Slashdot Mirror


International Space Station: Canada to the Rescue?

Apostata writes "The following story from the Globe and Mail outlines a proposal of the head of the Canadian Space Agency to seek renewed funding for the recently stripped-down NASA budget for the ISS. He makes an interesting point that - contrary to the belief that the ISS is a NASA brainchild/braintrust - many countries have poured $billions$ into it's development and should thus have a say in whether there should be any cutbacks. Read all about it here."

27 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Noone to the rescue, yet by kingdon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see this article as saying that Canada is going to rescue anything. Rather, they are lining up along with Europe to complain (with some justice, since NASA is not upholding the ISS agreements as they currently stand). Now, I suppose if a nation complains enough and is willing to use this as a bargaining chip (e.g. in trade talks or whatever kind of talks matter to the US), then complaining becomes a kind of action. But a much more direct sort of rescue, a more obviously effective one, would be to come up with some funding. Europe once built a half-scale prototype of (some portions of) a crew return vehicle, but in recent years that activity has changed to "well, maybe we could build a few components for the US crew return vehicle, that would be cheaper. Well, is Europe prepared to build their own crew return vehicle? Or pay Russia to supply more Soyuzes?

    The other amusing aspect of this whole thing is the number of times that the US has cancelled its part of a project (shuttle, partially; some science satellite in the 80's the name of which is at home; even Spacelab in a sense), and the fact that Europe (and other partners) fail to learn. It is like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown time after time, and Europe seems to always line up for another kick. I guess Canada is now joining them.

    1. Re:Noone to the rescue, yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your second paragraph is dead right.

      The probe, by the way, was to be a US equivalent to Ulysses, so that ESA and NASA would have a probe going over a different pole of the Sun at the same time. We've lost a lot of science to that decision.

      There is a difference in attitude between the US and Europe/Canada/Japan. To the latter international treaties are binding documents; they are the *last* thing to go if you're having problems. (Look at the unsuccessful efforts the British made to get out of Concorde...)

      The USA, on the other hand, is the centre of the universe, the new Middle Kingdom, and treaties with other, inferior, nations are the *first* thing to be broken if The Land of The Free is getting squeezed. Or even if they aren't and just don't feel like it (Kyoto, landmines, NMD...). Meanwhile everyone else is expected to dance to their tune.

      Basically the Americans are a bunch of selfish, arrogant, isolationist pricks who are not to be trusted in any transnational agreement.

      Hopefully this has now hit home with ESA. Two reasons:

      1. the cost and high public profile of this FUBAR
      2. Canada and Japan have been shafted as well.

      I hope what we will see is these nations teaming up with Russia and China to build an alternate station to the brain-damaged political football of the ISS and become a new independent force in space exploration.

    2. Re:Noone to the rescue, yet by ink · · Score: 3, Informative
      I hope what we will see is these nations teaming up with Russia and China to build an alternate station to the brain-damaged political football of the ISS and become a new independent force in space exploration.

      What a joke. Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING, is preventing Russia, China, Canada, Japan, et all from doing this RIGHT NOW. It's easy to kick the US when we're in a recession, involved in a war and just suffered billions in unilateral damages; and yet we are still the major funding for the ISS. I would be overjoyed if other nations would actually DO something other than bitch, like you seem content to do. Russia, for their part, have done extraordianary things with ISS (not to mention Mir), and I applaud them.

      Legislation in the USA changes from year to year just like in other nations, Everyone Knows Best(tm) how to spend the GNP, and NASA is just one such agency. Personally, I would love to fund NASA much more than it currently is funded, but I live in a democracy and I realize that my priorities don't coincide with many other Americans (much less with Canadians or Japanese). In short: there is no conspiracy, we don't rise every day thinking "How can I screw the rest of the world" -- the reality is quite the contrary.

      The sad thing is, in other forums we hear the exact opposite, but coincidental rant: "Why does the US spend so much god-damned money on NASA, they should be spending all that money on AIDS research" or the ever-classic "The space program just pollutes, we could spend that money on more green technologies that will benefit everyone." It is tiresome, to say the least.

      --
      The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
    3. Re:Noone to the rescue, yet by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting point - totaly ignoring that NASA asked the others to help fund the ISS, in exchange they could do science projects on the station.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. Re:Jingoism again? by Dimwit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, but Slashdot is an American site, and most of its readers are American. I'm European, but I don't expect Slashdot to put, every time it discusses anything international, every single possible variation on the phrase.

    I'm also a little upset with people bitching that the US has limited everyone's access to the ISS. The US has poured far more money into it than any other participant, AND has had to cover for things when other members (Russia, mainly) defaulted on debts. So don't act like it's just the Americans' fault.

    --
    ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
  3. Funding cuts by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (begin rant)
    Funding cuts that make it impossible to do research should not be made, since this is a research platform, after all. If they cut funding to this, just like they did with DS1 (story earlier today), then the entire scientific commmunity is going to be pissed. What is the point of putting up a multi-billion dollar space station if not to do something more than have it just sit there, with no experiments being done? That ticking sound is the time before this thing plunges into the ocean years from now. the only question is "what do we do with it until then?"
    (/rant)

    --


    Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
  4. 2 and a half� crew members? by elliott666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "At least 2½[and a half] crew members are needed merely to operate the ISS."

    Wouldn't it be safe to round that up?

  5. Re:Jingoism again? by Apostata · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I think what you meant to say was..."
    Actually, I meant to say what I did. You infer via paranoia that I'm implying that there's only one currency in the world and that it's all a plot to subjugate your philosophy...which has nothing to do with the subject of the article or outer-space in general.

    For the record, I'm Canadian. Get stuffed.
    --

    This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
  6. Obligatory anime reference by Attila · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe the Japanese should have opted for a Mobile Suit Gundham instead of an Experiment Module Kibo.

    --
    Dear Will, the plums were poisoned. -- Cheese Club
  7. Re:Jingoism again? by thelexx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh right. Forgetting for a moment that this is an AMERICAN website and that the author of the article was likely implying billions after _conversion_, the article should have read:

    "many countries have poured billions of drachmas, kopeks, dong, won, yen, pesetas, rubles, rupees, lira, marks, pounds, franks, krones, shillings, pesos, punts, baht, yuan, taka and polished beads into it's development..."

    Give me a break.

    LEXX

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  8. Re:very true, but... by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me suggest to you that useful but boring space research gets done because we also do exciting but expensive things. That is, it's hard to get the public interested in a fleet of Earth-orbiting atmospheric science satellites, but human spaceflight galvanizes the public interest enough that a few hundred million can sneak past for other, more scientifically interesting research.



    I also think that the money spent on the ISS is worth it if the only thing it proves is that a massive international space project requiring detailed co-operation from former military adversaries is even possible. (PS: I'm all for letting the Chinese get on board too). The future of manned spaceflight depends on pan-national co-operation.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  9. Re:very true, but... by RollingThunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can think of two simple benefits off the top of my head.

    First, you can have experiments that are easily monitored, altered, and corrected. It's probably cheaper to have an astronaut do the work than to design (and pay for the lift of) the mechanics to do so.

    Second, by having experiments inside the permanent structure of the station, you don't need to reproduce the wheel every time you send up an experiment (shielding for radiation and dust, airtight containment, temperature control, etc etc). The station provides all that.

    A lot of this could be done with the shuttle - but only as long as it doesn't take too long. I think the max time on orbit for a shuttle is only a couple of weeks, but I'm probably way off. Using the station, you can run a three month long experiment or more... which is really handy if you're studying something like the effect of microgravity on successive generations bred and raised in it.

    (As an aside, how they get the mice to have sex in zero g, I'll never figure out. ;) )

  10. As unpopular as it may sound... by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I support the efforts of the ISS and orbital research from what I've heard there is in fact not a lot of good research they can do in weightlessness. Personally I think it says something when you're accepting experiments from junior high schools to do in space that probably converts to thousands of dollars of time and resources on the part of the space agency. Does anyone know of useful research being conducted by astronauts (i.e. no Hubble or exploration vehicles) or that has been proposed?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  11. Dubya's Answer...Send In The Accountants... by cybrpnk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Welcome to the new NASA. Dubya is dumping Golden (love him or hate him, he WAS an engineer) to bring in a guy that is 100% bean counter. From a recent newspaper article (I think Houston Chronicle):

    ""...No one really knows what a finished station would cost. NASA said earlier this year that it faces a $4.8 billion shortfall over the next five years. Sean O'Keefe, nominated by President George W. Bush to become NASA administrator, testified Friday that he had no confidence in that number or any other estimate he had heard so far.
    At the close of the hearing Friday, Mr. O'Keefe was asked an open-ended question: "What is your vision?"
    .
    Mr. O'Keefe spoke for several minutes about "prudent management principles," reinvigorating "the entrepreneurial spirits" of NASA, the importance of collaboration with other elements of the federal government, the need to be mindful of safety and the possibility of taking advantage of this moment when NASA is at a crossroads.
    .
    He did not mention space."

    1. Re:Dubya's Answer...Send In The Accountants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      " it is the private sector that can run self sustained, profitable activities, where scientific achievement is usually followed by economic achievemnt. "

      Ho ho ho!!! Been to F*ckedCompany lately?

    2. Re:Dubya's Answer...Send In The Accountants... by rho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right. What we need at NASA is a grown-up Trekkie with a fire in his belly to put us on Mars in 10 years and taking day-trips to Venus in 15. Somebody who will do nothing but talk about space and space exploration, damn the cost.

      You'd better be more careful in showing so much scorn, or I might figure out how many starving children the failed Climate Orbiter could have fed if those wonderful engineers of yours had excercised some form of due diligence (oooh.. a dirty, nasty accounting-type term...)

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  12. Money by slubberdegullion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that cutting back on astronauts now would be like buying a Porsche, then only driving it a few times in order to save on gas. The US has already committed huge amounts of money to this project, and cutting back now could severely limit the usefulness of the space station, making it a complete waste of money.

  13. This is weird... by laserjet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Mr. O'Keefe is a budget hawk and has said he believes that technical excellence at any cost is not an acceptable approach by NASA.

    This seems like a rather odd thing to say to the press... I would think if *I* was relying on NASA to do something in space, I would sure want "technical excellence" at any cost. This is not a walk in the park, it is space exploration, and attention DOES need to be paid to detail.

    or am I wrong?

    --
    Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
  14. Pro Canada should NOT mean Anti USA by ShadeEagle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bah.

    Too many people here are bashing USA, and saying "oh, we're better than USA because of *reason X* or *reason Y*"...

    To those of you who are doing this, take a second and think. Are we really that much better? Do we have to take our argument to an international forum and play the patriot?

    The USA, despite it's flaws, is not as bad as a lot of people think. If it was such a bad place, they'd have all moved out of there by now! Besides, the USA is where Megatokyo comes from, and it's also where a lot of anime and video games are distributed from.

    And Canada HAS flaws. Sure, our Prime Minster, the Right Honourable Jean Chretien was seen choking and throwing a potential assailant... Sure, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Chris Jericho, Alex Trebek, etc. come from Canada...

    But to those who believe in the right to bear arms up here - we can't. To those who believe that we have freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Not in Canada. The government can censor you if they so choose.

    The point is: It's the holidays, friends. Break out the egg nog, or beer if you prefer, and let's celebrate life. We're friendly neighbors... why not ACT like it for a change? We should like each other despite our many flaws.

    Happy Holidays to one and all.

  15. "Laser" by boopus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you ever get the feeling that if we just let G. Dubbya hang a few "lasers" off the ISS let him point them at caves where "terrorists" live the space station could have an unlimited budget?

    That being said, I'd agreee with the poster who pointed out that the ISS is a huge expenditure compared to what we could do with many smaller projects, but I think it's necessary to have big prjects that are the culimination of the technology that's being devised. Classes that don't have final exams are always considered slacker classes because people don't have a goal to work towards, and the same thing could be said for space projects.

  16. Translation! by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    -US takes the initiative on creating the ISS, contributing the bulk of funding and nearly all technology.

    While the...rest of the United States declares that almost all of the low gravity research to be done on the ISS has already been done on the ground.

    -US takes the initiative to throw off the chains of an obsolete and oppressive monarchy.

    Choosing instead to worship Topm Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow and George Clooney.

  17. Cooperation? by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The future of manned spaceflight depends on pan-national co-operation.

    Have you seen the results of international cooperation? Everybody teaming up to try and put up a Low Earth Orbit space station, and finally getting hardware in orbit after 2 decades of redesigns, tens of billions of dollars of cost growth, United States delays that threatened European schedules, Russian delays that threatened American schedules... and the result just isn't that impressive, even for a space station.

    What human spaceflight depends on, apparantly, is international competition. Russians orbiting the globe, "putting a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before this decade is out", you know, that sort of thing?

    We don't need Chinese astronauts on ISS, we need China building it's own space station in half the time... because apparantly there's nothing that motivates the American space program so well as being laughed at.

  18. Learn the Metric system and save $125 million! by toupsie · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Guess Jimmy Carter was right. If we could just teach our "rocket scientists" how to do English to Metric conversion, we could have saved $125 million in waste from NASA in the accounting year of 1999 alone.

    There is nothing wrong with a good audit over NASA's budget. That budget is what a Butt Head Astronomer would describe as billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars. The Mars Climate Orbiter was just one obvious sign of NASA waste. Getting someone in the accounting field might just be able to help NASA maximize the funds it has and achieving more with the same.

    Since the head of NASA is not going to greet the great beyond, he really need not be a scientist. Just someone who is effective running a massive organization funded by taxpayer dollars. As Dennis Tito has shown, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to make it into space. In fact, being good with money and budgets was what lead him to the stars.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  19. Money money money by Cato+the+Elder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The article claims that various governments claim that the US is violating treaty-level contractual obligations by making a budget cutback. Maybe, but they certainly don't cite convincing sources. Can anyone do better?

    Also, while other countries may have poured billions of dollars (US) into the project, note that even according to the article this is a small percentage. The article states that the Canadian robot arm cost $1.4 billion and gives them 2.3 % of the research space. The European module is quoted as costing the same. That means Canada and Europe, total, have 4.6% of the research space. Assuming Japan's contribution isn't vastly more expensive, or there isn't some other big player the article didn't mention, that means about 90% of the research space, and presumably the budget, came from the US.

    If there were treaties to prevent the US from doing this, then the US should be constrained by them. If not, the US should at least be willing to provide use of launching facilities and shuttles at a reasonable cost. But beyond that, pay up. "He who pays the piper calls the tune"--and that includes telling him to go away. Unless otherwise negotiated, the US has no obligation to let other people piggyback their space efforts on its own.

  20. It's been said before by notcarlos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And I'll say it again: US-Government domination of space needs to end. Since the end of the cold war, NASA and, to a very small extent, its Russian counterpart have more or less ruled space. Sure, there've been a number of "private" or corporate launches, but all of them have come from Cape with a heavy kickback to NASA.

    What is needed is for private corporations to take up the slack, building their own launch sites and launching their own whatevers. If this means corporate domination of space, then so be it. I would rather see the Microsoft Starship Gates make warp one than none at all.

    --
    io hymen hymnaee io
    io hymen hymnaee
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Just because one statement is true... by tenchiken · · Score: 3, Insightful
    does not mean the other one is true.

    He makes an interesting point that - contrary to the belief that the ISS is a NASA brainchild/braintrust . ISS is a NASA goal (to the extreme detriment to what I would argue should be the real focus, probes going out to learn about the solar system. On top of that, not only are we sinking 100+ Billion dollors on this (100x the contribution of any other country... and for good measure we are covering most of the soviet's costs as well), we are cutting programs that would go out and examine the Kuiper belt, the sun, etc.


    Think of what kind of knowledge we could gain. Long term space research? bzzt. Soviets already did that. Radation effects on humans? bzzt.


    The entire problem is that this space station was created by the state department and congress rather then the scientists. ISS? What ever happened to freedom and liberty the first names of this project.

    Screw the space station. Give us a workable re-usable launcher and the NGST.