. Sure, we could have figured it out for ourselves, but that's stupid. It's the NIH syndrome. Even though the Russians were two years late, I can bet you it would have taken us a hellava lot longer to figure out what they already know. We are stronger with the Russians than without them. NASA knows this, and that's why they have been so patient.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I've seen some documentaries about the Zvezda module and the technology that went into it. The module itself is the main service module for the International Space Station. this means that it handles all the life support and waste-recycling responsibilities for the entire station--among other responsibilities.
:)
The most interesting thing though is that despite the fact that the Russian space program is apparently years behind the US in terms of technology, Zvezda actually represents a level of accomplishment that NASA engineers have yet to acchieve.
The Russians have been perfecting life support and environmental systems for decades; meanwhile NASA has been busy pushing the envelope in computers and flight systems.
Most of the reports I've seen detailing technical specs for Zvezda report it as if the Russian tech is backwards. I disagree. Zvezda isn't low tech, but simply an area NASA and the US hasn't developed as well as the Russians. I don't agree with the belief that the world threw Russia a bone with the comissioning of Zvezda--we simply used the know-how that their scientists have.
For all its flaws, what I really like about ISS is the international teamwork that's at work here.
Wish I was up there
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
LOL!
The Russian economy has never been stronger, owing greatly to the recovery of lost natural resources in areas experiencing seditious activities (most notably Chechnya, which you seem to know a little about). It was the Russians who opened the door to space, as you might recall. Both Sputnik and Yuri Gargalin beat the US by years, proving how embarassingly bad the US space system was (and in many ways, still is). I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function.
This being said, inclusion of the Russians is seen as a must by all reasonable men, and I applaud those in charge who managed to overcome their fears of "Sovietism" -- and the supposed violence it entails -- and chose rather to develop a truly International space station. It was a lesson learned by the UN and it's predeccesor, the League of Nations: you cannot spurn Russia in any attempt at internationalism. Though it is coldly regarded by the Westerners who know Russians only as villians in cheap spy movies, Russia has shown time and again that it has more than ample strength, intelligence, and most of all Freedom, to compete with any nation, on this planet or beyond.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
Well, the ISS finally can keep its own sorry ass up by itself without a whole lot of trouble now, and it has about as much functionality as Mir. People may have been bitching about the delay in launch, but lets not forget that was rather convienent as a number of US ISS components were viciously behind schedule. Even if the project starts to fall apart now, there are now enough components for people to try other things or to build something different than originally intended. Now that the shuttle has a place to go, maybe we`ll start using it like the space truck it really is. Now, just cross your fingers and hope the damn thing doesn`t crash into the modules already in orbit.
Ultrahawk Public Domain Satellite Now!
I've never read such stupid article. Or was it a joke ? What about 'feeding the population': I've heared about one person, who has been personally fed by the state government in USA - Monica Levinsky. Others somehow manage to feed themselves. The same thing is in Russia. However, we have sufficiently less homeless people than USA. What about design : SECAM has been chosed because it works better on long distances (more resistant to noise). And not only by USSR. Words about UNIX is pure nonsense. One who thinks that there could be 'communist' or 'capitalist' or other 'ist' operating systems seems to be brainwashed.
SECAM is better on long links. It is much more stable if the channel has some phase distortions. Given the size of USSR the TV signal had to pass through many repeaters. So SECAM makes sense. The quality is very close to PAL anyway.
I'm sure this will interest someone
This article is all about using Linux on the ISS.
A link from that page goes to LEAP - The linux equiped astronaut project. Essentially aiming to save the poor astronauts from Windows, by porting all the useful applications. (The OS has since changed to Solaris, but there's still no reason not to push an open OS)
Merely a commentary... MIR outlived its usefulness during the time it was up in space. Won't the ISS also become obsolete over time? A new part/module every year or so means that the initial parts/modules are gonna be obsolete by the time the thing gets fully assembled. Its like building a computer by adding 1 component every few months. After a year or 2, the thing you finally built is gonna be a piece of crap, especially if you put in the cpu/motherboard (main support module) first. My 2 cents, Magius_AR
After the breakup, RSA (Russian Space Agency) decided to build a replacement for Baikanour inb odny.htm)
Svobodny. (http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/facility/svo
Problem is that they ran out of cash so that place is right now half-completed.
The many posts about launching nearer to equator is better is true only for near equatorial launches (like the ISS which is in a SHuttle orbit of about 25deg inclination). For other polar launches (>67 deg inclination), the higher up you are in latitude, the better. Plesetk is then used for such launches if they can (much like the VDBAFB is used for such launches in the US.) The fuel savings can be tremendous (up to 10%.)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I can't remember the craft name or year, but I do remember that (after 2-3 tries), the russians landed a working craft onto venus, which operated for ~45 minutes. If you know anything about the conditions there, you're realize how astounding that is.
There is more information on Zvezda here on Spaceref.com.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Man, launching anything on IIS is asking for trouble. And, please, "Zvezda service module!" An ISAPI module and a service pack in one distribution? Come on.
All you need is the Unity,duh!(per SMAC)
------------------------
------------------------
Thus Spake ComradePenguin
Winna iz da 1st person ta flik their opponinets balls with their tongue
First prize is being deep throated by the loser.
Warning, I WILL play to lose.
--Shoeboy
Fortunatly, the people who run the space program aren't there due to the people's opinion, or heritage (political leaders), but instead are given their positions (lead design, project manager, ect) after years of experience and training. If anything, these people are doing this from their own know-how and a more limited budget that the americans, and achieving fairly decent results. I, for one, have faith in the Russians.
moox. for a new generation.
I could practically hear him; "Now that, son, is how my pappy used to launch rockets."
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
...and have a shot of vodka to celebrate.
great job!
BTW, is this unmanned? russia is the leader in unmanned spaceflight methinks.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.