International Space Station Turns Two

RedWolves2 writes "Today is ISS's second anniversary of Operations. Two years ago today NASA astronaut Bill Shepherd and Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev first boarded the ISS. In two years the station has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors."

Comments

lance

[Scrameustache]

N*SYNC free since november 2000!

Its a shame it won't last...

Re:lance

[happypizzaguy]

Alright, how did he know that there is an * in N*SYNC?

Re:lance

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not really that much of a fan, it's really *NSYNC...

Re:lance

[Scrameustache]

I spent two weeks retouching pictures of N*SYNC for my old job...it was hell. And since I'm a perfectionist, I took the time to learn all their names (to my surprise, that ugly one with a goatee was actually 2 different ugly ones with goatees).

The worst part? The client that we were doing this job for went belly up right after we were done.
All that staring at Joey "phat one" Fatone for naught!

Pity me

Re:lance

[Myco]

There must be somebody you can sue!

Re:lance

[Anonymous Coward]

hi i'm sorry this is off topic, but does anyone know where i can download the jpgl codec from? i need to send a friend a short video recorded by my web camera but she can't play it and i have no idea where to download the codec from. i already tried google to no avail.

and still

[gspr]

...and still the people of Earth cannot tell the difference between then and than.

Re:and still

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because they spent all out tax money on the space station and not on elementary school grammar. We have also seen the death of the adverb.

Lolly Lolly Lolly Get your adverbs here...

Re:and still

[Anonymous Coward]

...and still the people of Earth cannot tell the difference between then and than.

The people of Earth still cannot use adverbs or full sentences.

Re:and still

[Distinguished Hero]

That's because they spent all out tax money on the space station and not on elementary school grammar. We have also seen the death of the adverb.

You must be a graduate of the above mentioned educational system, and living proof of its flaws.

Re:and still

[Citizen of Earth]

We have also seen the death of the adverb.

But we also have the bornification of the neologism to take up the slack.

Re:and still

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called a typo or transposition, if you look the r and t are right next to each other on a standard QWERTY keyboard. My finger dexterity, or lack of it, is caused by a medical condition, often called arthritis.

Re:and still

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha you have arthritis...LOL. When you are wrapping your fingers around throbbing manham, it must hurt. You should use your mouth instead

Re:and still

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have to. Your Mother's mouth is on my "manham" right now...

Re:and still

[C0LDFusion]

I have three letters for you...ROFL. :)

Re:and still

[Weird Dave]

I'm fine with fewer people using adverbs. It lets me separate the wheat from the chaff more quickly.

So what good is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great, but what has this really yielded? I can understand that they've been doing experiments on the station, but has paying the billions upon billions of dollars been worth the trouble?

Re:So what good is it?

[Keebler71]

Absolutely! There may not be much "hard science" going on... certainly no as much as I personally would like. However something invaluable is being learned through this experience... how to construct large objects in space. The ISS is the ultimate lego/tinker-toy kit. Never before has a spacecraft been assembled in orbit.

If we hope to ever estabilish a permanent moon base or go to Mars (or beyond) we will certainly be building upon the lessons learned in constructing the ISS (pun inteneded).

Re:So what good is it?

[Raiford]

Regardless of the cost, maintaining a presence in space is worth the money. Unfortunately we remain stuck in Earth orbit for a third decade from a manned space flight perspective. There are people graduating from college now that were not born when man last walked upon the surface of the moon. This is sad.

Re:So what good is it?

[moonbender]

No, it's not. At least not from a scientific point of view. I'm sure it is, from a populistic one.

Re:So what good is it?

[Raiford]

On the contrary IMO it is ! Granted this is my opinion, but it is a bit more than a populistic one (check my bio). The scientific benifits cannot be evaluated using the same metric as say an NIH grant. Sure you are going to spend a lot of money in space and what seems like trivial experiment are the things that you see or hear about in the popular press. The benifit from the technology development alone and spin-off effects are amazing. If you could compute the sum total of all research dollars spent on things that just occupy space on the university library shelves you would see that the cost spent on space is a small fraction of total research spending in general.

Re:So what good is it?

[pfdietz]

No it isn't, unless you've stupidly got yourself stuck in an aerospace career and need the constant flow of federal money.

Whats it for?

[packeteer]

What we need is links describing what they7 are going to DO with it. Im not saying its useless but i dont know much about it but am interested.

Re:Whats it for?

[DAldredge]

Spend a lot of tax payers money. Keep at lot of contractors in business.

Re:Whats it for?

[Paul Komarek]

I don't think we'll know what the Space Station is for until we're done with it, which won't be for many years. I like to think of our space efforts, in general, as

1) Research Investements
2) Engineering Investments
3) Inspirational Exploration
4) Inspirational Art
5) Occasionally Profitable

and for the space station in particular,

6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

-Paul Komarek

Re:Whats it for?

[bmwm3nut]

7) Profit :)

Re:Whats it for?

[Pooua]

I like to think of our space efforts, in general,

It's good that you said in general, because Items 1 through 6 you listed are only true of *other* space projects, not the ISS.

1) Research Investements It looks increasingly unlikely that any significant research will ever be performed on the ISS; extremely unlikely that $100 billion dollars-worth of research will be. What research is done probably could have been done more cheaply by other means.

2) Engineering Investments

OK, we have a works program, which is actually corporate welfare.

3) Inspirational Exploration

I think we need to get our inspiration along more practical lines.

4) Inspirational Art

5) Occasionally Profitable

ISS is never going to be profitable.

and for the space station in particular,

6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

That could be a reason that the project is such a gross waste of money, time and effort.

Re:Whats it for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theyre constantly doing scientific experiments that require a microgravity environment.

Re:Whats it for?

[C0LDFusion]

6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

I'd like to remind the poster of the above that most countries "participating" in the ISS have been defaulting on their share of it, leaving the US to pay up for a capsule that has THEIR flag on it. Then they insult us because we can't afford National Health Care.

Re:Whats it for?

[Paul Komarek]

While writing that, I wondered how people would take it. What I had in mind is that NASA is trying to be (more-or-less) patient. I believe it is more important to move together than to move as fast as possible.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Whats it for?

[LeftOfCentre]

Do you have a source for that?

Re:Whats it for?

[C0LDFusion]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20020923/station .html

"...Russia would not be able to pay up its share of the International Space Station..."

Congrats to World!!!

[Goalie_Ca]

The space station is a great symbol of mankind joining together to enter a new frontier.

Re:Congrats to World!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, a 13 billion dollar white elephant. I feel much closer to the people of the world now that my wallet is a few hundred bucks lighter due to the tax burden imposed by ISS.

Re:Congrats to World!!!

[netsharc]

Hear hear! One early morning I happened to see the station flying across the sky and it was amazing to realize that that little moving "star" was something that mankind managed to brought up there, high in space. For those who can't appreciate it, find out when the ISS is going to fly by and experience it for yourself.

Re:Congrats to World!!!

[Goalie_Ca]

I saw it fly-by this summer. Was pretty impressive. The amount of technology, science, and engineering required is simple amazing.

Re:Congrats to World!!!

[s1234d]

Unfortunately it's actually a symbol of spending way more money than planned, and then cutting costs in such a way that the scientific return is very low, not to mention breaking contracts with other countries.

Sadly we now have an enormously expensive station that requires the crew to spend almost all their time maintaining it instead of doing science experiments. The amount of money spent on the station and the shuttle is so enormous that many other valuable missions have been cancelled.

200,000 pounds ?

[Trusty Penfold]

200,000 pounds? Nonsense - it is in space, therefore it is weightless.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Goalie_Ca]

Lol, even since it is in space, its still weighs, but much less.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct, it weighs nothing. Unfortunately pounds is a measure of mass, not weight. Even if it is weightless it has mass.
In the US imperial system, the unit of weight is the slug, the UK system it is the stone, and in the all-mighty metric it is the Newton, while a kilogram is a measure of mass.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

the mass(usualy meassured in kilo) increased by 200,000 pounds.
its the weight(meassured in newton) that is (almost zero).

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Goalie_Ca]

It weighs nothing when it is as lim r->infinity. :P It was a bad joke.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

A pound is a unit of weight--not of mass.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other way around, the pound is a measure of weight, not mass. The slug is the measure of mass.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, unfortunately I've been raised with metric so I was momentarily confused.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://faculty.millikin.edu/~jaskill.nsm.faculty.m u/slug.html

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weight isn't almost zero. It is only 245 miles high - gravity has plenty of pull.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Tomble]

A pound is a unit of weight- not of mass.

Are you having a laugh?

An alternative view is that a pound is neither a unit of weight nor of mass, but of currency..

Weight is a force, and it should strictly be measured in N (newtons) in the SI scheme used in most of the world.
Mass is independent of gravity, and its SI unit (and also the normal non-scientific unit in metricised countries) is the kilogram. A kilogram is roughly 2 of your old imperial pounds.

Oh, this is getting boring now. I shouldn't have taken the bait. Curse you, Anonymous Coward, you got me again...

Anyway, alternative units of force to the Newton include "kilogram force" and "pound force", but a kilogram weighs different amounts depending on the gravity in your location.
Sorry, but the same applies to pounds. You don't get around it by being awkward and non-metric.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Henry V .009]

After reading that, I am having a laugh. A pound is a non-SI measure of Newtons, not of kilograms. Pounds really are a unit of weight (force).

You mass the same everywhere (kilograms), but you will weigh (Newtons or pounds) a different amount in every different gravity field.

I'll even post with my real user-name.

Of course, all of this is kind of meaningless, since the space station is in a gravity field. I just wanted to clear up your mis-conception.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mass the same everywhere (kilograms), but you will weigh (Newtons or pounds) a different amount in every different gravity field.

It's kind of assumed that the weight on earth is what they're talking about. But nonetheless, the point is still valid: in my physics classes, when using the (English|Imperial|non-metric) system, pounds are often used as a replacement for kilograms. Is it correct? No (unless you specify pound-mass), but we still used -32 lb/s^2 to replace the -9.8 m/s^2 for earth's gravitational acceleration.

If we would just go to the metric system, it would clear up a lot of these headaches and (hopefully) get people edumacated in the sciences. Now if only I could convince my friends to not send me junk forwards "just in case Michael Eisner is giving away free vacations."

-Xy

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Henry V .009]

I take it that you failed that physics class. You just claimed that that pounds were equivalent to meters. I think that you meant 32 feet per second per second.

So again, pounds are a unit of weight, not of mass. My statement which you quoted was correct.

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Tomble]

...
...
. . :-O

If this is really true, then I'm astounded. Every technical writing I've seen that has refered to pounds as a measure of force has referred to "pounds-force" or something like that. Every conversion table I've seen has given conversion between lbs (pounds) and kgs (kilos), and all my own physics classes (at UK A level, in which I got an A, but I didn't do University level physics), we always had it drilled into us that KGs were a unit of mass, Newtons are a measure of force, and that weight is a force.

We were never told "actually pounds are a measure of force, unlike kilograms", - pounds were never even mentioned, because we don't officially use imperial measurement any more, and certainly science classes even in high school don't touch them. In fact, a shopkeeper here was famously prosecuted for selling his goods in imperial measurement a few years ago. It's Ironic that Americans call them things like "British" units!

So, I'll admit that it's quite possible that you are right and I'm wrong on this. I'll just have to take your word on it as I don't know!

(FWIW, in case you're thinking that prosecution was a bit draconian, the law does permit giving the imperial measure secondarily to the metric version, which must be more prominent)

Re:200,000 pounds ?

[Henry V .009]

Maybe you won't believe me, but will you believe an actual website claiming to be authoritive?

LOL--It really is true. The slug is the British unit of mass--pound is the unit of force.

Next on Jerry Springer

[MosesJones]

Meet ISS who says she is being used and abused by men, and indeed women, she says she has entertained over 112 people in the last two years and has gained over 200,000 pounds. ISS says that all of these people leave after a short period of time and never come back. But she says that she still has a positive outlook on life and doesn't feel the weight is a problem, in fact she hardly feels it at all...

Well Lets bring out ISS...

JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY

Re:Next on Jerry Springer

[Tomble]

In fact, if I ever meet you, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!!!

Hey, were you on Jerry Springer at some time?

Re:Next on Jerry Springer

[Anonymous Coward]

WooHooo!!! Trolls on parade!

umm

[mrpuffypants]

so where's the trailer for this?

right

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Please stop posting to slashdot.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not worry, mister. We acknowledge your flamboyantly homosexual lifestyle and have ignored your post for your own protection.

Two years old!

[spoons67]

Now we only have about 25 more until we can crash it into the ocean and pray it hit's the Taco Bell target!
Mmmmm...free taco....*drool*
---

Re:Two years old!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to highjack it on the way down, and use it for raw material in my orbital foundry. Silly hu-mans, just letting good metal that they paid $1000+/lb to boost into orbit disintegrate in the atmosphere... Not only will I have my weapons to take over earth, NO ONE will get a free taco. Hah!

-mort

Yea..

[dj28]

And the US tax payer sure is 'feeling' this birthday... in the wallet.

Re:Yea..

[Keebler71]

As a taxpayer in something like the 30% bracket, I would much rather have my money going into the space program than into social security or welfare (including so-called corporate welfare).

Re:Yea..

[DAldredge]

You do understand that "corporate welfare" is one of the large reasons that congress continues to fund the IIS, don't you?

Re:Yea..

[Paul Komarek]

At least at one point in 2001, NASA estimated America's portion of the ISS cost to be US$100bn (i.e. how much America will have spent when the station is completed). Let's suppose nasa is wrong, and that it is actually triple that, US$300bn.

GW Bush's propsed 2003 military budget is US$378bn, which is something like US$43bn more than last year.

And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time. The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning. We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.

At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent. That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.

Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap? I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Yea..

[Dark Lord Seth]

People like you occasionally give me a glance of hope that one day people with common sense will rule the US and lead it's people on a path of international cooperation and peace, instead of global sanctions and war. If you ever run for president, notify me so I can vote on you. (Hey, dead people can vote, why not a foreigner?)

Re:Yea..

[Pooua]

GW Bush's propsed 2003 military budget is US$378bn, which is something like US$43bn more than last year.

And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.

FYI, Bush had nothing to do with the US bombing Serbia, and Bush's proposed 2003 budget certainly had nothing to do with it.

The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning.

If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.

We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.

The Taliban is out of power and the US has full access to any part of Afghanistan it desires to explore. OBL hasn't been seen or heard from in months, and is presumed dead.

As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).

At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent.

You seem to think the ISS is the reason, instead of just one product. The nations building ISS have been talking and cooperating long before ISS came together.

That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.

ISS isn't making friends. It isn't converting enemies. It is just a waste of money and a serious burden on everyone's economy. Even the idiot Socialists know that when an economy gets dragged under by boondoggle programs, it makes the world less friendly. In that way, ISS is hurting friendships.

Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap?

Iraq doesn't care about ISS. The Taliban would not care about the ISS. Al Quada does not care about ISS. Your argument is senseless.

I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

I think you are wrong.

Re:Yea..

[Waffle Iron]

So you're saying we should go back to old cheap Vietnam-era technology like Napalm? That way you can have tens of thousands of dead civilians in each little war instead of a few hundred dead.

But at least you wouldn't be spending too much money on weapons.

Re:Yea..

[mr_tenor]

Why do so many people not diferentiate between socialism and communism? :/

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).

WTF are you smoking? There are elements of socialism in every country of the world, even the US. No country is purely capitalist.

Re:Yea..

[Chris Burke]

If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.

While it is true that $270 billion is drastically less than $380 billion, it does not necessarily follow that $270 billion is insufficient.

Unless it can be demonstrated that another $100 billion would have prevented the destruction of the towers, the point stands.

George's current buget is simply the most recent figure in a long line of military bugets that can best be summarized by the word "large". I think you read too much into the fact that the quoted value was for the current budget.

Re:Yea..

[ffatTony]

As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).

This is why I find myself more and more afraid to go outside. People make painfully broad generalizations and use them as evidence why anything that is not American is bad.

I personally think the US military budget should be heavily cut, we should never go to war with anyone who doesn't attack us first (war is really just a scare tactic, actual fighting it really, really stupid). And the terrorist attack on America is not just cause to go to war with an entire country.

and you look like one too.... :p

Re:Yea..

[d_i_r_t_y]

you have some incredibly ignorant, right-wing views, my friend. i suggest travelling outside the US and reading some books instead of swallowing CNN and US propaganda.

i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?

the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined. i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?

Re:Yea..

[yddeh]

How can you possibly claim that "destroying" (nice choice of word btw) socialism is the only way to stop terrorism?
That is ridiculous.
I worked for a long time with no health care, barely had enough money to get by, and had no problem with paying the taxes except that soooo much of it was going to making weapons.
Public education in this country is terrible. Tons of people have no health care. Tons of people since Bush has become president (yeah yeah blame clinton again) have no jobs at all.
I hate you right wingers that constantly vote for tax cuts and increased military spending when hard-working folks who weren't born into a well-to-do family struggle. YOU morons are the reason we're hated internationally. People overseas think we're ALL overweight, ignorant, overpaid yahoos with big time tunnel vision.
Man, you really think socialism is the reason terrorism exists? I can't get over that.

Re:Yea..

[Rolo Tomasi]

I was actually going to go into the particulars of what you wrote, but then I saw that you're with AOL.

Let me just say how sorry I am that you've obviously been dropped on the head as a child. Repeatedly. Over a period of several years.

Re:Yea..

[neafevoc]

we should never go to war with anyone who doesn't attack us first

Now this thread might be going offtopic... but, if we do go to war with Irag... would this be the first in American history where we took the initiative?

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely 100% without a clue. You sound like a Al Quaeda propaganda agent. Are you proud of your pig ignorance? Do you ever read past a headline. Whay are people like you so terminally shallow and why can;t you all just drop the fuck dead so the intelligent folk of the world no longer have to listen to your astonishing BS?

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

And ignorant goody-two shoes like you make me despair for civilization. Geezus all the guy posted was standard "let's all be warm fuzzy" tripe which has no connection to any sort of reality. The USA, with all its faults, is NOT the bad guy in the world no matter how much pig ignorant vacuumheads like you wish for it.

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually going to go into the particulars of what you wrote, but then I saw that you're with AOL.

Well, seeing as you are a generalizing bigot, that makes the original post that much stronger if a piece of shit like *YOU* didn't like it. Do you hate blacks and gays, too? I mean, if you can generalize along lines of ISP selection, race and sexual preference must be even higher on your list of judging people you don;t know.

Re:Yea..

[PhxBlue]

I'm actually in the U.S. military, and I agree with most of this sentiment. From a financial statement, the Space Station makes a far more worthwhile investment than a military which overpowers any five other nations'. Especially given that the cost given is the total cost of the International Space Station, as opposed to the annual cost.

That said, I think the station as it stands now is being horribly mismanaged. What are we doing with it up there? The station should be a scientific tool, not a diplomatic one. We have a platform for large-scale experimentation and research, with the potential to develop zero-g manufacturing methods that might interest companies on the ground enough to invest in space themselves. How much of that are we doing, really?

The space revolution awaits us, but it won't happen until we can make it profitable. The ISS can help us make that happen. In the meantime, it's all I can do to hope and dream that the Department of Defense will one day create a separate Space Force into which I might enlist.

Re:Yea..

[Paul Komarek]

And when people do distinguish between Socialism and Communism, why don't they distinguish between Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Ceausescu, Mao Zedong and Zemin?

-Paul Komarek

Re:Yea..

[Paul Komarek]

My hope for ISS is that it is well-managed by the time it is completed, and well-enough managed until then that it isn't abandoned. Unfortunately, all of my (current) research can be done on earth, and it's unlikely they'll ask me to serve as a mission specialist any time soon. ;-)

As far as military in space goes, I'm hoping we'll have a stronger Corp of Engineers presence than Airborne presence. No offense intended to Airborne personell.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Yea..

[PhxBlue]

You want to send the Army into space? I can deal with that, but can we leave them up there? ;)

Re:Yea..

[cheezehead]

Why do so many people not diferentiate between socialism and communism? :/

Ignorance...

Re:Yea..

[anonymous cupboard]

We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.

Actually it was more a case of putting a large number of microwave ovens out of action. Those dirty-tricky freigners had microwave ovens with the door interlocks disabled. The HARM missles found a series of microwave pulses and a $50,000 missle successfuly destroyed a $150 microwave oven. Repeat a few hundred times and you see where the budget goes.

I guess those dirty rottrn Serb bastards had to go without microwave-ready meals for a while.....

Re:Yea..

[pfdietz]

As a taxpayer in the 30% bracket, I'd rather than NASA was completely eliminated, along with many other parts of the federal government.

Re:Yea..

[pfdietz]

The space station was *never* going to be a serious scientific tool. Microgravity research was always a rationalization for building the station, not a good justification for it. In the scientific community, about the only people who think microgravity research is worthwhile are the few groups feeding off NASA's (and some other governments) largess.

In the commercial world, there is little or no interest in microgravity research or manufacturing. The numbers just don't add up.

Face it -- all this hype about how great the station was going to be was fool bait, and you swallowed it.

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark and all those other little countries over there can afford to put thier money toward all those social programs because if they ever get into a situation where military is needed, the good ole US of A will save thier asses again!

Re:Yea..

[Pyrrus]

yeah, once we get rid of socialism, no one like Timothy McVeigh will bomb us again.

Re:Yea..

[ffatTony]

Now this thread might be going offtopic... but, if we do go to war with Irag... would this be the first in American history where we took the initiative?

I went to a talk recently where the speaker (Jello Biafra of DK fame) suggested that this would be the first event in US history where we have to "get" the other guys before they could get us. Jello also filled us in on the striking (and frightening) similiarites between this mentality and Hitlers reasons for the invasion of Poland and most of Europe.

Whatever you believe, this is certainly an interesting time to live, I just wish people didn't have to die as our country flexes and makes other nations quite aware of our overall might.

Re:Yea..

[Pooua]

you have some incredibly ignorant, right-wing views, my friend. i suggest travelling outside the US and reading some books instead of swallowing CNN and US propaganda.

I spent 2 years in Guam, 3 months in Italy, 2 weeks in France, 2 weeks in Israel, 2 weeks in Spain, 2 weeks in Mexico and about a day in Canada. None of those places are even half as good as the US.

i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?

You want to compare Denmark to the US, fine, let's compare them:

Denmark - Total area: 43k square kilometers
US - Total area: 9629k square kilometers

Denmark - GDP: $128 billion
US - GDP: $9255 billion

Denmark - Unemployment (1999): 5.7%
US - Unemployment (1999): 4.2%

You have chosen to compare the worst areas of the US with the few areas of Denmark you saw. Can you tell me why your comparison might not be reasonable?

Tell me; what has Denmark done in, say, the last 300 years that is of world-wide significance? Ask the same question of the US, then compare the two lists. The US easily overwhelms anything that Denmark has done. Denmark could fall off the face of the Earth today, and it wouldn't make any difference to almost anyone outside Europe. If the US disappeared, however, the world's largest economy would disappear with it, along with the world's primary source of invention and innovation. Frankly, the world would be plunged into another Dark Ages without the US.

the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined.

Whose planes are patrolling the UN no-fly zones in Iraq? Which nation had the largest military in Bosnia during the war? Whose military protected Kuwait when Iraq invaded? Whose military restored a free society to Afghanistan? Whose military provides the primary protection of the UN Headquarters?

i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?

That is not the role of government. The US Constitution spells out that one role of government is to provide for national defense. There is not a word about health care.

Re:Yea..

[Nept]

since when has bombing been about making friends?

Re:Yea..

[voinageo]

Sorry man but in the last 300 years Denmark produced way much culture, art, ecologism and care for the common people than US in the last 3000 years (ups I forgot US didn't exist 3000 years ago).

Re:Yea..

[Kiwi]

I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

I think you are wrong.

Then why do you have a picture of the ISS on your home page?

Really, I can not belive the ignorance and downright stupidity of your posts. Equating socialism with terrorism??? Really, give me a break.

Saying that the US is better than any other country in the world based on vacations to a handful of countries which lasted two weeks or less??? Again, give me a break.

Next, you will be saying that people who do not speak English are dumber than English speakers; and that everyone in the world needs to be fluent in English.

You are acting like an ignorant redneck; I hope that this isn't what you really think and believe.

I am putting you on my foes list. Naturally, I don't know who you really are and what you act like in the real world so this is not a personal attack; it just means that I find you Slashdot postings annoying and would be better of ignoring you so I don't get upset when I am in a bad mood.

And, yes, I meta-moderated down one of the people who moderated this unfairly; I think Slashdot needs to make moderation non-anonymous. It's not like we don't know that the editors have unlimited moderation points and use them frequently.

- Sam

Re:Yea..

[Pooua]

in the last 300 years Denmark produced way much culture, art, ecologism and care for the common people than US

How conveniant for you that the items you listed do not lend themselves to objective measure, and so you can feel safe in your opinion, no matter how absurd your opinion might be.

Re:Yea..

[Pooua]

Spending 2 weeks in a country and having the nerve to pass such judgement on it's people reveals how desperately hollow your perception of the world really is.

Have you ever even left the town in which you were born? How many countries outside of Europe have *you* visited?

(Europe counts as one, because it is close to impossible to travel 1000 miles in a straight line path and remain inside a single European country, unless you count Russia as a European country, or you travel from tip-to-tip of Sweden.)

Your complaint is empty, because the fact remains that I *have* gotten out and seen a lot more of the world than 98% of either Europeans or Americans ever will, much less the rest of the world, and you still throw stones and me.

Re:Yea..

[Pooua]

I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

Pooua: "I think you are wrong."

Then why do you have a picture of the ISS on your home page?

Technically, that's not a picture of the ISS; it is a picture of Space Station "Freedom."

Leaving the technicality aside, I have the picture for the ideals it connotes. I have always supported space exploration, and I even favor a space station. What bothers me is the uselessness of the current station, and the severe cost over-runs that likely will render the station useless for several years. Even before the station launched, many scientists questioned its usefulness, but now that such things as the centrifuge and enlarged crew compartments have been cut, even the station's proponents have largely stopped talking about meaningful science from the project.

Really, I can not belive the ignorance and downright stupidity of your posts.

Those who couldn't hear the music thought those who danced were crazy.

Equating socialism with terrorism??? Really, give me a break.

Why do you find the idea so difficult to believe? The Arab world is entirely Socialistic, despite its religious orientation. Iraq, itself, its ruled by the Ba`th Arab Socialist Party, of which Saddam Hussein is the Party Leader. Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, Socialists were the primary instigators of civil unrest, and, even today, it is likely that any group that encourages civil unrest or hostility has Socialistic leanings.

You might want to have a look at:

Arab Socialism. [Al-IshtirakIyah Al-Arabiyah] (Romanized Form): A Documentary Survey

Saying that the US is better than any other country in the world based on vacations to a handful of countries which lasted two weeks or less??? Again, give me a break.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no other exposure to the dimensions of other countries than just my own brief visits.

If you can name a greater nation than the US, please make your case for it. Otherwise, your sneering is nothing more than your own shock at meeting a different idea.

[snip]

So how long

[wmspringer]

So how long until it's the size of Babylon 5? ;-)

Seriously, I wonder how soon the technology will advance enough to make it feasible to establish a permanent station on another planet or moon, one that could be self-supporting?

Learning things that have practical implications here on Earth (such as improving crops) is pretty cool by itself, but don't you want to visit the moons of Jupiter? ;-)

Re:So how long

[CoolVibe]

For that to really work wrll, we need to invent garvity in outer space first.

You wouldn't want to live in a space station for 10 years and go back to earth to find out your bones have dissolved, because you didn't need them.

zero gravoty might sound fun, but it's a killer in the long term

Re:So how long

[Anonymous Coward]

"Learning things that have practical implications here on Earth (such as improving crops) is pretty cool by itself, but don't you want to visit the moons of Jupiter?"

How has ISS improved crops?

And no I wouldn't want to visit the moons of Jupiter. The excessive gravitational waves give me a headache and the service is awful.

Re:So how long

[wmspringer]

Science fiction writers did that decades ago ;-)

But yes, if you're planning on being off Earth for an extended period (and coming back) then you'll need a significant amount of gravity wherever you're staying.

Of course, I suppose people might choose to emigrate to the moon permanently. Although, if they don't do that AFTER having families, thier children might get a bit annoyed at them..

Re:So how long

[jesterzog]

Wasn't that where the rotation came in? That's why most of the big Earth-based ships and stations were constantly spinning. I haven't worked out the physics, so I don't know if it's practical outside of B5.

..unless you're talking about the White Stars, of course.

Re:So how long

[wmspringer]

Right. Put a tennis ball in a bucket and spin it in a circle. Unless you go too slowly, centrifugal force will keep the ball from falling out while the bucket is upside down.

(I don't know if that's how they do it in B5 - I'm not a steady viewer - but it seems the logical way to get "gravity" when not on a planet)

Re:So how long

[CoolVibe]

Yes, that might work if you stand still. But what if you jump?

Re:So how long

[wmspringer]

Jump when the bucket isn't upside down.

Re:So how long

[cheezehead]

Doesn't matter. If you jump up in a rotating spaceship, you are temporarily weightless. Same thing as jumping up on earth. At least according to Einstein and friends.

Re:So how long

[Ian Jefferies]

You follow a trajectory defined by the sum of your angular velocity at the moment you break contact with the surface (by virtue of your rotation with the surface you were standing on) and the velocity at which you jump away from the surface. As the former is much greater than the latter (assuming you want a one-g like environment), you follow a trajectory that looks like a chord and intersects with the surface again.

Now the point that you jumped from is rotating under you and, because the dominant component here is the magnitude of the angular velocity, its very very close to the point where you land.

Short answer: you'd land very close to the point where you jumped from. Close enough that it would probably be difficult to distinguish the separation distance by eye.

Higher order corrections are going to refine the trajectory further... but that's your first approximation.

Ian.

Could someone enlighten me?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know how much an object floating in space weighs?

Re:Could someone enlighten me?

[b0r1s]

You know how much it weighed on earth, as they loaded the vehicles that carried each piece to its current location.

Re:Could someone enlighten me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if something is "weightless", it still has mass. There are numerous ways to determine that... for instance, how much it accelerates for from a known amount of force. Of course, I'm sure the estimate is just based on adding up the weight on Earth of all the crap before it was sent up...

What a waste of money it's proven to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are an aerospace contractor, because there isn't much science being done.

"the shining star of international co-operation"

[jukal]

"It is literally and figuratively the shining star of international cooperation and a lot of dedicated work."

Yes, maybe - but imagine that it took over an half century of space travel to get these guys working together. Ofcourse it is better now that 3 years ago - but just think if for example US and USSR could have co-operated before the USSR space program and the whole country collapsed. We would be much more far away now.

***plug: Here's an analysis of the slashdot effect.

Once again our Trusty Penfold is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Pounds are units of force. The proper imperial unit of mass is the "slug". Teach our kids the proper units! The ISS's mass is 6200 slugs. Or you could introduce them to the metric devil: 90,000 kg or 90 metric tons.

Re:Once again our Trusty Penfold is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats why trusty penfold is on my foes list.

and metric tons are gay, your supposed to use megagrams!

Re:Once again our Trusty Penfold is right

[Trusty Penfold]

You hate me because pounds are a unit of force?

I respect your opinion, but I humbly submit that your logic - in this case - is slightly warped. Pounds being a unit of force wasn't my idea. Honest.

And what is there to show for it??

[SuperDuG]

Two years and what new breakthroughs in space discovery have come? I think the "wow" factor of the space station is over after two years, let's start trying to answer the question "Why"? I believe a space station is a great thing, but what makes it more than an overglorified oxygen bubble where people can spend a few months in space? And lastly why does NASA still believe it controls the space station??

Re:And what is there to show for it??

[wmspringer]

Well, they can add a few more rooms and have the world's first space hotel.. :-)

(Which, from reading the links, they seem to think is not that infeasible)

Re:And what is there to show for it??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's proven to be a great pork-barrel project. Many aerospace contractors have done quite well. Congress critters who got signicant dollars for their district did OK. As for it's value for science, it's an extreme failure. Problems:

-It's dirty, instruments to look at stars or the earth get contaminated results because it out-gasses and has a halo of junk aerosols around it. Each time a rocket arrives or takes off, it makes more junk. It's a dirty environment.

-It flexes and jiggles, so atmospheric mappers/profilers, and telescopes don't work well as they would if they were flown on their own platforms.

-It's too small to host (m)any scientists.

What a waste of money! They could have funded numerous smaller science initiatives for what they wasted on this pig.

Re:And what is there to show for it??

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK sure as hell doesn't control the space station. Now go brush your teeth you ugly limey.

Re:And what is there to show for it??

[AmigaAvenger]

I'm guessing that they still think they are in control because they bought the majority of it!!! The only other possiblity for supporting the space station is from Russia, who's space program is funded by the US anyway for a considerable amount...

Re:And what is there to show for it??

[AKnightCowboy]

I'm guessing that they still think they are in control because they bought the majority of it!!! The only other possiblity for supporting the space station is from Russia, who's space program is funded by the US anyway for a considerable amount...

Typical capitalist yankees. Just because you pay for the majority of something doesn't mean you own it! It's called subsidies, sort of like welfare. See, poorer humans and nations deserve to get wealth redistributions from more wealthy nations. It's their right in a modern PC world.

Coincidence...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

"In two years... has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors."

I thought Slashdot posted a story about my ex-girlfriend.

Re:Coincidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most incredifuckinglutely funny shit i ever read. thanks

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoted:
In two years the station has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors."

Wow! Much like Anna Nicole Smith!

Excellent.

[HaloZero]

Does it have an onboard webserver? If so, can we slashdot it? :D

Taking bets on how long it'll be before the station is reduced to a burning mass thanks to our server-stopping/melting/frying/BANG-ability. :P

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

lets hope it lands on your house, well, your parents house, you wont even be safe in your bedroom in the basement with 200 tons of shit crashing down on you

Re:Excellent.

[HaloZero]

Gee. What the hell was that for?

You are all wrong!

[Keebler71]

You are all wrong! Objects in orbit have both mass and weight. The term "weightless" is often misused as it only applies to the reference frame to another object in the same orbit.

Weight (force due to gravity) = -G*M*m/(r^2)

show me what part of that equation is zero...

For instance, an astronaut is weightless relative to the shuttle or ISS, but still weighs 200lb or so relative to the Earth. The apparent weightless is simply due to the fact that the vehicle and the astronaut are both being accelerated toward the Earth with exactly the same magnitude, thus no RELATIVE acceleration and no perceivable weight.

Another misconception is that object are easy to move around in "zero-g". Not so,... a large object still has the same mass as on Earth which corresponds to a lot of inertia so it is very difficult to get moving and stop again. The big difference is that there is no surface friction so once the object is moving, you don't have to apply a non-conservative force to keep it moving.

Re:You are all wrong!

[cheezehead]

Weight (force due to gravity)...

I was taught that weight is "force exerted on a supporting surface". So, that makes the weight zero in this case. Maybe I was taught wrong...

For instance, an astronaut is weightless relative to the shuttle or ISS, but still weighs 200lb or so relative to the Earth.

Nope. Weight relative to earth is zero (earth is far away). Mass is still 200 lbs, though...
If I jump off a chair, my weight is zero for a short period of time.

Another misconception is that object are easy to move around in "zero-g". Not so,...

Correct! Mass is fundamentally different from weight. Not to mention 'inertial mass' and 'gravitational mass'...

Re:You are all wrong!

[StrawberryFrog]

You are all wrong! Objects in orbit have both mass and weight....

If only there was a mod option "+1 Pedantic"

Re:You are all wrong!

[Mnemia]

Weight is a measure of force, and when we say that we usually mean the force exerted by the Earth's gravity on an object. I think a lot of the confusion in this thread over whether weight is a measure of force or mass has to do with the fact that weight is often used to mean mass. The reason for this is that within a constant gravitational field, weight is directly proportional to the mass of an object. So, since we are all near the Earth's surface, weight can be used to mean mass since the gravity we all experience while sitting on the Earth's crust is approximately the same.

The problem with the article stating that the ISS weighs 200,000 pounds is that it is not clear if this means the weight on the ground or the weight in orbit. I assume they mean weight on the ground since for many scientifically illiterate Americans pounds == mass.

Also, the weight of the ISS in orbit with respect to the Earth is certainly not zero. The ISS may be several hundred kilometers above the Earth, but this distance is dwarfed by the radius of the planet. The Earth still exerts considerable gravitational pull (ie, weight) on the ISS. The only reason it stays in orbit is that it has a considerable horizontal velocity with respect to the Earth's surface, so it "falls around" the planet rather than just falling down.

Also, the ISS's orbit is continually decaying. I think that this is a result of the weight being slightly larger than is compensated for by the horizontal velocity, in combination with friction from some gas that is present at that altitude. That's why they have to boost it to a higher orbit every now and then.

Re:You are all wrong!

[am46n]

Weight is indeed force due to gravity. Both the ISS and its inhabitants must have weight in order to remain in orbit! What you are describing is zero net relative acceleration.

Great ISS-related site

[frozenray]

http://heavens-above.com/ has location-based information about the flight path of the ISS, among other things. Worth a visit.

Imperial morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who live out side of the U$ the weight of the ISS is 91000 kilograms.

Re:Imperial morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

the weight of the ISS

Mass. Please read this fascinating thread.

Re:Imperial morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should just go ahead and kill yourself eurocunt.

Re:Imperial morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

"eurocunt" that is the funniest thing that I have ever heard

Re:Imperial morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume Europe, you narrow minded ass?

Not Totally Wrong

[realxmp]

Well they are still kinda right, while it may have some weight it certainly isn't 200,000 pounds however.

Re:Not Totally Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISS is orbiting at a height of about 240 miles.
The radius of the earth is about 4000 miles. The r term is therefore smaller bu about 10%, hence the IIS weighs about 180000 pounds.

Re:Not Totally Wrong

[Keebler71]

But very nearly... what people tend to forget that low-earth orbit (LEO)... in this case about 400 km is very very small compared to the radius of the Earth (6378km). Add the two then square the sum... the force of gravity at LEO is very nearly the same as it is on earth... in this case 89% of the surface value. (177,000lb)

So assuming the author was using one significant digit... 200,000lb is exactly right.

Re:Not Totally Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most idiotic calculation I've ever seen.

If your calculation makes sense, then NASA knows about this and the 200,000lb value is already 89% of 225,000lb. And if your calculation doesn't make sense, you're wrong. In both cases you lose.

Re:Not Totally Wrong

[Keebler71]

My calculation makes sense to anyone who has had high school physics... nevermind my degrees in astronautical engineering. Flush yourself.

112 visitors in two years?

[payndz]

Wow, a hell of a lot more than me. I need to get a life... (sniff)

units and science

[Anonymous Coward]

This is supposed to be science.slashdot.org. Please, refrain from using pounds as a unit for weight. International readers will be confused with these imperial units.

You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[wackybrit]

lbs (pounds) are a measure of weight. kgs are a measure of mass, although we use them as a measure of weight for convenience.

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object.

Therefore, you cannot measure the weight of the ISS in pounds, since the force of gravity exerted upon it is miniscule.. so it doesn't really weigh 200,000 lbs.. it just has a mass of the kilogram equivalent of 200,000 lbs!

The ISS would only weight 200,000 lbs if it were on Earth... but it can be 90,909 kgs in space or on Earth since kgs is a measurement of mass not weight!

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[Anonymous Coward]

"since the force of gravity exerted upon it is miniscule"

Go back to physics class. Gravity still has a very profound effect on the spacestation and on the astronauts (cosmonauts) inside it. The 'weightlessness' is only because they're in perpetual free fall, not because of a lack of gravity. If the effect of gravity were miniscule, they would fly off into space, not orbit the planet.

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[Dark Marmot]

In fact, lbs are units of weight but you can also
refer to lbs mass (this from aerospace class)
-- the more common unit of mass in the customary
system though is the slug (32.2 lbs mass)

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[Kaboom13]

This is not quite true. The Earth is pulling on the ISS just like it pulls on everything else. The pull might be slightly diminished by the distance, but not by much. The reason satelites stay in orbit (and appear weightless) is because they are moving fast enough around the earth to maintain their orbit. A basic physics book can explain it much better then I can. Slow down the ISS enough and it'll fall like a 200,000 lb brick.

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[sam_handelman]

And instead of moderating you up I had to crack a lame joke! Damn.

Kaboom is quite right.

The earth has a radius of 6,300 km (roughly.)

The ISS is a measly 361 km up.

Since gravity falls off as the square of the distance from the center of mass (which is the center of the earth) gravity in the ISS is

(6,300 / 6,660) squared = about 0.89.

89% of gravity at sea level.

It could very well weigh 200,000 lbs, although, in a sense, I suspect the original poster is right and that it actually weighs 180,000 lbs.

If you're tempted to mod me up mod up my immediate parent.

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[cheezehead]

lbs (pounds) are a measure of weight. kgs are a measure of mass, although we use them as a measure of weight for convenience.

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object.


Is that right? If I remember correctly, weight is a force, and should be measured in Newtons, or pound-force. I think there is a dimensionless conversion factor between pounds and kilograms (1 pound is roughly 454 grams, I think), so that suggests that both pounds and kilograms are units of mass, not weight.

We typically measure the mass of an object by actually measuring the weight of an object, and then deducing what its mass is, using a known value for the acceleration of gravity (~9.8 m/s^2, give or take a little bit, depending where you are on earth).

Therefore, you cannot measure the weight of the ISS in pounds, since the force of gravity exerted upon it is miniscule..

No, the force of gravity exerted upon it obeys the Newtonian laws (rougly 89% of what it would be on Earth). However, the weight of the ISS is effectively zero. Just as my weight is zero when I jump off a chair. The ISS has the right velocity to keep on falling 'around' the earth indefinitely (if we neglect the minuscule friction that causes its orbit to decay gradually -- they compensate for that).

Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs.

[cheezehead]

Basic Physics:

The centripetal force needed to keep the ISS in a circular orbit is given by:

Fc = (m.v^2)/r

Where:
Fc is the centripetal force in Newtons
m is the mass of the ISS in kilograms
v is the orbital velocity in meters/second
r is the radius of the orbit in meters

Gravity supplies this centripetal force.
The force of gravity on the ISS is given by:

Fg = (gamma.M.m)/(r^2)

Where:

Fg is the gravitational force in Newtons
gamma is the gravitational constant (6.672 * 10^-11 (N m^2)/(kg^2))
M is the mass of the earth (~ 6.0 * 10^24 kg)
m is the mass of the ISS in kg
r is the distance to the center of the earth, i.e., the radius of the orbit (6439 km).

Fc = Fg,

so,

(m.v^2)/r = (gamma.M.m)/(r^2),

or:

v^2 = gamma.M/r,

or:

v = sqrt(gamma.M/r)

so,

v = sqrt(6.672*10^-11 * 6.0*10^24/6.439*10^6)
= 7.874 km/s,

or 17,617 mph.

Anything slower, and it will fall to earth, anything faster and it will assume an elliptical orbit or even escape the earth's gravitational field.

"world doesn't care"

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. wow, break out the cheaps whores and good coke, or vice versa. tomorrow, it will be 731 days old, is that a remarkable feat too? maybe the 737th?

What do you want for your birthday?

[sam_handelman]

Station: World peace?

Astronaut David A. Wolf: Heh. Yeah, right.

Station: Well.... how about understanding between all peoples and religions?

Wolf: Damn programmers. Filthy hippies.

Station: An end to social injustice?

Wolf: Those pinko bastards programmed you for that! Disregard it!

Station: Could you tell everyone that a sentient computer in orbit has found aliens and carries a message of peace and love from the cosmos?

Wolf: We'd be a laughing stock! Look, why don't you ask for something that we can give you up here, right now?

Station: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Wolf: Uh-oh.

112 visitors huh?

[CoolVibe]

That's almost as heavily visited as my personal website... ;) (hint: no, not hackerheaven.org. duh)

112 Visitors?

[trentfoley]

I like to think that I keep up with the goings and comings of the astronauts. I had no idea that there had been so many people on the station. Or, were some of those visitors not from Earth?

Has anyone noticed all of those ads for freedomofinfo.org? Do a whois and you will understand why.

Powered by NetBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that the International Space Station also runs NetBSD. Take a look:

http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/research.html#sams-i i

Yep. The daemon went to space before tux.

Re:"the shining star of international co-operation

[DAldredge]

Also, if we had started earlier(before the collapse) then the USA would not have to be paying for the vast majority of the Russian cost.

You have my pity.

[happypizzaguy]

You truly have had a hard life. I can sense your pain. I hope no one mods my previous post as funny at your expense.

ISS -- first step to Mars or not?

[GGardner]

If we hope to ever estabilish a permanent moon base or go to Mars (or beyond) we will certainly be building upon the lessons learned in constructing the ISS (pun inteneded).

The above is a common misconception. Richard Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal shows how to send humans to mars without the ISS. Of course, ISS keeps earthbound contractors fat, and happy.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

With your definition of weight you would have to add the influence of the Moon and the Sun to the number you see on your scale before you can call it your "weight". That's idiotic, therefore your definition of weight is wrong.

Weight is the number you see on a scale when you stand on it. Period.

What's your weight in a free-fall elevator? 0. What's your weight in the ISS? 0. What's you're weight on the Moon? 1/6th of what you weigh on Earth. You don't add up the far-away Earth's contribution.

Glad to be of help.

Space programs

[Catskul]

Funny.. Because if they were cooperating earlier, there wouldnt have been space programs worthy of cooperation. I think we all know that both space programs were a result of the tension between the formere USSR and the USA.

according to dr. math

[eht]

dr math and i quote "we have gotten used to measuring weight in pounds or kilograms, which properly speaking are units of mass, not weight."

Story straight from Nasa

[term0r]

click here

visitor's tour

[56ker]

" In two years the station has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors." The Visitor's Tour. This is the big red button marked self-destruct - NO DON'T TOUCH IT - thankyou - and over here is where we plan to have the first McDonalds in space next year. Oh - and that's the waiting room in case any aliens decide to pop in and visit us.

Re:Wow! coincidence?

[saskboy]

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44033& cid=4585776
This fellow must have been dating Smith...?

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Keebler71]

I don't know where you get your definition of weight... but here are some: Definition Definition

Weight is the measure of gravitational attraction between two bodies... nothing more.

A scale is just one limited method for measuring weight. I say limited because it functions by measuring the normal force (due to Newton's third law) caused by the ground holding the scale at rest, thus giving an inertailly fixed reference frame (or close to it... earth is spinning,...blah blah.)

Well, naturally...

[Ciel]

I can't help but observe that as demons, devils, etc. are winged creatures, whereas penguins are flightless birds, this seems somehow appropriate. ;)

Besides, if they had used Linux, just think of all the time that would've been wasted debating the issue of which distribution to use. I can see the past headline now:

Preliminary setup of space station computer finished, further progress delayed as lead software engineers debate crucial "distro" impass.

Re:Well, naturally...

[Luke-Jr]

Quite possibly, it would have resulted in a NASA GNU/Linux distro...

Have you seen the I. S. Station? I have...

[saskboy]

Try it for yourself. It is very neat to watch this fly overhead, and if you like I can email you pictures of it wizzing over me.
You just tell it where you live.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Chris Burke]

With your definition of weight you would have to add the influence of the Moon and the Sun to the number you see on your scale before you can call it your "weight". That's idiotic, therefore your definition of weight is wrong.

That's an interesting form of logic you have there. The "this doesn't follow from my pre-conceived notion of how things work, and therefore must be wrong". Curious.

And yes, you do have to account for the moon, sun, and every other mass in the universe to calculate your weight with complete precision. It's normally safe not to bother, though. Which I guess is why you thought it would be idiotic, and thus somehow wrong, to do so.

What's you're weight on the Moon? 1/6th of what you weigh on Earth. You don't add up the far-away Earth's contribution.

You would if you wanted to be accurate. Just because something is small doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? And for the ISS, the earth -is- the most significant source of gravity (and thus weight), so you would count it.

10 Tons and...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's 200,000 pounds heaverier, that makes it fat. If it's had more than 100 'visitors' since it was launched, that makes it a slut.

So the space station is a fat slut?

--MBCook

Imagine

[perfects]

...a Wolf 359 cluster of those!

Shuttles between the two

[Flamesplash]

When I read about the second Space Station coming out soon, I had the thought that they really should have regular shuttles between the two. There may not be a real good reason for it, but it seems that the only real way to get all this space exploration/inhabitation really going is to make it appealing to the average guy on the ground. Imagine how people will become interested if they read about people taking regular trips between the two stations, just like they do between places on earth. Unfortunatly, it will take a certain amount of commercialization to get all this really going.

My idea may sound a little silly, and I admit it is but I think it has some saving grace.

wait to celebrate?

[skydude_20]

do you think we could wait on any annual celebrations untill we actually finish the thing? we still have some work to finish before we can start enjoying ourselfs...

Sad statistic

[bogasity]

Between the Russians and Americans, hundreds of people have now flown in space. All but two have been civil servants. The ISS represents collusion between the spacefaring governments to keep ordinary people out of space. It has generally been a great success from that standpoint thus far. I sure hope that the Russians will continue to be desperate enough for cash to send the occassional private citizen. The US government probably never will.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

OK you're smart, you know these distinctions are small on Earth, but they would not be insignificant on a small asteroid orbiting close to the Earth.

So how would you call the perceived downward acceleration time mass on such a body, if not by "weight"? Ok, you could call it "the perceived downward acceleration time mass", but then why are you wasting the term "weight" for a useless technicality that deserves a technical term "the total gravitational force felt assuming a pre-general-relativity model of physics".

Is it worth ... what?

[MacAndrew]

I have opposed the ISS all along (gasp) much as I did the shuttle. The manned space program in general, including or perhaps especially Apollo, has been hard to justify. (The foundation of Apollo was not so much science as the Cold War. Note we haven't been back in 30 years and have no plans of doing so. Yes, it was really cool and as a symbol continues to inspire; perhaps that's the best part. But out failure to return suggests we're really not all that interested in voyaging in space.) Manned spaceflight has a great gee-whiz factor which I share and circularly develops our understanding on how to sustain humans in space -- in others words, men in space help put more in space. Yippee.

Unmanned probe programs from Cassini back to the ancient Mariner, on the other hand, have produced reams of data for a fraction of the cost and danger. The 25 y.o. Voyager program is still working, and they were done on a shoestring compared to ISS. That sort of thing makes me go "wow!" more than several people orbiting the Earth in a claustrophobic tin can.

Congress cries poverty at unsexy robotic probes, yet relatively easily goes for the big-ticket man-in-space programs. This is due to the public as much as the politicians; it's hard to care about a ream of data as much as pictures of an astronaut. Yet I know people in the industry who talked a great deal of how the expensive Shuttle devastated virtually all other programs, in a period when our interplanetary probes were at their zenith -- Voyager, Viking, etc.

This is just to speak of pure research. The greatest practical application of spaceflight has been the launching of satellites for communications, weather observation, and so on. If anything the U.S. lags in this area, as more and more launches go to rockets from France, China, and Russia. My engineer friend's American company has several launches planned on Russian rockets of ancient but reliable technology.

Certainly the people who frequent this site appreciate the power of technology. We're moving to a level of computational power, AI, robotics, etc. whose primary emphasis is to relieve humans of repetitive, demanding, or dangerous tasks. And if our technology fails with a probe, we lose a machine and not a life. Why not apply our emphasis here?

I don't discount the amazing achievements of manned spaceflight -- and it's a cheap part our trillion+ budget with lots of bang for the buck -- but I do question the allocation of these funds. I think we are many years behind what we could have achieved, and what the space program might have driven our engineering to achieve. As for interplanetary travel, I would love to see humans do it but know that unmanned missions can get there much sooner and return more information for less money and without the compromises forced by life support. Ultimately, who cares whether man of machine collects the data?

Thoughts?

Re:Is it worth ... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea what those astronauts are doing on the station? Robots aren't capable of performing such experiments. You should check the ISS website and see exactly what theyre up to.

Re:Is it worth ... what?

[MacAndrew]

Of course I've visited their site. And I've talked to engineers who work in the field. The point isn't whether they can do neat stuff, but the bang for the buck. If we'd put the energy into automation that we have manned spaceflight, I bet we'd be doing far more with robots or remote control. Hey, we recently achieved the first long-distance surgery!

I was pretty surprised that the Russians used unmanned ships to resupply Mir, I don't recall the US having that capability. (Yes, there was that one that rammed Mir.) I bet they did it to save money.

ISS is a cool program, but a lot of good science is being sidelined.

Re:Is it worth ... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they could do more with robots, but that is impossible considering the current primitive state of AI and robotics. Perhaps in 10 - 20 years. But that low latency remote control stuff seems pretty good.

Re:Is it worth ... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I robot, alas, my space experiment abilities are limited by this early electronic brain! so, I shall await developments"

Blech!

[MacAndrew]

Must ... get ... antidote ....

What's with the name?

[spike2131]

"Space Station Alpha", what a boring name.

Do I recall correctly that, back when it was still in funding mode, it was supposed to be called "Space Station Freedom"? What's the story behind that, do our international partners object to honoring Freedom?

And is the next space station supposed to be "Beta", or what? I'm not sure I'd want to fly on a space station thats still in beta. Though I suppose it would be better than alpha.

Yes but........

[MacAndrew]

The force of gravity a few hundred miles above the surface is about 90% that of sea level -- not minuscule. The massive Earth (core more metallic than most) is about 8,000 miles in diameter, so a few hundred miles is proportionally small.

The Shuttle doesn't fall to Earth because it "misses" by orbiting so fast that its fall trajectory is ahead of its orbit. So it falls into its orbit, until slowed by friction the orbit decays.

The Shuttle, although in free-fall, does not quite experience zero-G. We've actually gotten closer to zero-G (like .003) on Earth, but only for 5 seconds -- visit the NASA Microgravity Center. See also the falling penny myth.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Chris Burke]

So how would you call the perceived downward acceleration time mass on such a body, if not by "weight"?

I wouldn't call it by anything but "weight". That's what weight means. Err, except the "perceived" part, depending on what you meant by that...

but then why are you wasting the term "weight" for a useless technicality that deserves a technical term "the total gravitational force felt assuming a pre-general-relativity model of physics".

Those two statements are the same. Your downward acceleration depends on the total gravitational force.

I guess I can't see what is confusing you.

What's the Blue Book value on that puppy?

[gelfling]

I bet it's lost about 80% of the 10 billion bucks they sunk into it.

Re:What's the Blue Book value on that puppy?

[berniecase]

Yeah, I'm sure the second the shuttle leaves the top of the launchpad tower, whatever's in the cargo bay loses 20% of its value, too.

Re:What's the Blue Book value on that puppy?

[PhxBlue]

No doubt about that, especially with all the miles they've put on it in just two years!

Re:What's the Blue Book value on that puppy?

[cheezehead]

Hmmm. I would say it increases tremendously in value the moment it takes off. Who wants to buy a satellite that's on the ground rather than in space?

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

One definition gives 0.01g*m for the weight of an object on a hypothetical asteroid orbiting Earth.
The other definition gives 0.9g*m.

Which number will you use to decide whether a bridge on the asteroid can support its own weight? That sums it up pretty much.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Chris Burke]

One definition gives 0.01g*m for the weight of an object on a hypothetical asteroid orbiting Earth.
The other definition gives 0.9g*m.

Out of curiosity, how do you figure that?

If you sum all gravitational forces acting on a body, you get a single force vector. Divide that by the mass, and you get the acceleration. Multiply the acceleration by the mass, and you get the gravitational force. They are the same.

Re:"the shining star of international co-operation

[hawkfan]

Actually they did almost 30 years ago.

In 1975 Apollo 18 and Soviet Soyuz 19. This was the the last manned American space mission before the first shuttle flight.

Would it be too much to ask...

[Xetrov]

If slashdot could give measurements in SI units?

This is supposed to be a reasonably technical site after all, and most other countries did away with imperial measurements years ago.

Its people like you that get mars probes crashed.

Re:Would it be too much to ask...

[cheezehead]

If slashdot could give measurements in SI units?

Agree. Also, provide the base for the '112' visitors. Is is 112 decimal, or 112 hex, or even 112 octal, or possible even stranger?

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was pretty obvious, but here it is in detail. The definition of weight on an asteroid orbiting the Earth that would give a small value is this:

You bring a spring scale, a reference kilogram, and you stack them up:

reference kilogram
------------------
spring scale
------------------
asteroid surface

You read the number on the scale and you're done.

Out of curiosity, is there a way to measure the sum of all gravitational forces acting on a body "locally", meaning that you don't know how far the asteroid is from Earth, your laboratory is windowless, and you can't communicate with the outside?

Tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

How many billions of USD per day do you spend on weapons and "defense"?

What's sad is that the number actually is over 1.0. So there is plenty of money around.

Brand new pictures!

[Rademir]

Perhaps coincidentally (they don't mention the birthday, but rather the new look with the solar wings out), the ISS is the Astronomy Picture of the Day. Permanent links: here -- bigger

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[cheezehead]

Ok, so now I'm completely and utterly confused about whether a "pound" is a unit of mass or a unit of force. This link convincingly points out that we should abolish this bizarro Imperial system. Use the metric system when discussing physics, please...

Space exploration

[rwa2]

Do you really plan to be stuck on this planet for the next 4 billion years? The sun would have gobbled up our solar system by then, and life on Earth would have been wiped out well beforehand by overheating or of course being pelted by asteroids. Which is of course are just fancy names for ENTROPY DEATH. The clock is ticking! We must escape!

The ISS is just a feeble first step at researching how we can live outside of the womb of mother Earth... did you really expect to jump right to the Moon or to Mars? Of course, it might be a waste of time and money, but that's how many "operational prototypes" are. It would be even more of a failure if we attempted to colonize the moon and it went bust because we didn't have simple stuff like the operations and project management skills that could only be developed by running this ISS business. It would be a real shame if the entire human civilization was wiped out in a few millenia simply because we couldn't be bothered to take the first few baby steps out of our atmosphere.

But I guess more to answer your question, I used to work on a research project that investigated the granular flow of particles in microgravity. There's presumably a lot you can do with forming new materials and pharmaceuticals by developing manufacturing processes in the absence of a gravitational potential always fooling around with you. Our project was relatively pure research... stick a bunch of plastic BBs in a chamber with a circular conveyor belt and see if you could sort them by size, surface friction, or elasticity by merely using a kinetic energy gradient instead of a gravitational energy gradient. Not much practical use, but the point was to develop theoretical models and simulations to predict what would happen for more practical applications. Our conveyor belt had been tested a few times on NASA's KC-135 "vomit comet" aircraft (simulates micrgravity by flying a parabolic trajectory for a few tens of seconds), and was bound for the ISS when I graduated.

Sour grapes

[randomErr]

I submitted this article Friday afternoon.

2002-11-01 20:48:41 First International Space Station turns 2 (articles,space) (rejected)

you have the secret to eternal life?

[fantomas]

Do you really plan to be stuck on this planet for the next 4 billion years?

Well I kind of assumed I'd be dead within the next hundred, can you let me into your secret of near eternal life?

also Buran..

[fantomas]

And we might have had two shuttle fleets not one, by all acccounts Buran was a better vehicle with greater potential. Whether that's true or not the two different engineering teams could have learnt a hell of a lot from each other. I reallllly hope the Buran team's knowledge and expertise is being used by somebody right now.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Chris Burke]

I thought it was pretty obvious, but here it is in detail. The definition of weight on an asteroid orbiting the Earth that would give a small value is this:

You read the number on the scale and you're done.

"The number on a scale" is not a definition of weight, that is a measurement of weight. Just like velocity isn't defined as "the number that appears on your speedometer". Velocity is defined as the derivative of position with respect to time. Just because your speedometer says "0" doesn't mean you have no velocity -- if you drive off a cliff, you will have quite a bit of velocity, no? Similarly, you weigh something even though you're in free-fall and thus the scale reads "0". The limitations of your measurement device should not be folded into your definition.

You've confused defining a thing with measuring it -- perhaps that is the problem.

Out of curiosity, is there a way to measure the sum of all gravitational forces acting on a body "locally", meaning that you don't know how far the asteroid is from Earth, your laboratory is windowless, and you can't communicate with the outside?

Of course! Stand on a scale. Or better yet, drop an object and measure the time it takes to fall and from that derive the acceleration it experienced (one of the limitations of a scale is that it can measure force in only one direction, that perpendicular to it's surface). What is it that makes you think that a scale wouldn't also be measuring the effects of other bodies such as earth on you?

whoopeee

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years and still a white elephant.

IMAX Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the space station for yourself in this IMAX film.

Lessons learnt in ISS

[Shade, The]

I think its more the lessons learnt in living inside the ISS. Remember that the trip to Mars will take many months at best, and most likely several years. In fact, wasn't there a study that suggested that staying too long (i.e. years, not months) in a 0G environment would kill a human?

The ISS relatively convenient place to test the effects and problems of living in space. I'm certainly a lot happier to know that we have somewhere to put theory into practive.

Re:You are all wrong! (not)

[Scott Carnahan]

Weight is the measure of gravitational attraction between two bodies... nothing more.

Merriam Webster's definition is fundamentally flawed, as it does not specify a frame of reference for measuring the force, which is not Lorentz-invariant (N.B. there is a relativistic analogue of force, called 4-force, but it would be zero in this case). Furthermore, it is contradicted by a more authoritative source: MTW's Gravitation, page 13, first paragraph of section 1.3.

Free fall is synonymous with weightlessness: absence of any force to drive the object away from its normal track through spacetime.

Indeed, the fundamental principle behind Einstein's general relativity is the fact that gravity does not exert force. Rather, the presence of mass-energy bends space-time, and can cause the trajectories of distant objects to converge.

A scale is just one limited method for measuring weight. I say limited because it functions by measuring the normal force ... caused by the ground holding the scale at rest, thus giving an inertailly fixed reference frame...

Weight is just the force applied to an object, and in the case of objects on the Earth's surface, this force is supplied by the ground, which is in our way, accelerating us from our natural path toward the Earth's center. Thus, a scale is a very good way to measure weight, as it is transferring the normal force from the ground to the object we are weighing, and measuring the force applied in the instantaneous reference frame of the object. Incidentally, the ground is not an inertially fixed reference frame, for the very reason that it is not in free fall.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why is it...

[c.emmertfoster]

Why is it that so many moderators mark the unpopular position on a controversial subject as a Troll?

For the record, I agree with you on most of those points, and I'm glad someone had the courage to articulate them.

Don't forget to vote today!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion