Slashdot Mirror
Decking The Space Station Out With Comms
snuf23 writes: "The crew of Discovery has attached the Z1 Integrated Truss Segment to the International Space Station. In addition to serving as the base for the U.S. solar array, the Z1 houses the Space Station's communications systems. Like the Space Shuttle, the Z1 has a slower S-Band system as well as a fast Ku-Band Communications System which transmits at 50 Mbps.
Shuttle Online Press Kit has detailed information about the Discovery's payload on the 100th Shuttle flight." Specifically, here's the information about the Integrated Truss Segment, which sounds like a smart way to use expensive hardware in multiple ways.
Shuttle Online Press Kit has detailed information about the Discovery's payload on the 100th Shuttle flight." Specifically, here's the information about the Integrated Truss Segment, which sounds like a smart way to use expensive hardware in multiple ways.
Now we only need to equip it with some Neutron Blasters for when those pesky Antarans attack.
I've been watching the mission on NASA TV over the last few days, and the thing I was wondering about is why they can't use the Truss' Ku-band antenna to transmit video from the shuttle right now, to make up for the shuttles damaged antenna?
... :)
I guess the Truss isn't fully online yet, but if it was - would it be possible for them to re-route signals through the shuttle out onto the ISS' systems?
Heck, if they can do stuff like that in the movies
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Start here:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/st
Probably be a ton of other stuff there as well, after the mission completes.
Also, if you're interested, you should be watching NASA TV - live coverage of the entire mission (though this time around, there's no live TV courtesy of a malfunctioning shuttle antenna).
On previous missions, NASA TV has given me about all I can stand of video and pictures and details and information about the ongoing shuttle missions
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The point of any scientific expedition is to learn. I am sure that there are scientific, civilian, and military uses for this outpost. They aren't idiots, you know. They aren't there just because it's fun to do. and yes, (as some other poster asked) they have email, and internet access, printer problems, and even windows BSOD. (shoulda used linux as the print server, I guess, Houston)
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
A little OT, but AstroTerra has developed technology for transferring data at 1 Gbps over laser from a ground station to a satellite 2000 km up, and they have leveraged the stupendous amount of US taxpayer-funded R&D into a very lucrative product line for building-to-building high-speed network links.
I thoguht it said "solar army" at first. I didn't think our preesidential candidates wanted to increase military spending THAT much...
# debian/rules
I'm surprised I have to defend this, but here goes...
The ISS is a critical investment in space exploration and expansion. One of its long-term uses will be as a waystation for interplanetary travel. Besides, if it were somehow possible to assemble a vessel in space as opposed to on the ground and then launching it (space launch "guns" have been discussed to launch small payloads cheaply) it would make space travel much cheaper; most of the cost of the Shuttle is the propellant and that fuel tank that they don't reuse.
Having a space station is a foothold in space; if you want to accomplish something in space cheaply (i.e. without launching off the Earth every time) then you need a space station to do it, and that's how the ISS can be useful.
There are more reasons, such as the political benefits of internationl cooperation, but I'm no diplomat so some other slashdotter can comment on those.
# debian/rules
Unix nerds had an acronym for everything. These NASA guys own us =(
How is this "Informative" ? I'd rather moderate it "Uninformed".
May I cite "ISS Familiarization, ISS FAM C 21109":
1.2 Purpose, Objectives, and Organization of the ISS
The purpose of the ISS is to provide an "Earth orbiting facility that houses experiment payloads,
distributes resource utilities, and supports permanent human habitation for conducting research
and science experiments in a microgravity environment." (ISSA IDR no. 1, Reference Guide,
March 29, 1995)
This overall purpose leads directly into the following specific objectives of the ISS program:
Develop a world-class orbiting laboratory for conducting high-value scientific research
Provide access to microgravity resources as early as possible in the assembly sequence
Develop ability to live and work in space for extended periods
Develop effective international cooperation
Provide a testbed for developing 21 st Century technology.
Here is a link that describes the scientific objectives.
I was interested to read on Boeing's page that the Truss (which they manufactured for NASA) will end up being the length of a football field. It's hard to imagine when you actually see the thing being delivered to NASA. This will be one awesome piece of kit!
/ components_structure/integrated_truss.html
The link to Boeing's page seems to be too long for Slash to let me post it without corrupting it with spaces (!) so here it is (minus the initial "http://"):
www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/spacestation
There are plenty of photos of the Truss and other parts of the Shuttle payload at NASA's STS-92 homepage.
arnald
Jeez, man, I attached my Z1 Integrated Truss Segment to my space station in 1746, just after pounding the russians with nukes whilst simultaneously smashing the yanks with a few barbarians and a cavalry or two. Eh, wow, this stuff is strong... puf... puff..
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
You do it because the project is worthwhile in the first place.
This may come as a shock to many, but the ISS already fulfilled its primary mission before anything was launched: The intended purpose of the ISS was to keep Russia from providing India with long-range missile technology. In return from their halting the spread of the technology (IIRC Russia can sell missiles to India but not the technology for manufacturing long range missiles) we bought the Russian involvement in the program. We give the Russians half a billion dollars and they build some components for the ISS and let NASA fly a few astronauts on Mir to train for the ISS. (Information on the politics surrounding the ISS can be found in Dragonfly : Nasa and the Crisis Aboard Mir by Bryan Burrough). With the agreement we pay the low price of 20 billion dollars to slow down India's development of long-range missiles for a decade or so.
In addition the ISS is major pork, so it satisfies the second key component of its mission--that is, get some elected officials reelected. ISS construction brings revenue to over 40 states, and as a consequence it enjoys and will continue to enjoy broad support in Congress.
While I agree that a mission to Mars would probably be of higher scientific value than running a bunch of laps in low Earth orbit, it has to be recognized that science is not nor ever was a priority of the ISS mission. Any words to that effect were just subterfuge, ramblings of a disingenuous politician. Furthermore, a mission to Mars has the serious disadvantage from a practical point of view in that we don't know for certain whether or not we could pull it off--some technical issues, such as whether the amount of cosmic ray exposure the astronauts would be subjected to is manageable, have not yet been resolved. When the price of a program reaches a threshold the public becomes quite allergic to risk. (Cases in point: Apollo 1 almost killed the Apollo mission, and NASA still hasn't recovered fully from the Challenger explosion). Since with the ISS we are doing nothing besides applying tried-and-true technology in a low-risk environment, it's a slam dunk that the ISS will perform more-or-less to specs and that nobody will swing from the gallows over its failures.
Look at the bright side: We get to take some pretty photos, pat ourselves on our backs for a job well done, maybe watch a few seasons of "ISS Survivor," and then promptly lose interest in the whole "going to space" thing--that's for the next generation to struggle with as they combat the other problems we'll leave them with (depleted ecosystems, energy shortages, ozone depletion, global warming, etc).
But how much research into buildling spacegoing structures went into building it? Is that not research? I mean, part of research involves actually *DOING* something.
And if their budgets weren't continually cut, they wouldn't ahve to cancel more research in order to actually do something.
If we are ever going to go further into space, we need to start *somewhere*. Gee.. never mind all the other technologies that actually trying to put people in space have brought us..
LIttle research? Do you know how much microgravity research is still sitting earthside waiting to be done? YEARS OF THE STUFF! MANY YEARS!
What is the point of all this? What do they hope to get in the way of data from the ISS? I mean what is the point of the ISS anymore? They already know how humans react to extended space exposure. The reason NASA is losing funding is because stuff like this is pointless.
Nice troll, troll.
In point of fact I am not entirely behind the ISS; I would prefer more spending on planetary science, even at the expense of the crewed space program. But you shouldn't argue from ignorance.
The basic premise of your argument is that NASA is "losing funding". In point of fact NASA is not losing funding. Certain NASA programs are less well-funded than they could be, but ISS is Congress's baby, and they've willingly gone along with one slipped launch date and technical delay after another. They have restricted funding on specific things. At this point NASA cannot switch to experimental tech like a "balloon" habitat for ISS, nor can it officially spend anything on preparing for human visits to Mars. The planetary craft budget is notoriously starved. But funding for shuttle and ISS has been pretty much stable, taking into account a mandate to privatize and cut costs.
As far as research into extended space exposure, I tend to agree with you. Nevertheless, NASA does not, and in any case, they do not see medical research into long-term habitation as the primary purpose of ISS. It will certainly occur, and NASA astrodocs want to do their own experiments rather than translate Russian papers, but it's not the main reason.
ISS has two reasons to exist, which trump any others. The first is "international cooperation". This is rpetty much the only reason that ISS was ultimately funded: the Bush and Clinton administrations finessed a joint US/Russian ISS as a way to forge a relationship with the new Russia, incidentally toss them some cold hard US cash, and to stop sending nuclear engineers to places like Iran. So, foreign policy above all.
Second is that ISS, like Shuttle and Apollo before it, is a large, complex program that just happens to be spread -- and can be purposely spread even more -- across dozens of states and congressional districts. Hence pork above all but foreign policy.
Finally there is the political need for NASA to have a major "goal" program rather than just endless shuttle flights to low orbit. NASA has watned a space station since the early 1960s, and they finally have it. NASA doesn't really care that scientists, per se, may not have that much to do with it; it's not built for the scientists. It's also provided a way to build up space agencies in other countries, allow them to train astronauts, cooperate on a vast project, and generally learn how to handle a large engineering project in space.
All that said, the hope is that the microgravity environment will allow many different long-term experiments to be done that could not on a 10-day shuttle flight, covering materials, biology, and yes, human habitation, not just about medical but also about technology for doing it. This may yet prove useful. Folk like me see the utility, just not the cost-benefit ratio.
If you understand the political reality of a program like ISS the reasons for decisions made becomes much more clear.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
It would be fun to email people in space.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
hmm, I dont know about mp3's but im sure you could stream video pretty well at that speed...and all that bandwith is going to have to be put to SOME kind of good use...Everyone knows that the ISS is billions over budget...I think we can all agree it's only a matter of time before they put two and two together to figure out how to pay it back.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Nice to know we now have an extraterrestrial Napster node!
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Can it network a game of Quake with, say, Mir?? =)
Yeah, but you don't do a project because the spinoffs are cool. You do it because the project is worthwhile in the first place. We'd get just as many spinoff technologies from working towards a manned Mars mission, and it's something actually worth doing as distinct from the ISS, which will likely produce stuff-all of interest.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Alas I have to agree, it's a waste of space (Excuse poor pun.)
it is all very well saying things like 'money spent on the space program is spent on the ground' and so forth but ultimately if you don't do something useful with the ISS all you have is a multi-billion dollar toy. Pretty but useless.
NASA (Never A Straight Answer?) has never given any particularly good answers on what the hell they're going to do with the ISS. I don't agree that we have done enough physiological research into people in space, facts are still being found, à la vitamin K story a few weeks ago. Various things that I have read in the papers include a tracking system for stolen cars (I kid ye not) and super-accurate timing signals worldwide (uh...relativity?).
The basic fact is that they haven't got a damn clue what the hell they're going to do with it - they are just bloody sure that they are not going to screw it up like so many previous cockups by NASA (I'm not proud the ESA have made enough too and it must be said that at least you have a damn space program - unlike the UK. We got the scientists but we've also got a government which couldn't give a shit.)
Essentially NASA is just praying for some good publicity after the strem of unmitigated fuck-ups of the nineties - Hubble, Mars craft etc...
Gotta say what I see.
Elgon
"Uhhh, what planet are we sending this (Hubble ST) to?" - Gore, Albert.
(PS - for real afficionados of space cockups, read: Chaisson, Eric. 'The Hubble Wars'. A damned fine read.)