NASA Considers Abandoning ISS

mbstone writes "MSNBC is reporting that NASA is threatening to mothball the International Space Station unless Russia coughs up its share of the money for maintenance and support missions. NASA is now making "contingency plans" to leave the station unoccupied for as long as a year. What I want to know is, why a contingency plan? Didn't NASA already have a plan in place? Are U.S. taxpayers going to pay millions extra to develop new mothballing equipment and procedures that could have been designed-in at far less cost?? Also, I would be glad to house-sit, I use very little oxygen."

Comments

If NASA is serious

[tmark]

If NASA is serious then some of us are going to get very tired hearing about how the Russians are sending every boy band member into space.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

With the current failure rate of russian rockets, that might be a very Good Thing (TM)

Re:If NASA is serious

[simong_oz]

I'll only get tired of it if they keep bringing them back from space.

Or they could use them to test re-entry angles ... "whoops - that one's too steep!"

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anne_Nonymous]

Sending them isn't a big deal, it's bringing them back that bothers me.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Raul654]

Hrmm... I've always wanted someone to settle the question - "What happens to the human body when exposed to space". I mean, all the scifi shows show something different happening. So, we have some pratical use for those boy bands after all

Re:If NASA is serious

[cudaboy_71]

we should have written off the ruskies from the get go. this whole project finally got going in earnest right about the time the russian economy went through the floor.

from the beginning the U.S. was *loaning* the russians miliions and millions to hold up their end of the project. then, they have the nerve to sell *their* seats (paid for by yours truly) to the highest bidder and pocket the cash.

this has all the flavor of loaning uncle ivan the money to make rent and then seeing him throwing down vodka out of a paper bag on the corner two days later.

i'm not in favor of shitcanning the whole project. we shouldve just seen this coming for a long time and been prepared to suck up ivan's slack.

Re:If NASA is serious

[malraid]

I get the joke, and it'll be cool ;)

But really, how many fatal accidents has the Soyouz TM had? (0) how many the US shuttle? (1)

Also, I thinks that there have been much more Soyouz launches than Shuttle launches.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively keep NASA out of it, give the Russians the money, and let them build it. There's no substitute for experience.

Re:If NASA is serious

[tomhudson]

But really, how many fatal accidents has the Soyouz TM had? (0) how many the US shuttle? (1) </quote>

They (russians) just lost a comm satellite yesterday, launched it into LEO (low earth orbit), insted of GSO (geo-stationary orbit).

Mind you, when it comes flaming back into the atmosphere and kills some cow in Auckland, it'll be geo-stationary.

Re:If NASA is serious

[AndroidCat]

But really, how many fatal accidents has the Soyouz TM had? (0) how many the US shuttle? (1)

On launch perhaps, but they did lose a crew of three on a reentry depressurization. (And public knowledge of losses during the Soviet era is scarce. I say public because I'm sure the US alphabet agencies have a pretty good idea.)

Re:If NASA is serious

[ivan256]

Normaly I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but considering the coverup record of the former soviet union, I think I'll indulge myself.

If somebody died during launch under Soviet watch, do you really think we would have been told? Look at all the things (failures) they did that we're still just learning learning about now...

Re:If NASA is serious

[Cleon]

Why worry? All you have to do is catch a ride from a Vogon Constructor Fleet ship.

Re:If NASA is serious

[blincoln]

They (russians) just lost a comm satellite yesterday

Was that satellite sent on a Soyuz? No.

Re:If NASA is serious

[tomhudson]

Was that satellite sent on a Soyuz? No. </quote>

Didn't say it was. But let's take a similar situation. The Ford Focus has set a new record for simultaneous safety investigations by the NHTSA. Makes you think twice about buying any Ford, especially after they posted a $4.9 billion loss. It's a question of confidence. It's not how well they've done overall, but how well they've done lately.

But thanks, your point is noted.

Re:If NASA is serious

[paganizer]

Considering our current government, I'd think the U.S. would be much more likely to cover up astronaut deaths than freedom loving russians.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

The current space station weighs in at about 200 tons currently, is at an altitude of about 225 miles and loses 1.5 miles a day in altitude due to high atmospheric gas drag and solar fields and particls drag. Every time a shuttle departs the station it uses some of its own fuel to boost the station ( and shuttle) from 10 to 25 miles up.

When the space station is core complete it will weigh in excess of 300 tons and will have several more solar cell panels that will add even more drag.

The original plans for the space station were to be at an altitude of 500 miles which is the maximum altitude that the space shuttle can reach from a circular equatorial orbit.

When the space station went from Space Station Freedom to Space Station Alpha there was a reduction in overall human capacity but not much reduction in overall mass or size. The main reason for the reduction in height from 500 miles to 225 miles is that the 57 degree orbit that was chosen was to accommodate the Russian manned rocket launch orbit angles. This did two things: For the space shuttle to carry the same mass of hardware in its bay as before to the high angle orbit instead of equatorial orbit that maximum height of the orbit had to be lowered by half.

This higher angle orbit could cover most of the earth from its viewpoint ( a good thing for instrumentation) but greatly increased the drag on the space station (a bad thing).

If the space station is to be mothballed after core complete is reached, it must be raised in orbit to in excess of 350 miles, preferably 450 miles in order to preserve the station.

That means that the Russian modules that are responsible for station keeping and orbit raising must be refueled. They can only be refueled by Russion Soyuz type rockets. If the russians are not able to sent manned missions they will not be able to send unmanned missions ( Progress) for the same reason which is that they use the same core rocket modules.

The US would have to send a special shuttle mission up carrying extra fuel and no cargo and use the time to do final checks and then do a reboost. Carrying no cargo should allow the shuttle to boost the station by additional 100 miles.

Failue to reboost the station from the current 225 mile altitude and with a fall rate of at least 1.5 miles a week means that the space station would fall to earth in less than 3 years.

Boosting the station to 350 miles would buy time out to 5 years and boosting to 450 miles would buy time out to 8 years.

Of course if the the station is boosted and then mothballed, then there will no reason for the Space shuttle to make flights anymore and it will be defunded down to no more than 1 flight a year. NASA will find its budget cut in half and then cut again. When it has no means to reboost the station or to reawaken it, the station will be abandoned politically and allowed to burn up, hopefully falling on Washington, DC.

That will be the end of the US manned space program for the rest of this century. Since Russia is not able to take up the slack that leaves only the Chinese who are starting up a manned program very similiar to the current Russian.

Maybe the final fallout of this is that in a few years the main long term residents of the space station will be Chinese instead of Russian.

Re:If NASA is serious

[AlgUSF]

Or better yet, play a newbie joke on them, like tell them to take out the trash. :-) One less billionare boy band...

Re:If NASA is serious

[ivan256]

Considering our current government, I'd think the U.S. would be much more likely to cover up astronaut deaths than freedom loving russians.

What kind of comment is that exactly? Really, I think there are people out there that like to take random shots our government for fun because they can't comprehend that a government can do both good and bad things at the same time. Besides, our government hardly has anything to do with wether something like this would be covered up in the US. People can go watch the launches in person here, and have always been able to (from a distance anyway). They're also televised. If the thing blows up, the government isn't going to be able to cover it up.

Besides, I said nothing about the current Russian government or society, I was talking exclusivly about things that happened before the end of the Soviet Union.

Re:If NASA is serious

[ceeam]

Actually there was one incident when the ship lost the air through a micro-crack on re-entry. All three men have died. T'was long ago (early 70s?) and since then they (well, we, me being Russian) put just two people there instead of three but they wear sealed suits (akin those used for spacewalks).

Re:If NASA is serious

[raytracer]

But really, how many fatal accidents has the Soyouz TM had? (0) how many the US shuttle? (1)

Soyuz 1 crashed on reentry due to a failed parachute deployment, killing Vladamir Komorov. Soyuz 11 depressurized during re-entry, killing Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patseyev.

Re:If NASA is serious

[tomhudson]

And that's just the ones they own up to. Ham radio operators from the '60s and '70s tell a different tale, about receiving signals from orbiters that were literally "list in space". Given that the soviets wouldn't admit to a launch until the capsule was back on earth, this is credible.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to skylab? Using an existing rocket as a hull for a space station saves money and offers more space than constructing one by conventional means.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

In reference to Skylab:There had been a mission planned for the space huttle to reboost Skylab's orbit but Skylab fell out of orbit and burned up over australia some in the early years of the shuttle program after the Challenger shuttle disaster. It fell to earth because the shuttles did not fly for 30 months and by that time its orbit had gotten to low to be boosted up. Skylab was based on the empty 3rd stage of the Saturn 5 Moon rocket and weighed about 50 tons, maybe 90 tons. It did not have the same drag as the current space station and its altitude was about 250 miles. It took longer for it to drop but drop it did till it was too late.

There are few stable orbits for large satellites that are placed below 5000 miles. The region between 350 and 4000 miles is occupied by the inner Van Allen Radiation belt which can trap lethal levels of particle radiation. The outer belt is from 6000 to 40000 miles. The general safe and stable orbit would be at 5000 miles which cannot be reached by any manned technology in a reasonable means at this time. The original space station was supposed to have stronger shielding to allow a higher altitude. The current aprox 250 mile attitude of the space station is compromise of design that allows humans to be on board for 1 year max. Any higher and habitation would be restricted to a few weeks. But the station is unstable at 250 miles and if not reboosted every few weeks would burn up in 3 years. The space station must be maintained or it will be destroyed by natural deorbiting forces.

This brings up an interesting side issue concerning design of low orbiting satellites. To extend their orbit life they should be designed with streamlining and with a kind of cone on a pole sticking out from the satellite in the direction of its orbit. This cone would deflect the very rarified but drag causing upper atmosphere away from the satellite and cause a relative harder vacuum to form around the satellite, thus causing considerably less drag. In a large sense, all space stations made to date, Skylab ( burned up), Mir ( burned up) and the space station Alpha are not correctly designed to stay in orbit with minimum drag. Quite the opposite.

Re:If NASA is serious

[1u3hr]

Seems almost all the (other) replies in this thread are comic-book science. From NASA'a page on this question:

If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes, you're dying. The limits are not really known.

You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the containing effect of your skin and circulatory system. You do not instantly freeze because, although the space environment is typically very cold, heat does not transfer away from a body quickly. Loss of consciousness occurs only after the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood. If your skin is exposed to direct sunlight without any protection from its intense ultraviolet radiation, you can get a very bad sunburn.

Anyone recall the Alien movies version of this? In #1 the Alien is ejected into space and seemingly unaffected and wriggling around. In #4 it's sucked out through a tiny hole in a window. The 1st seems quite likely for something with an exoskeleton -- they should be able to stay active for as long as they do underwater, which is quite a long time. The #4 scene seems like bullshit.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm sure only NASA has had fatal accidents. It seems to me some people got killed on the ground just last week in one spectacular booster explosion there. And there was the ever present and never refuted rumor of a number of deaths. And one set of confirmed deaths, when a Soyuz capsule depressurized during reentry killing all aboard.

Yes lack of air is serious business.

Re:If NASA is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in fact, it was.

Re:If NASA is serious

[mbstone]

If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury.

OK, I found out what I really wanted to know, which is how do they know people's heads don't explode Outland-style on contact with vacuum?

Enough on decompression already. Let's have a whack at some of my favorite, other stumpers:

1. How do they know nerve gas is really odorless?
2. Why do wild turkeys attack humans the day before Thanksgiving?
3. If the first drug they administer to condemned prisoners is scopolamine (truth serum), how come they don't ask the guy if he in fact committed the crime?

Dangerous?

[Trusty Penfold]

I hope none of those space-moths make it down here, they sound like nasty little blighters.

Why not lease it out instead?

[Chastitina]

Just think of the market for music video and movie productions, not to mention overpaid entertainers.

"C"

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

Everyone seems to talk about leasing and renting, and letting unqualified people live on the ISS.

Think of it this way: would you ever leave your workstation, your baby, to be used by your computer illiterate aunt while you were going on a summer vacation?

I'm personally happy they don't lease it out.

As for mothballing, moth ball away... given the current economic trend of the world, the space program makes little sense anyways. Things have to be fixed down here before they can be sent up, IMHO.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Think of it this way: would you ever leave your workstation, your baby, to be used by your computer illiterate aunt while you were going on a summer vacation?

Yes, I would confidently leave my tightly administered Linux box for my comp. Illiterate aunt. I hope the ISS is not as fickle as your workstation is.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[tomhudson]

Hey, maybe we could send Celine Dion up there. After all, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[AndroidCat]

Everyone seems to talk about leasing and renting, and letting unqualified people live on the ISS.

Why not combine this with a previous story, redecorate and rent it out to hobbit-wannabes. Really pack them in (hobbits don't mind) and charge them a lot of dragon gold. It could work.

Downside: They'd want us to build Elf-5 next.

But seriously, how many rich tourists are there for an extended stay with tour-guides (read: crew)?

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

Dang, I forgot to mention you would have to give the root to your aunt. It's not like the ISS has security zones, with anti-tamper locks, and face recognition to allow access to secure areas...

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Probably a very good point. Though it be the most advanced earth vehicle ever, it probably doesn't have locks.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Mac Degger]

Thing is, there's lots of thing which we learn of 'up there' that tell us how things are 'down here' and help us fix them. Green house effect was first discovered on Mars and paved the way for the discovery of what is going on here. Polution, weather, crumbling/shrinking icecaps, depleted fishery and other environmental effects are all best seen from space. We still desperately need the info we're getting from there, so much so that the minor economic twitters here on earth are not secondary or even tertiary concerns compared to what we get from spacebased imaging. Let alone the communication aspect....face it, the economic aspects in the US, EU et al are trivial, seasonal lulls.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

face it, the economic aspects in the US, EU et al are trivial, seasonal lulls

My personal opinion on this is that we've finally reached the end of an era, and that this is not a lull, but an indication of something greater (that 99% of the world being poor doesn't work as a business model).

Thing is, there's lots of thing which we learn of 'up there' that tell us how things are 'down here' and help us fix them

I agree with that, but the ISS isn't really necessary for those kinds of things. There are plenty of satelites who can do that kind of work, for much less.

The bottom line is the novelty of having men up there is quite small compared to the price tag accompanied.

Sure, anyone can argue that we would have never discovered that plant seeds don't grow 'up' out of the earth in outter space if it weren't for tests done on the shuttles... but really, apart from the invention of penicilin, there hasn't been drugs that cured the whole world of anything -- much less space age revolutionary drugs: all those do is make old CEOs not age as fast, and suck fat out of their wives asses.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[FatAlb3rt]

As for mothballing, moth ball away...

Let's hope your boss doesn't take the same attitude toward your job as you have toward mine. Happy holidays.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[swordboy]

As for mothballing, moth ball away... given the current economic trend of the world, the space program makes little sense anyways. Things have to be fixed down here before they can be sent up, IMHO.

Yeah... Israel needs more US taxpayer money. They are much more important than any space program.

Sigh...

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

Hey, I'm not saying 'fire people' for my sadistic pleasure.

But you have to realize that we are both in cushy industries (space tech, and IT) as opposed to kids doing labour for Nike at 5 cents a day.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[LinuxInDallas]

How confident are you going to be when said aunt spills a cup of coffe on the case, keyboard, or in the monitor. There is a lot more damage than can be done in addition to tampering with software.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I spill a lot of crap, so my monitor and keyboard are all that can be got at(keyboard and monitor only cost 100$). Backups are made etc... the point is that if I as a home PC user (ok well home when I am not working as a net eng.) can make my pc fool proof I would hope that all the space agencies together could build a robust space station.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Lumpy]

first off the ISS costs as much to have it not used as it does used unless you are planning on letting it just re-enter and burn up.

They ploped it in a orbit that is unstable because the shuttle is an inadiquate system for space work and that's all the higher the shuttle can go. So we leave it, it's gonna crash into the Australian Outback just like the last one.

Nasa is just blowing air out their asses.. and everyone needs to just simply ignore them.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[the_2nd_coming]

woah...the greenhouse effect was first detected on mars?

if mars is the modle that those greenhouse kooks at basing there whole hypothosis on, then perhaps some one should point out that Mars does not have a magnetic feild which allowd the atmosphere to boil off from all the gamma radiation that hits the surface.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[the_2nd_coming]

so you think that communism or a pure socialist democracy will be better? um.....it does not work. you are over reacting to the economic situation of the US and EU. just so you know, Communists thought the great depresion was a signal of the end of capitolism.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor are there any SUV's or Coal Burning power plants on mars..... makes you really really really wonder about those kooks bashing SUV's and power plants and industry as a whole if global warming is happening on mars

what does the earth and mars have in common? THE SUN!

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[snake_dad]

At least one airlock. Yes...lame. :)

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Bat_Masterson]

Better yet, why not hang a big billboard off the bottom of the station and rent advertising space to corporations? :-)

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

so you think that communism or a pure socialist democracy will be better..

Not really.

just so you know, Communists thought the great depresion was a signal of the end of capitolism

Just so you know: Marx thought that true communism would only come from a capitalist regime... The Bolsheviks (as opposed to the Mensheviks) were for an installation of communism by force/revolution... they won that dispute by silencing the menshies...

In effect, the states are much closer to the ideal communist government than many people realize.

Also, they're (US) just as corrupt as any of the 'communist' countries of current.

Regardless, no, I don't think that's the solution. I think global exploitation is the problem - not local governmental issues.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[isorox]

given the current economic trend of the world, the space program makes little sense anyways.

Not really.

Government pays $1billion to space program
$500 million of that pays wages, $500 million pays for hardware

• HARDWARE
  $500,000,000 goes to other companies
  Out of that, $250,000,000 pays wages of other companies, $250,000,000 pays for components
  
  
  • COMPONENTS
    $250,000,000 goes to other companies producing components
    Out of that, $125,000,000 pays wages of component companies, $125,000,000 pays for raw materials
    
  • RAW MATERIALS
    $125,000,000 goes to companies producing raw materials
    $61,000,000 goes on wages, $64,000,000 goes on machines needed to extract the material from the ground
    And so on
    
  
  

Wages
As you see, all of that initial investment in the space industry ends up as paying wages. (OK, we reduce the resources in the ground at the same time).

40% of those wages then go back as tax to pay for government programs like the space program
10% of those wages are saved in a bank (the bank then lends out that money to other people to spend)
The rest is spent on buying food, rent, computers, etc.
The rest then eventually goes back to paying wages (minus the tax)

Every dollar that the government spends in a program either
1) Goes abroad (citizens importing foreign cars, for example)
2) Goes back to the treasury.
They also receieve money from exporting goods (France buys an intel computer, the U.S. benefits)

Ideally the net imports and exports are zero.


Assuming there is a supply of raw materials, and there is a supply of labour, then there is no net cost for any government program.

Whats better, 30,000 people employed, or 30,000 people unemployed? Might as well have them emplyed. If theres a major lack of available people in one industry, then prices and wagese of that industry go up, and things even out.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Mac Degger]

Well, I was too simple in my post. The deal is that certain processes, like the dusty atmosphere and the progression of temperature increases are things that look highly similar to earth. There's loads more, and I'm certainly not the one to give a propper explanation.
But anyway, this astronomer discovered certain processon on mars which are applicaple to earth (in the same way that processes in sand and piles of ballbearings which are vibrated are similar) too. From that was born a theory which has since been empirically proven. It hasn't been a hypothesis since the mid 80's.

Some good goole-ing will turn up quite a few sites which explain all this more clearly.

Oh, and Mars most certainly does have a magnetic field.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[buck_wild]

And what if the 'squatters' are also spillers, and slop some liquid on the life support or power systems?

Can't make the thing idiot-proof...

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats called a pyramid scheme. The only catch is that each of thouse people are promised a pension and that will come from a increased population base. That comes from other countries because the locals aren't breeding fast enough but the locals don't want to pay for all the stuff that the non-locals need - like schools. The problem is once you add more people to an area, you need more roads and more schools and stuff and thouse don't scale well at all. The price per mile of road increases based on the density of the people. Most cities are at the point where to add one more person means that the expenses by having that person out weigh the taxes they will ever pay. opps.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pfdietz]

Whats better, 30,000 people employed, or 30,000 people unemployed?

False dichotomy. Many of those people could be employed doing something that is actually useful, even if it's just flipping burgers.

But your point is well taken. To prevent unemployable people from building up, enrollment in aerospace engineering departments at universities should be sharply curtailed. ;)

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[the_2nd_coming]

it depends on what you apply it too. the greenhouse effect in and of itself is a theory, but saying that it is the reason that global warming is occuring is a still highly contended hypothosis.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[the_2nd_coming]

I would say that the US has corrupted people in the system, however by in large the system is not as corrupt as a totalitarian communist regime due to the open nature of the US democracy. of cource, corruption is in the eye of the beholder for the most part (watergate is an obviouse exception). when a liberal administration is in power, the conservatives cry coruption and become politicly devicive. when a conservative administration is in power, the oposit is true.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[1u3hr]

given the current economic trend of the world, the space program makes little sense anyways.

As Carl Sagan pointed out a few years ago, for 10% of the cost OVERRUNS on a single missile program we could have had people on Mars 10 years ago.

And currently, for a similar percentage of what is going to be spent over the next decade so Bush can avenge his dad, you could have solar power satellites beaming energy down to earth, economic solar power, and a dozen other ways to negate the oil dependency that is the root of the Middle East "problem".

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[1u3hr]

woah...the greenhouse effect was first detected on mars?

No, Venus where it's 8-900 degrees at the surface.

But using the greenhouse effect to warm up Mars to a more comfortable temperature is a viable idea (melt the CO2, maybe make CFCs on purpose, etc) if we don't degenerate to a rerun of the 100-years war.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I burn your fucking house to the ground, destroying your robust computer and all of your porn?

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars doesn't have a magnetic field.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[noshellswill]

Actually, if there's a shortage of skills in some US industry we import wog slaves.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[noshellswill]

UhMMMM ... the US does not HAVE an oil dependency ... since the Colorado & Alberta tar-sands could supply every ounce three-times-over ( @ $50.00/barrel ). We are simply consuming Middle East oil so others may not consume it ! Get the picture?

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[pVoid]

Amen! I agree with you and the previous post completely.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[saskboy]

I don't think things will ever be fixed down here. Take for instance all the money blown every year on smoking and illegal drugs? Half of that money every year would be more than enough to run a massive space program every year.

If you build it, they will come. Just don't start out with mansions, and I'll always think like this.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for mothballing, moth ball away... given the current economic trend of the world, the space program makes little sense anyways. Things have to be fixed down here before they can be sent up, IMHO.
What the fsck is up with the "current enconomic climate" BS any way? Has the "global bankers" meaning the U.S. said that we will not loan^H^H^H^H give anymore money away?
If it is a question about money then why don't we take all the fines that Enron and Global Crossing are^H^H^H supposed to pay to us taxpayers and fund the ISS?
Sorry I am drunk but still sober enough to have some sense.

How come common sense isn't common?

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

At 400 Million USD a launch (according to The Economist, November 16) I'd vote to bin the
space shuttle too.

All of the exciting stuff in space can be
done much more cheaply with unmanned projects.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

inadiquate

Where the fuck did you learn how to spell?

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

What if I burn your fucking house to the ground, destroying your robust computer and all of your porn?

Well, then I will have to get your girlfriend to pose for pictures all over again.

Re:Why not lease it out instead?

[FatAlb3rt]

that's all the higher the shuttle can go

Before you state that Nasa is just blowing air out their asses, make sure you're not blowing air out your own.

commercialism

[rppp01]

Wouldn't this be a good time to allow the private sector in on this? Why should the governments get all the fun up there? I can't help but think tourism and a private sector push into space will do for space industries and the like what the governments of the worlds could not: enable living in space- make it a reality.

Re:commercialism

[Trusty Penfold]

The IIS isn't very big though.
You can't take 1000 people there at $10000 a head. NASA would need to find, say, 10 people willing to pay $1000000, and they're a much more rare.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

The private sector doesn't want anything to do with manned spaceflight, unless a government is footing the bill. It's simply not even close to profitable, breathless nonsense about microgravity manufacturing or space tourism notwithstanding (those Russian tourist flights would not make economic sense unless ISS resupply were paying for the lions share of the launch.)

Re:commercialism

[rppp01]

500+ years ago, Portugal and Spain sent groups of people to 'find a better way' without knowing whether or not it would be profitable. They went on hunches and rumors. Chris Columbus ran into what became America. England sent companies over to colonize in the 'name of the king'- but those companies were looking for profit. Look what happened from there. Most failed, but a few took hold, and here we are now-
I think it can be profitable, it just requires companies to think long term on the prospects of moving to space.

Re:commercialism

[grub]

You can't take 1000 people there at $10000 a head. NASA would need to find, say, 10 people willing to pay $1000000, and they're a much more rare.

If they'll take a cheque from me and promise not to try cashing it until after I land, can I go?

Re:commercialism

[simong_oz]

The only problem with letting the private sector into the manned space flight business is that it will then become nothing more than a commercial profit-making enterprise. And as soon as profits become a priority, I can't help thinking that safety, training, etc is going to go down the drain.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen in the future en mass, and I am in favour of the Russians leasing a seat on the Soyuz to qualified people for non-commercial gain.

Re:commercialism

[DeadVulcan]

It's just so darned expensive that probably only giant companies could even consider the whole field. Companies like... Oh, God. I just had a horrible thought:

Microsoft Space Station.

Just imagine it in that insidiously friendly font they always use... *Shudder*

Re:commercialism

[vlag]

You've got Microsoft on the brain. It's not the IIS, its the ISS. There is a huge difference. One crashes and is susceptible to worms. The other can't crash and the worms are experimental. Can't remember which is which.

Re:commercialism

[aster_ken]

I have found that NASA's dedication to safety is one of the main things holding them back. Imagine, if you will, that the Spanish government spent as much time and money on making sea-travel safe in the 1400s. Mr. Columbus and friends would not have ventured to sea due to ridiculous costs and the need for government sponsorship.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

This is the old, tired analogy of spaceflight with exploration of the new world. Like any analogy, it depends on a real similarity existing between the two concepts being compared.

But space exploration isn't just moving over to a new continent that is already supplied with air, water, soil, and exploitable inhabitants. The Spanish achieved a net profit in a time shorter than the 'space age' has already existed.

Moreover, technology advances faster these days than it did then, so commercial interests *should* have shorter time horizons. The appeal to 'long term thinking' is often a refuge for ideas that just can't offer a competitive ROI.

Re:commercialism

[N3WBI3]

Just post date it for say October 19, 2095

Re:commercialism

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Errr, the Crown gave broad grants to the major persons/companies that "developed" the "new world". And they still couldn't turn a profit without resorting to slavery. Oh, wait, I see the obvious parallel to current events, you're right on track.
2. "it just requires companies to think long term on the prospects ". So you're thinking German or Japaneese companies? It sure ain't American companies. cough **dotcom bubble** cough **Enron**

Re:commercialism

[GeckoX]

The total cost of the ISS project is already closing in on $100 billion dollars and is backed by 16 countries just to foot the bill.

Billy G's ~$20 billion wouldn't last him too long if he were to invest it in a space startup. Don't think we'd complain if he wasted his money there, but he's not exactly stupid when it comes to money.

Re:commercialism

[TheSalamanizer]

The problem with space tourists is you know they will all want to bring back a small souveneir. A nut or bolt or knob off something ... imagine what the ISS would look like in a few months.

Re:commercialism

[WalterSobchak]

Russia already employed the private sector, by fyling people up to the ISS for $20M.
Now the question remains: Where is the money? It almost seems the taxpayers are supporting space tourism in more than one way, if the russians are not even paying their share of the cost.

Well, whatever.. Alex

Re:commercialism

[Eric Smith]

And as soon as profits become a priority, I can't help thinking that safety, training, etc is going to go down the drain.

I'd like to think that a company far-sighted enough to be willing to fund a commercial space venture would be far-sighted enough to realize that if they skimped on safety, they might well be wasting their entire investment.

But even if I'm wrong, I still think commercialization is the right thing. NASA is never going to do anything with space but use it as a taxpayer funded playground to conduct a small number of experiments. They have no motivation to do anything that would actually make space useful, and probably couldn't get enough funding to do such things anyhow.

However, I doubt that we'll see a commercial equivalent to the ISS, because a low-orbit space station just really isn't very useful. Commercial ventures would invest their money where there's some hope of return, like perhaps mining asteroids, and a low orbit space station doesn't really help with that.

On the other hand, a space station at one of the Lagrange points might actually be useful. We'd need a way to get there and back, and the Space Shuttle wouldn't do it. We'd need either non-reusable Big Dumb Boosters, or something like the Delta Clipper. (NASA chose to fund a poorly conceived and untried Boeing design instead of the proven DCX design, and look what happened: they discovered that they can't actually make the Boeing thing because they don't have enough unobtanium to make the fuel tanks.)

But given that there's little chance of that happening any time soon (either commercially or by NASA), we may just have to wait for the Space Elevator before we go much further.

Re:commercialism

[Thag]

The private sector doesn't want anything to do with manned spaceflight, unless a government is footing the bill. It's simply not even close to profitable, breathless nonsense about microgravity manufacturing or space tourism notwithstanding (those Russian tourist flights would not make economic sense unless ISS resupply were paying for the lions share of the launch.)

In reality, the private sector is continuing to look into it and try to find profit centers such as suborbital "tourism" flights. There would be a hell of a lot more potential profit centers if the goverment would stop subsidizing the established players from the Cold War. It is difficult to compete with someone being subsidized by your potential client.

Jon Acheson

Re:commercialism

[quark2universe]

Space tourism is but one aspect of how this could be privatized. Where is all the money these days? In entertainment. How many movies have been based in space? Many. Does anyone else think the movie industry would pay big bucks to be able to shoot on the space station? I do. For instance, if Armageddon had been shot on the ISS, it might have approached believability. Then again, maybe not :)

Re:commercialism

[Mac Degger]

I'm quite sorry, but space is going to be profitable from 2007 and onwards.

How can I make such a bold statement? Well, check out the Rotary Rocket. It'll launch SSTO, fully reusable at 7 million a pop. Seeing as quite a few people are willing to pay 20 million to go stay up in space (and I know I would be if I had the cash), think of the market for that kind of money...I bet it's more than just 20/7=3 times as many.

As you can see, the first proffitable commerce in space was communication. The second is tourism. Screw functionality...it doesn't have to be functional to be profitable. Tourism might not be as noble as space telescopes, but they're going to be bringing in the bucks.

Re:commercialism

[MacAndrew]

Um, however moving the analogy or thumbnail representation of history may be, may I least point out there aren't any Indians in orbit who got there first and need slaughtering? Or that many of those settlers were not so much seeking new opportunities as fleeing the oppression of Europe?

Sorry to be crass about it, but these are very difficult situations. In no way does space harber the readily exploitable economic bonanza that did the New World, and much of other investment there is on faith or the gee-whiz factor, not any assurance of long-term gain.

Also, Columbus's expedition was not a Star Trek like project as the myth paints it. It was intended for profit, acquiring new trade routes, real estate, resources, and, on later trips, slaves. (As we head into thanksgiving, recall that Squanto learned English when he was forcibly removed to Europe as a slave. When he made his way back to Massachusetts, infection had destroyed his tribe ... leaving the nice fields for the Pilgrims to plant in thickly forested New England.)

Finally, Columbus never made it to what we thing of as America, unless you count finding a American Virgin Island or two. In five trips he never set sight on the mainland. And it's false that everyone though the world was flat! Aristotle determined it wasn't. Columbus's error was he significantly underestimated the diameter.

I'm not suggesting anyone in particular was a bad guy we need to be ashamed of, but protest substituting a caricature of the past, and especially basing our future decisions on that caricature.

Re:commercialism

[enkidu55]

If not let them in on the space station, why not start funding some private sector research into propulsion and lift mechanics. If somebody could come up with a way to lower the cost of a launch from tens of millions down to tens of thousands. I'm thinking here of Highlift Systems then it potentially could be this century's California/Alaskan gold rush.

Re:commercialism

[fname]

Great, let the private sector in. Here's what would happen if they were allowed in. Governments would probably foot 90% of the bill, the commercial side would run everything, and reap the benefits. My guess is no commercial enterprise could generate enough revenue to run basic station operations.

A better solution would be to keep it governmental, and start charging money (at exorbinant rates) to private concerns that want to run there tests, but can't justify the scientific calue to NASA, et.al. Unfortunately, I don't think many companies could afford the expense now, as this research would not bear fruit for many years.

Better solution: pay the Russian rocket scientists to work on ISS vehicles instead of letting someone else hire them to design missiles.

Re:commercialism

[arcadum]

To bad $10,000 will only cover the costs of launching one pound. ($10,000/lbs) when aiming for orbit.

Re:commercialism

[Sloppy]

Kings don't have to worry about stockholders suing them for wasting money. They are a lot freer to speculate. It's good to be the king.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

Rotary Rocket no longer exists -- the company ran out of money some time ago. All its assets were auctioned off. It never raised more than a small fraction of the money that would have been necessary to achieve those grandiose dreams. Probably a good thing; paper or powerpoint spaceships are much easier than real ones.

Re:commercialism

[Anonymous Coward]

>>In no way does space harber the readily exploitable economic bonanza that did the New World, and much of other investment there is on faith or the gee-whiz factor, not any assurance of long-term gain.

I disagree. There are many advances I believe could come from the space program. Perhaps new drugs could be created more easily in a weightless situtation. And we already have things like better equipment for firefighters that have come from the space program.

Re:commercialism

[drinkypoo]

...many of those settlers were not so much seeking new opportunities as fleeing the oppression of Europe?

You don't think that corporations (and individuals) find Earth oppressive? In space, no one can smell you pollute. On one hand, you can't just dump your junk out the "window", on the other hand, you can feel free to fire it into the sun.

Sorry to be crass about it, but these are very difficult situations. In no way does space harber the readily exploitable economic bonanza that did the New World, and much of other investment there is on faith or the gee-whiz factor, not any assurance of long-term gain.

There is money to be made in space. Well, not so much in space at this point, as on earth, with stuff you get from space. Also as the ability to do things in space increases the demand will rise, and costs will come down as new technologies are developed to exploit the demand. This, of course, happens in any market. But the point is, there ARE things that can't be made at 1G which can be made in free fall. Also there's an awful lot of metal up there circling the earth and it's already in orbit so if you want to do something with metal in space (basically, anything you do in space) that's the place to get it. I think that logically the first operation we really need to get space-based manufacturing going is therefore mining and refining. Whether we do it with asteroids or on the moon is worth some discussion but is outside the scope of this comment.

Sorry to be crass about it, but these are very difficult situations. In no way does space harber the readily exploitable economic bonanza that did the New World, and much of other investment there is on faith or the gee-whiz factor, not any assurance of long-term gain.

Yes, and early explorers (including columbus) could have capsized or never found what they were looking for (tee hee) or been eaten by giant sea monsters as far as they knew at the time (given that giant squid supposedly can't make it to the surface alive, doubtful, but they didn't know that then) so there was no assurance of long-term gain. It was a gamble, a hope, it almost didn't provide any revenue. Just like most investments.

Also, Columbus's expedition was not a Star Trek like project as the myth paints it. It was intended for profit, acquiring new trade routes, real estate, resources, and, on later trips, slaves.

You know, I am a product of the California public school system, and I still learned that in elementary school - The idea was to open a trade route. That's like the first thing they tell us about Columbus (besides claiming that he 'discovered' america... I don't know if that's changed lately, this was a couple decades ago.)

Earth isn't ready to fund a Star Trek-like exploration until we do two things; develop FTL travel and do away with money. In other words, probably never. The other thing that could get us to do it might be proof of other life in our galaxy, but that wouldn't be a rapid process.

Re:commercialism

[susano_otter]

All this adds up to: "If you put research in the private sector, anything that does not have an obvious, short-term ROI gets abandoned".

And note that this ROI is relevant only to the private company conducting the research. The benefits to anybody besides stockholders and employees (if such benefits really exist) are completely accidental. Most of them, in fact, are probably viewed as "expenses" that should be reduced.

Our current space program missions should all be planned stepping stones on the way to asteroid mining, colonization of the solar system, and beyond... this aimless thrashing in Earth orbit is pointless. They should either get serious about some long-term planning, or skip it altogether and throw the money at climate research, or alternative power, or oceanic exploration, or whatever.

Re:commercialism

[gorilla]

No, they KNEW if they got a quicker and therefore cheaper way to India they would make a profit.

Re:commercialism

[Eric Smith]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Rotary Rocket is DEAD. ;-(

I'm all for commercialization, and perhaps it will happen, but there have been a lot of false starts, and the future is quite uncertain.

Re:commercialism

[susano_otter]

NASA is never going to do anything with space but use it as a taxpayer funded playground to conduct a small number of experiments. They have no motivation to do anything that would actually make space useful...

Who's this "they" you're talking about? Do you know any NASA employees? Have you actually spoken to them about their work, and why they do it, and what they hope for from the future? I'll bet you'd discover that the vast majority of NASA personnel, from the director level on down to the receptionists, are highly motivated to do useful things "with space". Certainly all the NASA employees I've met are not tiresome bureaucratic drones whose imaginations are so stunted that they can't think of anything better to do than waste your money. You don't have a monopoly on wisdom, common sense, professionalism, or enthusiasm, you know. And by the same token, isn't it a bit naive to expect that NASA should be magically free of PHBs and bureaucracy, simply because your romantic notion of "space" is offended by such things?

Re:commercialism

[jbrownc1]

"Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Chick-Fil-A (TM)Space Station. Let's head over to the Coca-Cola (TM) Refreshment Center before we start our tour of the Archer-Daniels (TM) food laboratory and the Exxon/Mobil (TM) energy lab..."

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

All this adds up to: "If you put research in the private sector, anything that does not have an obvious, short-term ROI gets abandoned".

Yes -- and this is a good thing.

Long term planning is vastly overrated. It's a waste of time at best, and a dangerous delusion at worst. Reality changes too quickly for planning to be anything but an exercise in fantasy beyond about, say, five years.

Government has a place in supporting basic scientific research that has a good chance of being applicable in many different futures, but STS and ISS aren't basic scientific research, they're massively expensive engineering and operational efforts.

Re:commercialism

[ghjm]

On the other hand, if Armageddon had been shot on the ISS, it would probably have looked like NASA closed circuit TV. Haven't you noticed that anything done in space or by NASA is poison for TV production values?

Re:commercialism

[Midwedge]

This is kind of what I thought of too. Even if it's just on a small scale it seems to me many companies would pay to have experments done for them in no/micro gravity. Or even sending their own scientist to do lab experments.

Re:commercialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want to remove linux [microsoft.com]?

That really is the most useless sig I have ever seen!!!

Re:commercialism

[banzai51]

Excuses. All you offer are excuses.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

Even if it's just on a small scale it seems to me many companies would pay to have experments done for them in no/micro gravity. Or even sending their own scientist to do lab experments.

Companies look at the cost and realize it's not worth it. They can get a hundred staff-years or more of work on the ground for the cost of sending one employee into space.

The value of microgravity to science has been greatly overhyped. But should that surprise you?

Re:commercialism

[susano_otter]

...this is a good thing

Because, of course, companies that focus exclusively on short-term returns have consistently demonstrated that this approach is best for their employees, customers, and long-term viability.

Reality changes too quickly...

Last time I checked, reality was actually pretty stable over the long term.

...for planning to be anything but an exercise in fantasy beyond about, say, five years.

The Apollo program was a ten-year plan, and it worked as advertised. Or are you a Moon Hoaxer?

Long-term planning goes on all the time. Good long-term planning, less often. But that doesn't make the idea of long-term planning foolish in every case.

STS and ISS aren't basic scientific research...

I don't really know enough about these projects, or what you mean by "basic scientific research", to respond to this, except to say that I expect that they're more likely infrastructure--a foundation on which basic research can be built. They could also, in the context of a long-term plan, be effective practice for even more extreme endeavors. Whether or not that qualifies as your "basic research", I don't know.

...they're massively expensive engineering and operational efforts.

The best things in life may be free, but a lot of the really good stuff is pretty expensive. The Hoover Dam. The MRI scanner. The Internet. &c. Just because it's expensive, that doesn't mean it's useless. Although, as I did point out, the current projects all seem pretty aimless, and I'd rather not see the money spent at all, than to keep spending it they way we are right now. Meanwhile, it's been pointed out numerous times that there's no real shortage of resources. In that sense, these projects aren't very expensive at all.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

Because, of course, companies that focus exclusively on short-term returns have consistently demonstrated that this approach is best for their employees, customers, and long-term viability.

You left out 'shareholders', who are the ones that really matter. The purpose of a company is to legally maximize shareholder value. Period. Companies that ignore short-term issues usually don't do this. Successful companies can play long-term planning games, but, as I said, this is almost always a waste of effort. I am sure you can think of situations where it led corporations to make horrible mistakes.

The Apollo program was a ten-year plan, and it worked as advertised. Or are you a Moon Hoaxer?

The Apollo program successfully landed 12 men on the moon.

It was also a terrific example of the failure of long-term planning. Or do you think the goal of Apollo was the construction of those Saturn V lawn ornaments at KSC and JSC? Landing men on the moon became a pyrrhic accomplishment, done at great cost for no significant ultimate benefit.

Re:commercialism

[Eric Smith]

Do you know any NASA employees? Have you actually spoken to them about their work,

Yes. Some NASA employees are even more cynical about the outlook than I am. Others are more optimistic. As everywhere, opinions vary.

And by the same token, isn't it a bit naive to expect that NASA should be magically free of PHBs and bureaucracy

It would be. It also would be naive to expect that NASA should have any less PHBs and bureaucracy than any other government agency.

The primary function of government is to absorb tax dollars. NASA is just as good at that as any other part of the government. Of course, the primary function of commercial enterprise is also to pull in money, but there are feedback mechanisms that usually make sure that the money is better spent, at least over the long term.

Re:commercialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post, but you made a small error:

The X-33 was a Lockheed-Martin design, not Boeing. The DC-X, OTOH, was a Boeing (or, more specifically, McDonnel-Douglas) design.

Re:commercialism

[spruce]

Well there's already plans to start putting people's remains and other little items on the moon.

Re:commercialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn the ISS into a hotel/casino and make gambling legal on orbit. We can call it "New Las Vegas". Hundreds if not thousands would be willing to pay for the trip.
Regards,
A. Dealer

Re:commercialism

[Racine]

Finally, Columbus never made it to what we thing of as America, unless you count finding a American Virgin Island or two. In five trips he never set sight on the mainland. And it's false that everyone though the world was flat! Aristotle determined it wasn't. Columbus's error was he significantly underestimated the diameter.

Also of note is that fact that the round Earth theory was also an official teaching of the Catholic Church at the time, judging by the fact that its explicitly taught in the Summa Theologica (14th century, St. Thomas Aquinas), by far the most influential and authoratative theological work of the era. I'm curious to know where the idea of a flat earth really came from. Did people really believe that? Who were the proponents? Was it something that elementary school teachers just made up to make the story sound more dramatic?

Re:commercialism

[Eric Smith]

Oops. My apologies to Boeing/McDonnell!

Re:commercialism

[MacAndrew]

What? You've never heard of the politically influential Flat Earth Society? They have a Web site and might send you a brochure. ;-)

It's a textbook myth. You can find info about Columbus and his contemporary science online. It was pretty much impossible to be a sailor and not notice the round earth. I think C estimated its diameter at about 4,000 miles, so he was waaayyy off in his estimate of the distance to India, plus he had no idea of the intervening continent unless he was hanging out at the Viking bars. (The intervening continent turned out to be worth a lot, though.)

I don't know where these idiotic ideas of flat earths and cherry trees come from. As a starting point you might enjoy the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." It has a web site; with a quiz!

Re:commercialism

[MacAndrew]

Yep, there is money to be made, but not much and not for a long time. I'm particularly grumpy about humans in space, because they cost so much and divert funds from unmanned research probes. A lot of aerospace engineers feel the same.

Columbus was a better investment bet. I don't know how much was invested in the 1492 project (3 used ships and crews?), but I doubt it amounts to much of anything in 2002 dollars. Probably not enough to get a grapefruit into space. (Actually, that would be a cool statistic -- I just dropped an email to a professor who asked the same Q.)

Re:commercialism

[waimate]

Actually, Chris discovered what came to be known as Cuba, or at least the Carribean. Columbus never even saw what became America.

Re:commercialism

[NTDaley]

> Or that many of those settlers were not so much seeking new opportunities as fleeing the oppression of Europe?

Okay. What we need to do is find a group of people with the capability to go into space, and start oppressing them.

Re:commercialism

[Daetrin]

I don't know anything about the flat earth vs. round earth debate (other than that there were people who believed both, i ahve no idea what proportion) However along with taking the smallest estimate for the earth's diameter, he also took the biggest estimate he could find for the distance from the Europe to China, further reducing the calculated distance heading west.

Re:commercialism

[MacAndrew]

I wouldn't have made it out of the harbor in one piece, so I don't mean to criticize too harshly. :)

Someone must be burning to know that the Earth is about 8,000 in diameter, fatter at the Equator. There, that's as much showing off as I can muster. More.

Here is an exercise.

Re:commercialism

[Alex Belits]

It means that NOTHING that involves prolonged scientific research engineering projects can be done by private companies.

The company -- any company -- can't live forever, the limit differs depending on industry and company's various details, but company that lives for too long becomes way too powerful to prevent it from becoming a danger to the rest of society. Usually before that happens company dies (or becomes irrelevant) for all kinds of reasons, and if it doesn't happen, government has to force it to shut down through antitrust law. As more companies will be created, and more of them will become destructive, governments may be forced to create other kinds of laws or even methods of its enforcement, and companies' life will be still limited.

This brings us to the main problem -- as long as project's duration before becoming profitable exceeds company's reasonable lifetime, government has to handle the project until it will create something that companies can use. This means, to have sustainable progress in the areas that require long-term projects, we need a government (or governments) that can handle them.

This kind of government can't be small, or too concerned with the welfare of the companies that exist at its time -- after all, when a project will become commercially usable all those companies will be dead, and new companies will pick it up. This is absolutely contrary to the ideology of pretty much everything that is in power (republicans, democrats) or anywhere close to it (libertarians) in this country, but this is the only way to overcome various problems that can be only solved with long-term projects. Humans as a whole will benefit from it.

Re:commercialism

[Alex Belits]

Okay. What we need to do is find a group of people with the capability to go into space, and start oppressing them.

That's Russians.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

Yes, scientific research often requires government funding (either directly or by subsidy). This is a feature of things involving positive externalities.

The problem with this sort of thing, though, is that it's difficult for the government to determine what's actually good for society, vs. what just satisfies political interests. NASA gets funded not because space is important, but because it employs many people in many congressional districts (or sends money to private contractors who do).

This problem will occur with *any* large government program. It certainly happened with the shuttle and the space station, and is a good part of the reason why each is such a disaster. It would also apply to any large future government space activity like a mission to Mars.

Re:commercialism

[Alex Belits]

Of course, government's decisions are often based not on what they are supposed to be based (the good of the people) but on various stupid details of its bureaucracy's functionality, lobbying, etc. However that certainly beats companies' decisions that are always based on the short-term profit goals, sometimes on internal bureaucracy, politics, etc. and NEVER involve anything related to the good of the people in a long term. Worse yet, those companies whose lifetime approaches the timeframe of a lomg scientific or engineering projects are often more infested with inefficient bureaucracy than the government.

Re:commercialism

[pfdietz]

That companies cannot do something is not an argument that the government must do it, if the government is also bad at it.

For something like massive space expenditures, the correct answer may be that no one should do it. Maybe at some point in the future technology will have advanced enough that companies or government can get around their institutional shackles. Until then, it's just flushing money down the drain.

Re:commercialism

[Alex Belits]

This is not an answer -- if no one will do it, we likely will all die because we basically have all eggs in one basket. However what is even more important, someone has to do that simply because this is the nature of human society development -- if there will be nothing to explore, we will reduce ourselves to bickering over limited resources and power over each other, thus producing another stretch of Dark Ages.

Russia

[nogoodmonkey]

Russia seems to be more concerned with sending tourists to space than contributing funds to the further the space station. I guess NASA was just helping them construct a Motel 6.

Re:Russia

[c.derby]

i'm sure that their main concern with "sending tourists" is the revenue that they generate (at $1M+ a pop).

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

If Russia has spare seat in the Soyouz isn't it better they get someone to pay $100M to use it. Rather than have the launch cost nearly the same but with $100M less in funds.

Re:Russia

[simong_oz]

Yeh, of course it was Russia that cancelled the module which would have allowed 6 astronauts to be up there conducting experiments 24/7 ... which was one of the main reasons to build a low orbit space station.

Re:Russia

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Russia has its politics and budgets too. Throw in a struggling economy and you have some reasons why they might be balking on payments. They just anounced too that they will not be providing the Soluz life boats in the near future. (article in Aviation Week).

We may get a choice, Russian participation in the space program or security for their stockpiles of weapons grade neuclear material. You choose.

Re:Russia

[c.derby]

I did some checking and it seems that the rumored cost of a trip is $20M or so.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they wouldn't be trying to sell a seat to every rich Tom, Dick, and Lance if we weren't asking for money from them.

You only need money when someone wants to take it from you in trade.

Re:Russia

[argmanah]

Russia seems to be more concerned with sending tourists to space than contributing funds to the further the space station. I guess NASA was just helping them construct a Motel 6.

You do realize that the reason that they are sending celebrities into space is so that they can raise money to fund the space program right?

Heck, I wish the NASA was forward thinking enough to sell seats on the shuttle to raise money. Anything to reduce the demand on our tax dollars.

David

Re:Russia

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Russia seems to be more concerned with sending tourists to space than contributing funds to the further the space station. I guess NASA was just helping them construct a Motel 6.

Nice criticism. Now, take a moment to think about it. The russians can not economically support their space program, so they fly VERY rich people to space to defray their costs. Our space agency is now becoming strapped for cash so NASA GIVES UP and mothballs the ISS.

The russians win this space race IMO

Re:Russia

[poot_rootbeer]

So the Russian space program is more interested in making millions of dollars than spending millions of dollars?

Whoa!

Re:Russia

[sh00z]

of course it was Russia that cancelled the module which would have allowed 6 astronauts to be up there conducting experiments 24/7

Uh, that's 100% wrong. The Habitation Module was to be US-provided hardware. As a matter of fact, the Russian Space Agency tried to use NASA's cancellation of the Hab to justify keeping Mir in orbit longer

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was being sarcastic.

Re:Russia

[vectra14]

cost of space tourist trip - $20 mil
cost of building and launching a soyuz - $10 mil

so maybe you see why we're sending tourists up? if lance bass would of been able to pay the $20 mil, we wouldn't have these problems right now.

and really, as long as the tourist pays, it can be a cow as far as i care. hey, free orbital milk anyone?

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he refers to the Crew Rescue Vehicle, which would have allowed 7 permanent residents. NASA scrapped it, limiting the station to 3 permanent residents.

Re:Russia

[nogoodmonkey]

where did you get the $10 million figure? I am certain that it costs much more than that.

salaries, materials, fuel, a muzzle for lance bass, etc. ;-)

so what we have discovered is that russia has moved from hating capitalists to pretty much becoming a capitalistic country? nasa didnt want for tito to go up into space, so russia stepped in.

Re:Russia

[mrfrostee]

Yeh, of course it was Russia that cancelled the module which would have allowed 6 astronauts to be up there...

Score:5?. Not only is the Habitation Module that increases the crew capacity from 3 to 7 built by the U.S., it is mostly complete and ready to launch. It has been sitting in Florida since the Y2K regime change at the White House when the new president decided he had better things to spend money on than launching it.

When Congress asked (then NASA Administration) Dan Goldin why NASA was going to go along with reducing crew capabilities and gutting most research from the ISS program, he answered "It is my job to promote the administration's policies, not to defend them", and "The president made his budget priorities clear during the election, and the American people chose."

The Russians had nothing to do with it.

Re:Russia

[zoombat]

Nice criticism. Now, take a moment to think about it. The russians can not economically support their space program, so they fly VERY rich people to space to defray their costs. Our space agency is now becoming strapped for cash so NASA GIVES UP and mothballs the ISS.

Well, actually NASA isn't talking about scrapping ISS because they are low on cash, they're talking about it because Russia is low on cash, despite their space tourism. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that NASA couldn't benefit financially from shooting tourists into space...

Re:Russia

[vectra14]

i think you're absolutely right on the second part

the 10 mil figure comes from an interview with either the director of RSC Energia or the russian Mission Control... not sure, sorry :)

but i'm fairly certain its 10 mil... things in russia are done MUCH, MUCH more cheaply (at the cost of convenience, and one could argue, safety).

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

HELLO!? TOURISTS = MONEY. If Russia hadn't been taking Al Gore's advice on how to ruin their economy they might not be in this mess!

On that note: "Bass in Space, April '03!"

Re:Russia

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Well, actually NASA isn't talking about scrapping ISS because they are low on cash, they're talking about it because Russia is low on cash, despite their space tourism. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that NASA couldn't benefit financially from shooting tourists into space...

They say they can no longer afford to cover the russians, the implication is they are exceeding budget and unable to sustain it.

Still believe in that thing?

[Yoda2]

I recently watched the IMAX Space Station 3D move and not only did it convice me that the entire space program is a hoax, but that this so-called "Russia" place is too.

Re:Still believe in that thing?

[Yoda2]

Did I mention that I'm not a strong speller?

Re:Still believe in that thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had watched it on a decent home cinema set-up with a flat screen you would feel differently! :-)

Re:Still believe in that thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing, what happens if people find out the WRITE truth?

Re:Still believe in that thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the conspiracy fears the people having the WRITE stuff.

Also at New Scientist

[singleantler]

More at New Scientist

It would be a great shame to lose the manned presence in space, even if the amount of research they have been able to do is heavily restricted by having a very small crew up there at any one time. The crew is limited by the size of the escape module - currently a Soyuz. It looks like it'll be 2012 by the time the planned NASA replacement escape craft is ready, so they're going to have to come up with something different in the meantime, or the ISS isn't going to fulfil anywhere near it's potential for research.

Paul.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

what's wrong with a few parachutes?

Re:Also at New Scientist

[Mad Marlin]

What I don't understand is why they don't just send up another Soyuz module as a second lifeboat© Then they could evacuate a crew of 6, only 1 less than their originally intended crew of 7 astonauts© Is there not enough docking ports on the ISS to do that?

Re:Also at New Scientist

[Eric Smith]

It looks like it'll be 2012 by the time the planned NASA replacement escape craft is ready,

I thought the escape craft plan had been scrapped entirely?

Re:Also at New Scientist

[simong_oz]

In short, no :)

The Pirs module has two docking ports which can accomodate either a Soyuz (3-person emergency lifeboat) or the Progress (unmanned resupply ship), so if there were 2 Soyuz docked to the ISS, then it would be impossible to resupply the ISS (except with the shuttle and that would be bloody expensive).

Here is some good information

Re:Also at New Scientist

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

so they're going to have to come up with something different in the meantime, or the ISS isn't going to fulfil anywhere near it's potential for research.

Aside from cost does anyone know why we don't leave say . . . Endeavour up there? Pretty simple, two simultaneous shuttle missions one debarks their plane and boards the other to go home. It may need another airlock but we could do that easier than the new spacecraft, and the shuttle adds habitable productive space along with the capability for altitude adjustments etc...

Re:Also at New Scientist

[singleantler]

I think the other docking port they have is for the visiting shuttle / supply craft.

I would think they would be able to find people to crew the station even if there was not enough places in the escape craft. I don't know if it's a health and safety argument stopping them doing this, or just worries about bad publicity if there was an accident and crew died. There was talk about a non-returning mission to Mars using older astronauts & scientists, which seemed like a marvellous cost-cutting measure (not working out how to get back.) But the thought of watching people die was seen as too traumatic for the public to see, even though there were several well-qualified volunteers.

There seem to be lots of comments here about the Russians being disregarded because they can't afford to pay for their part of the project. Now, while I'm sure there are contracts about payment and stuff, I thought the main reason Russia was involved in ISS was for the expertise and experience they got from running Mir for such a long time and the use of some of their very reliable 'ships. The Soyuz craft have been extremely useful, but their replacements were supposed to be here by now, certainly the liftboat ones. Lets face it, it was pretty obvious Russia wasn't going to be able to pay for the ISS by the time it was being built, so there's no point being surprised about it now.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[singleantler]

I thought about this as well. I'm not sure they have enough radiation shielding to stay up there long-term, the cumulative damage has too high a chance of damaging something they need on re-entry.

I'm sure I've seen a stat. on the number of days a shuttle is rated for staying in space, but I can't find a reference for it.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[singleantler]

Apparently not, at least the New Scientist article has quite a bit about the project that will supply the escape craft, as well as the future shuttle replacement.

It's a bit of a loop really: more science can't be done because there's too few people on board, a larger escape craft isn't required because there's so few people up there. I'm sure the lack of space in the Soyuz was used as one of the excuses for cutting funding for putting more people up there to do some decent science.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[AzrealAO]

There aren't enough consumables on the Space Shuttle to leave it up there for more than about two to three weeks. Systems aboard the Shuttle can probably only operate for a set amount of time before they need maintenance. The Soyuz Capsules they're using for Lifeboats now, only have an on orbit lifetime of 6 months before they have to be swapped out. One of the reasons they can't put two Soyuz up there at a time, is that it would double the number that have to be made, and double the number of Taxi flights the russians would have to launch.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I thought about this as well. I'm not sure they have enough radiation shielding to stay up there long-term, the cumulative damage has too high a chance of damaging something they need on re-entry.

I wonder how expensive it would be to change that in lieu of building another vehicle or perhaps build an ISS module that could act as a hangar?
BTW, very interesting answer

Re:Also at New Scientist

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

There aren't enough consumables on the Space Shuttle to leave it up there for more than about two to three weeks.

Good point, however there is room aboard the shuttle to bring its own consumables and if it is not running, providing life support etc... the station should be able to increase its sustainability. I would bet that they could make the shuttle go for 6 months if they put effort into it (yes and modifications). Though, I am only speculating.
I vote this as my favorite /. topic this year.

Re:Also at New Scientist

[singleantler]

I wonder how expensive it would be to change that in lieu of building another vehicle or perhaps build an ISS module that could act as a hangar?

Hmm, probably still extremely expensive to change the shuttle - it would all have to be re-tested, which is where most of the delays and money comes in. Within the design there is probably just not enough space for shielding wiring and components more than they are, without slapping an entire extra shell around the thing, which makes your idea of a hanger very interesting.

First you'd need something big enough to put the shuttle in (which could be a problem in and of itself, as you have to get the segments of it up there.) Then you have to have enough shielding in the hanger to make it worthwhile. I wonder if it would be better to have something like water in bladders around the hanger, rather than thick metal. Still very heavy to boost to orbit, but easier to fit the maximum amount of it in to the shuttle bay - no strange sizes to fiddle in, just a tank. And you could use the tank for something else once you had it up there.

Hmmm, probably easier to build on another airlock for an extra Soyuz, although then you have the problem of replacing two every 6 months, as someone else has pointed out. Perhaps some extra protection / a hanger for the Soyuz would mean they could last longer up there?

Re:Also at New Scientist

[Mad Marlin]

How about sending a second "Pirs" module?

ISS Costs

[ProfBooty]

Is this really a bad thing. Considering that the astronauts on board spend 85% of the time doing station upkeep. The science value of the mission is questionable. If NASA got the proper funding to go with the original plan of 7 astronauts, I could see the value of maintaining the station as valuable science could be preformed.

Shut it down for now, until more money gets passed to make the ISS valuable. Perhaps NASA should redirect more of its money from the ISS to new propulsion technologies (nuclear etc) to reduce lift costs (yes I know you probably wouldnt want to do a launch from the ground to LEO with nuclear rockets, but perhaps other avenues could be approached).

Re:ISS Costs

[CrazyDuke]

"Perhaps NASA should redirect more of its money from the ISS to new propulsion technologies (nuclear etc) to reduce lift costs (yes I know you probably wouldnt want to do a launch from the ground to LEO with nuclear rockets, but perhaps other avenues could be approached)."

Things like this?

Re:ISS Costs

[gorilla]

There is no question about it, the science value is zero. The permanant crew have no time other than keeping the station going.

Re:ISS Costs

[gnovos]

Shut it down for now, until more money gets passed to make the ISS valuable.

The very very sad thing is... This will never happen. Nasa's budget gets CUT, always.

Re:ISS Costs

[Cyno]

What about redesigning the shuttle to launch from a maglev accelerated platform, which might be able to lift it to LEO, then fire internal engines or external rockets to leave the atmosphere. Electricity sure is cheap these days.

Re:ISS Costs

[pfdietz]

That would be an entirely new vehicle. The fundamental problem is that the demand for launches is so low that we'd never recoup the development cost. The lack of demand is just another sign that there's not a whole lot worth doing in space.

Re:ISS Costs

[Christopher Thomas]

What about redesigning the shuttle to launch from a maglev accelerated platform, which might be able to lift it to LEO, then fire internal engines or external rockets to leave the atmosphere. Electricity sure is cheap these days.

Firstly, LEO is already outside the atmosphere, so your second phase makes little sense. You'd actually just be doing a course correction (any initial ballistic launch trajectory would be an orbit that intersects Earth's surface).

Secondly, you'd have serious problems keeping the gun from destroying itself on firing. If you have air in the barrel, the coils, rails, or what-have-you have to deal with a mach-25 sonic boom at ground zero. If you don't have air in the barrel, you have to figure out how to keep an aperture the size of the space shuttle open while allowing no air to pass through it (actually, forcing air to flow *out* of it, if possible). This is possibly do-able with extremely strong jets of air beside the aperture.

Thirdly, your gun will be tens of kilometres long if it fires cargo, and thousands of kilometres long if it fires manned craft. Acceleration must be low enough not to damage the cargo, and you have a lot of delta-V to build up. A cargo gun would have to be vertical or near-vertical; the turning radius at reasonable lateral acceleration is larger than the gun. So, you have to build a 10-km tower. The manned gun would have to be a nearly-flat ramp ending above most of the atmosphere, because a human-safe lateral acceleration requires a turning radius that is again longer tham most of the gun.
In summary, even a cargo-rated magnetic cannon is likely to be impractical to build.

The "super gun" is a special case, as it can sustain a substantially stronger acceleration than a magnetic cannon. However, it too is huge, and a space-capable version has not been demonstrated to my knowledge (just sub-orbital capable). You also run into serious materials problems scaling it up to accept projectiles the size of even an unmanned shuttle (you're stuck with very small cargo capsules).

Lastly, while electricity is cheap, building a very large launch facility isn't. Your construction cost gets amortized into the launch cost, over the maintenance lifetime of the facility (plan on an amortization time of at most 10-20 years). This problem is an important one for laser launching facilities and space elevators, too (my own calculations show that you'd need _extremely_ high ascent speeds on an elevator to move enough cargo to keep the launch cost below even current costs).

Food for thought. I'm honestly not sure if we'll see a practical replacement for chemical rockets this century (elevator is the best candidate, and it'll be quite some time before materials production matures and other problems are solved).

Use very little oxygen?

[chopkins1]

Yes, but do you use very little food or water?

Re:Use very little oxygen?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Yes, but do you use very little food or water?"

Funny. I have a feeling you'll get a job writing for Will and Grace.

Re:Use very little oxygen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling you'll get a job writing for Will and Grace.

Just to be clear on this - that's an insult, right?

Re:Use very little oxygen?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't like fag tv?

This is a blatant attempt...

[Randolpho]

... by NASA to get more funding. I say good for idea. :)

Cant get blood from a stone...

[stratjakt]

Did they really think Russia had any cash to piss away on the space station in the first place?

I mean, buying or creating the technology is one thing, but maintaining and supporting it is another.

That's why russian submarines end up at the bottom of the ocean (or sold to a cocaine smuggler), and their nuclear plants meltdown and irradiate hundreds of square miles.

They may as well ask Eithiopia to cough up their share.

Re:Boot the Russians Out

[Smallpond]

Yeah, lets have another Taco Bell target in the Pacific. Then we can get
on with the unmanned stuff and do some real science.

What...

[drblunt]

no one put up the obligatory "In Soviet Russia..." joke, yet?
*sigh*

Re:What...

[mcflaherty]

Well, ok...

In Soviet Russia, SpaceStation abandons You!

Re:What...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, space station shuts YOU down.

What about the science!!!

[selectspec]

If they abandon the station for a year all of the vegitables will die!

Re:What about the science!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that is the science.

hmmm

[Rubbersoul]

In Soviet Russia ... O this is just to easy ...

Conspiracy

[Shadow Wrought]

Right. Like we are supposed to believe that there were ever astronauts on the space station in the first place.

"Yeah, we're, uh, 'demanning' it, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, yeah."

Another example...

[fxcrxsherplus]

NASA is making itself look stupid here. They already have many projects that are "contingent" on the ISS being occupied. Who was the genius that counted on Russia to pay its bills in the first place? If the future of the ISS (and any other space exploration for that matter) is going to be "contingent" on Russia's financial prudence... geez.

Re:Another example...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you could de-orbit ISS and send it to Mars instead ? Could the structure stand any acceleration like that ?

Steve

First hand experience

[Alomex]

I attended a meeting of one of the ISS partner nations. In exchange for their contribution they are allotted space in "lockers" to run their experiments. They had a hard time finding any research institution or private interest who wanted to use the locker (the price was around $10,000 per pound). Apparently there is not much current scientific need for a zero gravity environment.

They were willing to let you fly merchandise if you wanted to, so you could buy a space pen, or perhaps fly your uncle's ashes to outer space.

I left the meeting thinking that the ISS should never have been built, and this comes from somebody who is enthralled about space exploration.

Re:First hand experience

[Chris Y Taylor]

"I left the meeting thinking that the ISS should never have been built, and this comes from somebody who is enthralled about space exploration."

The problem with not building the ISS is, that we would have had to come up with some other gov't project to keep all those former Soviet rocket scientists busy. There isn't enough commercial work for them all, and we couldn't very well have them being unemployed. A large number of starving weapons researchers let loose in a multipolar world is just a Dr. Evil-style disaster waiting to happen.

I would have preferred a moonbase, but I can also think of worse make-work projects that could have been chosen instead.

Re:First hand experience

[prisoner-of-enigma]

One has to consider what we'd have if all the money spent on the ISS had instead been spent on a moonbase. In LEO, you have to drag everything of value up with you, but on the moon there's plenty of materials available to make life much cheaper to maintain.

You can extract oxygen from moon dust. Mix with a little hydrogen in a fuel cell and you get electricity, heat, and water, all necessary for a moonbase. Then crack the water back apart via electrolysis using solar cells (or a small thermoelectric nuclear) and you've got breathing oxygen and hydrogen to use all over again.

Experiments on moon dust from the Apollo missions even showed that if you mixed water with moon dust and a few other things you could get pretty good cement out of it, and protection from micrometeorites and cosmic rays to boot. Silicon, aluminum, and even titanium are present in moon dust and could be refined along with other elements to make some inefficient but cheap solar cells to put all over the lunar surface. Who cares if they're inefficient when you can have a few square miles of them with no atmospheric attenuation to worry about?

We have wasted more than just money on the ISS, we've wasted time and we've wasted the legacy and inertia of Apollo. What a shame it would be if the last to set foot on the moon should die of old age before the next visitor should go there. Sad, and pitiful.

Re:First hand experience

[3-22]

I agree... What a waste of money and time. The strange thing is I thought it would fail from the start. You can't get more then 2 people to agree on a pizza, how are you going to get a huge international effort to manage a space station. I think it was a idea best left on paper.

It is a shame, I really find space exploration amazing. But the ISS has been a joke and a financial disaster. I'm still amazed by the Pathfinder robot mission, the science value per dollar was incredible. (And we left earth orbit!)

Re:First hand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep reading this again and again on /....

Why is it that you think it's possible to manufacture stuff on the moon? On earth, something as simple as concrete requires a relatively complicated proudction process. Raw materials need to be refined before they can be mixed together and there isn't much water on the moon anyhow. Once you've got concrete - what then? You need functional components, electronics, engines, a power source, air conditioning, water filtering, insulation and heating, not to mention a way of making the said concrete air tight and mostly radiation proof. Do you really think that a simple rover will do all that for you? Bootstrapping isn't viable with today's technology, so they only way you are going to ge a factory on the moon is by transporting the parts from Earth, which, as you said, is far too expensive.

I think that the simplistic attitude a lot of Slashdotters have to space exploration is based on wishful thinking and a naive outlook. Unfortunately, since this post will probably be modded to hell by the said people, I have no choice but to post as an AC.

Re:First hand experience

[spike hay]

Actually, there is quite a bit of free iron on the surface of the moon from asteriods, about .05%. This can be extracted simply be running the soil past electromagnets.

Also, you could have a fiberglass composite inflated structure (very lightweight) with a couple feet of rocks piled on top to protect from radiation.

Re:First hand experience

[Winged Cat]

Why is it that you think it's possible to manufacture stuff on the moon?

Because there's stuff there, not just void. Granted, it'd be technologically difficult, but there is nothing that would need to be developed that seems impossible.

Let's take a simple moonbase, for instance - an area that is protected from solar radiation, large enough to live in, with a way to get in and out and send signals. Dig several meters underground, melting the sides of the tunnel into a solid wall (yes, there's no water involved - so what?). When you're far enough down that cosmic radiation is at Earth surface levels (blocked by all that lunar regolith), dig a cave at that point. Put in a ladder if you want (not an elevator, yet). Melt more regolith to make a couple doors, or maybe bring along an airlock, and seal the tunnel so you can pressurize the cave - slowly, using (in part) oxygen extracted from water ice. Bring a hydroponics facility with a few plants, and feed them with nutrients from the lunar soil you've been excavating. Use the plants to recycle carbon dioxide and human waste, and grow food (eventually, though you'd be importing food for a bit until enough plants grew). Put a solar oven up above to melt more soil, separating it into its components, then bring the refined ore down below so you can shape it by hand. Solar panels would be among the first things you build: sheets of silicon dusted with the proper impurities, with wires placed to capture the resulting electricity.

Granted, you'd have to import a fair buch of stuff at first. The point is to eventually transition to self-sufficiency.

Re:First hand experience

[Cyno]

I left the meeting thinking that the ISS should never have been built, and this comes from somebody who is enthralled about space exploration.

The same could be said about almost everything built for the purpose of making money. If we took money out of the picture the ISS would still be a valuable and useful tool for research, etc. But nobody with the brains to do the research has the money to use the station. Why don't we just paint a gigantic corporate logo on the side of every expensive thing we build: on the side of a Rolls, your house, any large buildings, etc.

But what has me so dumbfounded is the city bus. Who's idea was it to let someone advertise on the side of the public bus? And why didn't they make those commercial corps pay for the bus system completely, so the public could ride for free? I would personally rather see graffiti scrawled over the side of a bus than an advertisement for citibank.

Re:First hand experience

[Alomex]

But nobody with the brains to do the research has the money to use the station.

$10,000 per pound, heck, even $100,000 per pound is well within the grant budget of solid researchers at universities, who often receive million dollar equipment and facilities grants.

Read what I wrote. There simple doesn't seem to be a current need for a zero gravity environment.

Re:First hand experience

[Cyno]

Really? I'm interested to know which research projects you are talking about. I don't know anything about how much money is being given to research grants. I'm curious to know what research still requires use of zero G and what their budget is like because I bet there just isn't the budget backing the research that could use this equipment. It seems awefully wasteful to me to build something like this and then abandon it with the excuse that there's no use for it. Or are you saying we already know everything there is to know about zero G and space?

Re:First hand experience

[Alomex]

Here's what I know:

(1) Getting a million dollar equpiment grant is not too hard if your experiment is half decent. For example look at the National Science Foundation (NSF) awards for this week alone.

(2) There was little interest for renting "locker" space in the ISS.

Re:First hand experience

[prisoner-of-enigma]

No, you don't appear to be modded down, and your questions are completely valid ones, if somewhat uninformed.

Bootstrapping is entirely viable with today's technology. Consider the following:

- Inflatable living habitats are a reality. They've been tested in NASA's vacuum chamber and are suitable for orbital or planetary use. Lunar colonists could excavate a depression in the moon's surface (with a digging tool or explosives), insert the uninflated habitat, inflate it, cover with the same soil that you excavated, and voila! You've got a sealed environment that has micrometeorite protection, both due to the inflatable construction (remember it was designed for orbital use as well) and then you've got the insulation properties of moon soil.

- Cheap, efficient, compact solar cells are a reality. These could be deployed to recharge rover batteries, crack water into hydrogen and oxygen (for breathing, fuel, and later use in a fuel cell). Compact thermoelectric generators also exist that could provide additional sources of power.

- Environmental systems exist that could easily keep a team of people alive, warm, and healthy on the lunar surface for months. These systems are already being used to keep ISS astronauts in a shirtsleeve enviroment.

- The heavy-lift rocket technology exists to get all of the above to the moon -- it has, in fact, existed since the 60's in the form of a Saturn V. Russia's Energia could be pressed into similar service, and even the old Saturn could be built again, probably cheaper than the bill for the ISS is.

As for your comments about the lack of factories on the moon, you're being too shortsighted. Complex factories are needed here on earth to produce complex goods, like microelectronics. But producing a brick, or an iron bar, or growing food is altogether much simpler. Witness that bricklaying an metalworking have been around for millenia without any need of specialized equipment. Primitive materials can be used to make primitive building tools on the moon. It can be done. It has been done, albeit in earthbound labs with lunar soil brought back almost forty years ago.

It's not as hard as you might think.

Re:First hand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

- The heavy-lift rocket technology exists to get all of the above to the moon -- it has, in fact, existed since the 60's in the form of a Saturn V.

Afraid not. There are no more existing Saturn V's, and the only engineers who worked on them and understood them are all either dead or long retired. This technology would have to be completely redeveloped from experience with current (smaller) production engines. I believe the Russians have some very large prototype boosters which were worked on more recently though.

Re:First hand experience

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Your statement is true only in the sense that no tooling, dies, jigs, or parts exist today, but that's specious and misleading. What takes the most time in desiging a heavy-lift platform? I'll tell you: research and development. If we were to reproduce the Saturn V we'd only have to do a token amount of R&D compared to making a new platform from scratch. The cost savings would be immense. Articles in Air & Space and Discover magazine have already been published, and the numbers are sound.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS abandons NASA!!!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[cyt0plas]

The moderator seemed to be in a little bit of a hurry. It was "ISS abandons Russia", not "Russia abandons ISS" :)

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what, in Russia these days they speak with a Dutch accent?

Say "nuclear wessel" 10 times, then come back and post a better response ;)

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

No

uth thofiat wuthian guyths speakth liketh this.

Devil's Advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok... ponder this for a moment. Maybe this isn't a bad thing?

As long as the station lies dormant and routine maintence takes place, what is the worst that could happen to the ISS? The potential benefits are that we would be saving both American and Russian space program dollars that could be used on other projects. I'm sure we could still send up missions to add additional modules to the ISS, just leave the station uninhabited for a few years.

Maybe this sort of refocusing of our uses for the space station and immediate priorities is what is actually needed right now to give both American and Russian space programs a little bit of budget breathing room?

-James

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Tackhead]

> As long as the station lies dormant and routine maintence takes place, what is the worst that could happen to the ISS?

It stays in orbit.

> The potential benefits are that we would be saving both American and Russian space program dollars that could be used on other projects. I'm sure we could still send up missions to add additional modules to the ISS, just leave the station uninhabited for a few years.

"It stays in orbit" is the worst-case scenario, because it means "...and we continue to waste money on it, get zero science out of it, and because we know that someday we'll have to bring it back online, we can't do any real science in the interim".

Which is essentially the status quo. Money-leeching zero-science space station (ISS) in orbit, extraordinarily-high-cost launch vehicle program (Shuttle) burning the rest of the budget to keep it there.

The best thing that could happen to the ISS is that it deorbits, and a chunk of debris takes out half the Shuttle fleet while it's still on the ground.

Then, we have no space station. Big budget savings, and no real loss - we weren't doing any science or satellite construction or interplanetary-probe-fueling in low earth orbit anyways.

And we have no Shuttle programme. Huge budget savings, and no real loss - for a while, NASA goes back to unmanned boosters, like Atlas, Delta, Ariane, and yes, even Energia, like anyone doing real work in space is doing.

With all the money you save, you develop a new cheap heavy-lift vehicle, while working on next-generation propulsion systems like nuclear rockets and ion engines for deep space activities.

You test these technologies out on faster, better, and not cheaper space probes. Europa orbiters/landers. Semi-autonomous Mars rovers. Lunar soil/ice probes. Insanely-Long-Baseline-Interferometry radio and optical telescopes to look for atmospheric signatures of planets around other stars. A Pluto/Charon flyby before the damn atmosphere freezes over, and with an ion or nuclear engine, maybe a flyby of another Kuiper Belt Object on your way to the heliopause.

ISS was the politically-correct renaming of "Space Station Freedom" once we realized the Cold War was mostly over, and we couldn't afford to build "Freedom" ourselves. Just like the race to the moon, "Freedom" (ca. 1986) was a space station that we had to have, not to do any science, but simply because the Russkies had just launched one named "Peace", and it was kinda embarassing for them to have a space station and us not to have one.

But hey, let's keep it in orbit. If you're a NASA administrator, and Congress has been giving you billions of dollars every year for 17+ years not to do science, isn't the perpetual continuation of ISS/Shuttle - and now you don't even have to build the frickin' ISS to keep the dollars flowing, so you're being paid to do neither science nor flashy PR projects - the kind of thing you have wet dreams about every night?

It must suck ass if you're a scientist, though.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[gorilla]

Well it can't stay in orbit forever. In the orbit it's in, it's affected by atmospheric drag, which is why it has to be reboosted by Progress cargo craft.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Raul654]

"How can you judge something if you've never been there, that's what they do in Russia." --Bart Simpson

I thought that it

[Anonymous Coward]

had basically been mothballed. The 3-man crew that was up there was doing nothing but house-keeping chores 24/7. I'd read that between cooking, cleaning, maintenance, etc., they had no time for doing, um, space station stuff or whatever they are supposed to accomplish for um-teen billion dollars.

Weren't they supposed to have a crew of 7 by now doing real science and space manufacturing?

What a waste. Do it right or don't do it at all. Abandon ship. Do over!

The real question

[OmegaGeek]

I too would be willing to housesit, but only if there is a broadband connection. And no limit on traffic!!!

Better living through elasticity.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadband would be great, but the lag time would make gaming near impossible.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

I too would be willing to housesit, but only if there is a broadband connection. And no limit on traffic!!!

No problemo! The space station comes with its very own Astra 1K satellite full of nice Internet-enabled Ka transponders! And there will be no other user that you need to share it with, as it's not in a geostationary orbit!

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget to bring a few girls with you, like Jessica Alba.

Quitting is easy...

[citking]

I think that abandoning this project now would be an enitrely awful decision.

Sure, Russia owes us money...but why can't we just finance them for a while? Someday, perhaps, they'll be able to pay.

Another concern: How are the people going to feel who have put a lot of time and effort into this project? The shuttle launch was delayed twice, causing our astronaut on board to miss Thanksgiving. Shall we reward her by telling her that the last 6+ months she spent up there was all for naught?

My suggestion: Keep at it until it is finished. We should have known from the get-go that Russia is a broke country and we should have foreseen the fact that we will need to support them until circumstances change.

Re:Quitting is easy...

[krlynch]

Another concern: How are the people going to feel who have put a lot of time and effort into this project?

Frankly, who cares? You can't base decisions about multiBILLION dollar taxpayer funded expenditures on how cancellation would make people FEEL!! You decide them based on whether the rewards to the taxpayers outweigh the costs of spending their money on this as opposed to something else as opposed to letting THEM spend it themselves.

causing our astronaut on board to miss Thanksgiving

Oh, boo hoo. If she is going to be so broken up about missing Thanksgiving to go into space, maybe she shouldn't have become an astronaut in the first place

Re:Quitting is easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is one of the most brainless comments I have read on slashdot. Influencing a decision over many billions of dollars on the fact that an astronaut missed thanksgiving.

Re:Boot the Russians Out

[foistboinder]

Evict the Russians if they are not willing or able to pay,

Unfortunately, it's the Russians that provide the Soyuz spacecraft (the only means for escape if soemthing goes wrong) and the unmanned Progress spacecraft. The ISS could not operate without either of these (especially the Soyuz).

You use little Oxygen

[slashuzer]

Also, I would be glad to house-sit, I use very little oxygen."

While this is obviously a light hearted comment by the submitter of this story, most people have no idea of just how much Oxygen they use. Even if you take into account that the Oxygen sent up is concenterated and then diluted for "human consumption".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

America is suffering from a loss of vision

[Adam Rightmann]

At one time, America had a vision of it's destiny, to continue to grow, spread and become a full fledged country. Sadly, in the last few decades America is becoming an insular, introspective cowardly nation.

If you ever read classic science fiction from the 1950's, you can feel America's pulse, we were going to conquer space, we were going to colonize orbit, the Moon, Mars, we were going to spread humanity through the Solar System, and eventually the galay. Somehow, in the last 30 years this changed.

Nowadays, Americans want comfort and safety, real heroism is lacking. We'll spend millions on designing a better recliner, with built in cat5 ports and a refrigerator. We'll spend millions on keeping people from smoking cigarettes, ignoring the fact that God gave people free will to decide for themselves. And then, because the budget has been spent on frivolous mandates like family-destroying welfare, we'll give up on space.

I, for one, blame the permissive 60's. Too many baby boomers ruined their mind on hallucinogens, and lost the courage and faith of their forefathers. Now, unless they're guaranteed 100 percent safety and comfort, these boomers won't have anything to do with it. Take NASA's money and spend it on Social Security so I can still rock to the Doors and drive my SUV when I'm 80. Greedy bastards.

What can we do to reclaim America's spirit? I don't think it's a coincidence that America's only Catholic president got us to the Moon. Yes, when you're involved in the True Church, you know that despite all your efforts, Death will get you, so it's better to be in orbit and die in a meteor shower, or die of a pressure suit leak on the Moon, than cravenly hiding in a planned retirement home.

America, let's get back to the Moon, let's go to Mars, and let's bring the Jesuits!

Re:America is suffering from a loss of vision

[I_am_God_Here]

Did you just call the hippies of the 60s greedy? Have you read "The Greatest Generation"? It was about the WWII era people. We went from the greatest generation to perhaps the worst. And yes polititions of today are wimps and coward compaired to 50 years ago.

Just relax one party is in power now and hopefully we'll have a vision soon(for better or worse).

Actually we could have been to mars by now but the moon was doable quicker so we did that instead. It was Kennedys fault we didn't get to mars. He decided we had to beat the russians to the moon. Meanwhile Von Braun wanted to get to mars but was told his dreams were to big and his plans were foolish by politicions.

Re:America is suffering from a loss of vision

[NimrodMCSE]

Having 1 party in power is a good thing? I'm sure the Jews would disagree! Look what happened in Germany when 1 party had total control. Sure the technological innovations during the Nazi party's rule were amazing, but at what cost? I see Dubya and his buddies heading down a similar path and most people are so willing to give up their feedoms for security it's pathetic.What's to be gained by manned missions with the current speed of our spacecraft? Spend that money on creating new propulsion systems and test them on relativly cheap unmanned missions until the designs are proven. Or better yet spend the money on researching alternative power systems for use down here. Ooops! What am I thinking? Then where would Bush and his buddies make their fortune?

Re:America is suffering from a loss of vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh the greatest generation. They saved us from the nazis. And then they brought us nuclear weapons, the cold war, vietnam. They also gave us computers, and presumably some other good stuff as well.

ood thing we had those non-wimps and non-cowards trying to prosecute people for (allegedly) excersise there constitutional rights to associate with and discuss communism. Oh well. Because they lived during a really big war they are by definition the greatest generation.

Re:America is suffering from a loss of vision

[dubious9]

I don't think it's a coincidence that America's only Catholic president got us to the Moon.

I like Kennedy as much as the next guy, but I think there have been presidents that have accomplished feats orders of magnatudes more important than sending a man to the moon.

Yes, when you're involved in the True Church [vatican.va], you know that despite all your efforts, Death will get you, so it's better to be in orbit and die in a meteor shower, or die of a pressure suit leak on the Moon, than cravenly hiding in a planned retirement home.

History is littered with the bodies of those who fought over the "True Church". I have no problem with you being a Catholic, you should have no problem with me not believing in organized religon. More people have died fighting for their religon than for any other cause.

I suggest you examine your faith. Why do you believe? What justification do you having for believing? Think about these, nothing in the history of human civilization has been more dangerous than those violently acting on blind faith. It is naive to think that you have found the one true god, and that you follow the one true faith. What happens to all the Buddists/Muslims/Wiccans/(insert religon here) that just happened to live fantastically selfless lives?

Please don't preach about your one "True Church". You may extoll it values, but don't shove it down my freaking throat.

The Problem with the Space Station

[pgrote]

As many people have commented the space station has been a huge black hole of money.

For each win we've had there we've suffered many setbacks.

85% of their time is required for maintenance.

Very little hard science has been done due to construction delays and retrofitting many of the parts.

Even the science they have done hasn't been much.

Russia may be a joke about contributing, but they have the right idea on raising money. Send people who can afford to millions up there to fund further development.

Re:The Problem with the Space Station

[redfiche]

The reason the Russians don't have any money is all their commercial ventures are falling apart. From the article:

One contributing factor to the budget crisis was the failure in recent months of commercial flights aboard Soyuz vehicles. Although some seats have been sold to European astronauts, the financial collapse of the project to fly pop singer Lance Bass, and the apparent inability of the Russians to find a paying customer for the third seat on the Soyuz that is set to launch next April, have resulted in losses of between $20 million and $30 million. Each Soyuz spacecraft costs $10 million, with additional costs to launch and operate.

Current demand for space tourism does not match the cost. There aren't even enough requests to fill the lockers with experiments or other cargo. The ISS provides very little value, and I don't blame the Russians, especially with their economy, for not wanting to pour any more money into this thing. Especially with their recent spectacular failure trying to launch a comm sattelite.

Re:The Problem with the Space Station

[kalidasa]

It the Bush administration hadn't made it's first NASA-related decision the scrapping of the new Hab module, which would have allowed 7 crew members aboard at a time (think about it, this is a man-hours issue: 3 crew members spend 85% of their time maintaining the station; 7 would have spent about 40% of their time maintaining the station), there would have been far more science done. The shuttle and the station are both prime examples that cheaper is never faster, cheaper is never better.

Re:The Problem with the Space Station

[spaceyhackerlady]

85% [wired.com] of their time is required for maintenance.

Very little hard science has been done due to construction delays and retrofitting many of the parts.

The editorial in the December issue of Sky and Telescope grumbles about this. As the author put it, 30 years ago (i.e. Apollo 17) we had three guys at the Moon, making discoveries. Now we have three guys in low Earth orbit, fixing things.

Sigh.

...laura

Re:The Problem with the Space Station

[tmortn]

I have to disagree. First, Granted the space station is over budget but it is at best an unwise investment, not a black hole. I would call the F-22 development program a balck hole. It has taken that program more than 10 years and has yet to deploy an operational squadron and has cost more money than the total cost of station to date. Then take the fact we are still looking at buying 200 of the things at 200 million a piece and the station problems look pretty small money wise and thats just one of the airforces white elephants, shall we discuss that overpriced flying wing of theirs ? ( by the way don't get me wrong, we need to keep an edge in planes but deffense department procurment procedures are getting insane ) Second the 85% science time is a decent number for the early increments but with Peggy up there right now and a number of automated experiments running in the racks that is simply no longer the case. Granted its still probalbly less than 50% devoted to science but figure out the number of man hours available from a 3 man crew at 25% time for 8 hour days 365 days a year versus around 65% time of a 7 man crew for 14 days time the number of shuttle flights. Plus there is no comparison once you consider long duration experiements are not possible with shuttle, namely the life sciences regarding long term human exposure to a microgravity environment. Somethign we need to know an awful lot about if we ever want to head for Mars.... at least till we develop impluse engines :-) Lastly as to the value of the research ? Well how much money has gone into AIDS reasearch since 1980 ? How many true break throughs have there been ? How much money has been spent on reasearch globably in the last 10 years and how many breakthroughs have their been ? Funding research for profit is a gamble at best and if it where the only measuring stick for granting money no one would ever get money to do it. If we gain nothing but the knowledge of how to survive in the environment of space from station and shuttle then it will be well worth it, the possibility of making other discoveries is just icing on the cake.

Re:The Problem with the Space Station

[tmortn]

sorry about that

I formatted paragraphs but it lost them when

posting. think I figured it out now

Quit making this political

[jobugeek]

How hard is it to tell them, if you don't have the cash then you don't get to play? Fine, so the US pay for the Russian share. Next time Russia wants to send up some people for tests, then we charge them $500,000.

Question

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Was anyone else concerned when the original ISS station plans were brought forth, that the US was *expecting* the ex-USSR to foot some of the costs? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't they broke?

mothballing? Is that like...

[gosand]

Is mothballing like teabagging? For some reason, this reminds me of the joke...
Two guys are sitting in a bar, and one says "you know, I kind of like the smell of mothballs."
The other guy replies "How to you get their little legs apart?"

I hate when nouns are turned into verbs.

Re:mothballing? Is that like...

[Joe Rumsey]

I hate when nouns are turned into verbs.

Don't you mean you hate when nouns are verbed?

Re:mothballing? Is that like...

[gosand]

Don't you mean you hate when nouns are verbed?

I actually had written that, and thought "no, some raving loonie will not get it and start some stupid flame war." So I changed it.

For what it is worth

[Raul654]

(this is not a troll)

I think (1) for the space station is costing us, and (2) what it is costing us to put their asses in space, and (3) for the potential benefits of a larger crew, it would be more than worthwhile to station a larger crew there, even if there is no way for them to escape in case of catastrophe. I mean, look at Mir - all the shit in the world happened to them and they never had a fatality.

Re:For what it is worth

[5KVGhost]

I agree. We're way too cautious with space flight. The Russians are much more realistic.

I'm not suggesting that we want to be careless or cavalier about the loss of life or very expensive equipment, but if our forefathers had had a similar attitude about long ocean voyages then we'd all still be crammed into Europe. Exploration in any hostile environment is inherently risky. If we actually intend to have a long-term, useful presence in space then it's inevitable that people are going to die there. The astronauts and administrators know this already, so we might as well prepare the public for that reality and get some work done.

Re:For what it is worth

[Anonymous Coward]

There were volunteers prepared to go on a one-way mission to the Moon just so they could be the first ones to get their (officially, so that their nation would be the first). They were volunteers, and I don't have a problem with people knowingly risking their own lives, and their own lives only.

However, you are missing an important point. If an accident happened, that would be used as an argument to stop going into space, or at least cut funds further.

Re:For what it is worth

[jesco]

NASA made it onto the moon with technology that seems, politely spoken, old and crappy by now. Mir served in space for several years using mostly, so-called, 'sub-standard' parts by western definition; still it flew and didn't cause anybody to die.

I don't see why there must be so much money spend only to do something we've already done before? I mean, getting a base to the moon, a man/woman on Mars or some probes to Pluto et al would be waaay much of a better use for all that money, in my opinion.

Re:For what it is worth

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing out of the posterior perspective is simple, but doesn't get you anywhere. Yes, MIR never did cause any crew member's death. More by luck than by design, maybe, but that's not the point.

The point would rather be: would *you*, in the position of NASA, dare to face the public uproar and/or the lawsuit for damage compensation by the astronaut's wife, if there ever was a fatality, on an internationally built and crewed space vehicle?
Just try to imagine the reaction of the American public at large, if it turned out that an American astronaut died of an accident, and the cause was some part built by (insert this year's least-liked "rogue state" here) that failed. Can you spell "Let's nuke those careless bastards!"?

For the Russians, this was essentially of no concern, "thanks" to the way their government and society still worked in the days of MIR.

NASA took a very heavy blow after the Challenger accident, both in public standing and in funding.
They may not be able to afford another of similar scale, so they have to be extremely careful.

It all boils down to the price of a human life. From a commercial point of view (and you *were* argumenting about return on investments, see?), it's essentially infinitely expensive --- lawsuits after a fatal incident are likely to kill any commercial venture. From a "nation's ego" point of view, it's still a sad loss, but you can sell it to the public as having been "for a greater good".

NASA has to decide what they are: a commercial enterprise, or an institutionalized version of the American Dream.

Lets generate money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn it into a Big Brother location!
or a Expidition Robinson variant

That would generate enough money!

ISS has completed its poltiical mission

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS never had a scientific mission, but a political one - get the Russians engaged in bilateral scientific work in order to keep scientists from going to work for a bad-guy nation.

NASA either considers this mission over or no longer practical in its current form.

ISS is a meaningless money pit. Its neato to think of a giant space station floating around up there...but in reality that is all it is doing. Its just a tin can floating around with people in it. All of the science that ISS was supposed to do can be achieved through other less expensive measures. There's just little motivation for having a permanent manned station at this point.

NASA needs help!

[PlatinumCursor]

It really is a shame that the governments of the world just don't take space seriously. The future of humanitry rests in the stars, and unimaginable amounts of research can be conducted in space. If only governments would realize that spending money on the future (space), is so much smarter than on the present (military).

NASA is a great program, the best space program in the world. This is something the U.S. should be proud of. But continuous system failures and project cutbacks are tarnishing the image of NASA. NASA needs more funding, its running as on a diet of death, and soon, if the trend continues, our kids might not ever know of a U.S. space program. Send a letter to your senators/representatives today, tell them that NASA is not only the best space program in the world that needs more funding, but the best hope humanity has towards working for the future, instead of worrying about the present.

Re:NASA needs help!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah lets ignore China and other countries who have nuclear weapons and are advancing their long range intercontinental ballistic missle programs at a feverish pace.

Lets pretend that people like Osama Bin Laden don't really exist. That the World Trade Center buildings are still there, that no flight went down in Penn., that the Pentagon didn't have a huge chunk blown out of it and that THOUSANDS of US citizens are DEAD because of some nilistic, terrorist, Muslim extremists!!!

What kind of moron are you? Stop drinking your fucking happy, head up your ass Koolade you dolt! Come back to reality.

Yes money should be spent on our space program. Lets free up some funds by cutting socialistic and pork barrel spending first before we look to cut our Defense dollars. What kind of future are we going to have if we don't pay attention to the PRESENT???

Just stick a couple of antennas on it...

[TheMidget]

... boost it to a 36000km orbit, and sell it to SES Astra as a replacement for their failed 1K satellite!

Skylab II - (FLAMEBAIT!)

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just let that stupid special olympics in space come crashing down. It's been a camel from day one, kowtowing to every country to get them to "contribute" and the politicians stuffed it with as much useless pork as possible.

The great American empire should have an orbital battlestation ^H^H^H^H solar power satellite worthy of its might. If we had actually heeded our great NAZI leaders like von Braun and Reagan, Mars wouldn't be the red planet today.

you're right....

[caino59]

not one private party is interested in manned flights...

there is absolutely no interest obviously..

and there's no reason to try anyway...

caino

Don't touch my .sig there!

Re:you're right....

[pfdietz]

Oh, there's *interest*. There's interest in lots of things that end up not making economic sense. At the end of the day, all the interest in the world won't save a company that can't earn a profit.

Re:you're right....

[scotch]

Please don't use the phrase "At the end of the day" if you want people to take you seriously. Thanks you.

Re:you're right....

[pfdietz]

Sorry. I usually avoid cliches like the plague. :)

Re:you're right....

[grammar fascist]

Please don't use the spelling "thanks you" if you want people to take you seriously.

Thank you.

Re:you're right....

[scotch]

Please don't use the word "fascist" in your nickname if you want people to take you seriously.

Thanks you.

Just abandon it for good

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS serves no purpose. It is too close to the earth to serve as a base for constructing a future space telescope. It is expensive. The residents of the space station do nothing but sit up there and take pictures. I know this sounds jaded but we are basically going to spend about $500 billion dollars on this thing for no reason whatsoever. I would rather put that money into nanotech, quantum computing or alternative energy - tech that could actually improve life on earth.

Re:Just abandon it for good

[tomhudson]

Unfortunately, you're right. The shuttle and ISS were both programs that ended up sucking the life out of the space program.

The space shuttle was originally supposed to be good for 100 missions per copy, at about $100 million turn-around cost. Now it's 25 missions per copy (unless they blow up earlier) at $500 million and up turn-around cost.

The whole space program - from Mercury to Apollo - cost only $25 billion, and it did REAL science.

Re:Just abandon it for good

[simong_oz]

The whole space program - from Mercury to Apollo - cost only $25 billion

actually, it's much closer to $100 billion

and it did REAL science.

I would argue that much of what was achieved was engineering rather than science.

Re:Just abandon it for good

[HaloZero]

I would argue that much of what was achieved was engineering rather than science.

I agree, but, simply put, you can not have one without the other, even if it is in the mist minute way. :o)

Re:Just abandon it for good

[tomhudson]

The article states that the $100 billion you quoted is in 1994 dollars. The figure I quoted is the actual cost in then-year (year that the money was spent) dollars.

Much of what was achieved was engineering, but, let's face it, it was also "rocket science" in the true meaning of the word.

Tax payer's response

[CrayzyJ]

I am all for Research, but as a taxpayer, I have never really liked the idea of the ISS. As others have already noted, the cost to knowledge ratio displays what a huge waste of money this is.

Personally, I'd rather tax money go towards internal problems: homeless, child health care, you know the list. We already pay TOO much in taxes, and I think a real cost benefit analysis should be done with the ISS.

Re:Tax payer's response

[Winterblink]

Before looking at high taxes, it might be worthy to look at how much of taxes goes towards massive military expenditures as opposed to the others you listed in your post. The space program costs start to look like a drop in the bucket then.

Re:Tax payer's response

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, the same statement could have been said about going to the moon! Just the act of keeping people in a space station is about us learning! I would prefer to cut military spending to go to the homeless, don't touch NASA!

*bright eyed optimist?*

Re:Tax payer's response

[NDPTAL85]

Our military expenditures allow us to remain a fully free nation without having to form various humilating coalition arraingements, such as the EU, just for security and strenght.

Re:Tax payer's response

[Jogar the Barbarian]

You can't save everybody. Jesus himself said "The poor you'll always have with you." When you consider moving money into social programs, you have to ask: is the government the best steward of those resources? For bottom-up social programs, I think the answer is a resounding no. You don't have to look any further than the bursting-at-the-seams prison system and the 80-90% recividism rate.

(ahem: Prison Fellowship)

So if we conclude that society itself--i.e., private citizens--is the best source of humanitarian aid, how do we fund them? By lowering taxes.

Re:Tax payer's response

[CrayzyJ]

"So if we conclude that society itself--i.e., private citizens--is the best source of humanitarian aid, how do we fund them? By lowering taxes."

I'm fine with that approach too.

Re:Tax payer's response

[CrayzyJ]

The military, I assert, is an necessary expenditure. (Yes we can bicker and argue about whether or not they spend tax money correct, etc) The Space Station, as cool as it may be, is not necessary (from a Government point of view).

It may be a drop in the bucket, but an extra $5 a month of food stamps is also a drop in the bucket but buys a crap load of food. (yes, yes, we can debate the validity/quality of this program too.)

Much need to be done to lower taxes. let us start with those that are not necessary (from a Government point of view) - i.e. the ISS.

Re:Tax payer's response

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm,

You say: Our military expenditures allow us to remain a fully free nation

I say: PATRIOT Act. You are less free than MANY nations on Earth including Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands.

You say: humilating coalition arraingements(sp), such as the EU

I say: WTF do you think the US is? You were, and are, a bunch of seperate states, that if you were broken up would all be humiliatingly insignificant non-entitites on the world stage (with the likely exceptions of New York, Texas and California).

America isn't HALF the country most of you think it is, if any of you ever left it you would know that. ;)

Re:Tax payer's response

[pyrrho]

hey, I resent that remark! Hawaii would also be a significant entitiy... luau baby!

I say, east coast, join the european union.

Texas, become independent (this will get the Dove's in California to support a big Defense Budget for a change) and the west coast can join the Pacific Rim Union, Hawaii can be a soveriegn nation again since the US government has admitted several times it was illegally annexed.

Galactic law states...

[Anonymous Coward]

Squatter's Rights! It is mine!!!!

Perhaps.. Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be right about that, and I think that it's time that the European Space Agency gets more involved.. Costs shouldn't be a problem for the EU.

I agree.

[Unknown Poltroon]

It was originally planned for what, 15 million, and then thens to congress and beuracracy, is up to 50 billion i think. Anybody remember what skylab costs? Im guessing a few retrofitted boosters would have been much cheaper than this thing. ANyone know why this option wasnt used? IT seemed like we had a perfectly functioning concept, and threw it a way for new high tech gadgets that suck.

WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Things have to be fixed down here before they can be sent up, IMHO."

If more people had the same wrong-headed attitudes as you, we wouldn't have moon cities or the solar power satellites that freed us from dependance upon the kill-crazy Saudi Muslims.

oh, wait...

Re:WRONG!

[Bat_Masterson]

For being such A. Coward, you've got to learn to smile when you say such things... ;-)

Salvage rights

[BigGar']

If it's abandoned and I can get up there, can I claim it under international salvage rights laws and sell off the pieces? It's only 20 million to get there should be easily able to make that back. Sell it as a weekend getaway with the best damn view on the planet, a steal at $500M.

Exposure to vacuum

[Napalm Boy]

Almost certain I remember having this discussion on what would happen first among many possible horrible deaths upon exposure to a complete vacuum (i.e., do you asphyxiate before you freeze to death?).

The answer my friends and I came up with was that the most likely thing to kill you first was the lack of pressure causing your blood to boil off, which would happen relatively quickly: a few seconds after exposure, at best.

Of course, if anybody wants to volunteer to see if I'm right, knock yourself out. =)

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Raul654]

I disagree - If I am not mistaken, the pressure difference your body (14 lb/sqr inch) and space (~0) would cause you to explode almost instantly. Just like when they drag up samples from near the bottom of the ocean, sometimes they get the hollowed out remains of what was a deep sea fish, exploded by the difference in pressure between its natural habitat and ours.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[foistboinder]

If I am not mistaken, the pressure difference your body (14 lb/sqr inch) and space (~0) would cause you to explode almost instantly.

You are mistaken, 14 lbs/sqr inch really isn't that much pressure when you think about it. You will not explode in vacuum, and you could probably last around 30 seconds or so in a vacuum.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Napalm Boy]

Interesting. Wouldn't such an explosion be a by-product of my proposed death (or vice-versa)? Granted that in such an environment, one's blood would begin to boil. The increased pressure on your viens/arteries/capillaries would cause them to explode, as the vapor pressure of all of your internal liquids would cause the same outward pressure.

Since they're related to the same cause (difference in pressure), I wonder if one causes the other or if they'd both happen independently.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[foistboinder]

(i.e., do you asphyxiate before you freeze to death?).

Considering that vacuum acts like an insulator, you'll long be dead before you freeze to death.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[TheMidget]

I disagree - If I am not mistaken, the pressure difference your body (14 lb/sqr inch) and space (~0) would cause you to explode almost instantly.

That pressure difference is the same as 10 meter shallow water, and surface. And for a ten meter dive, you don't even need to do a safety stop!

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Smidge204]

The difference is the deep sea fish are dealing with a MUCH higher pressure difference. At just 300 feet, you've got a pressure difference of about 150psi. (And some of these samples are take from over a mile down).

At a pressure difference of 14psi (slightly higher, actually), you could easily rupture some of the ore fragile tissues - ear drums, sinuses and tear ducts perhaps. The rest of the body would hold up fine all things considered.

So the real, immediate enemy would be heat loss. With no air, theres no convection. The only heat loss is radiation... and unfortunately for you the inky blackness of space is about 4 degrees kelvin (last I heard, anyway). You'ld freeze before you'ld suffocate.
=Smidge=

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[saider]

the pressure difference your body (14 lb/sqr inch) and space (~0) would cause you to explode almost instantly.

Your flesh has enough cohesion to hold itself together, even in a vacuum. When people climb Mt. Everest, where the pressure drops about 40%, they do not explode.

IIRC, the US Air Force has some data on it (too lazy to search right now). The results would be a lot like "the bends" that divers get. Although your blood would not instantly boil, many of the gasses would come out of solution and cause bubbles to form in your blood vessels. This gas would increase the pressure in your blood vessels, damaging the more delicate ones exposed to the vacuum (such as lungs and eyes). As the gas comes out of solution, your internal pressure rises and the process reaches equilibrium. However, you have bubbles in your blood and torn capillaries in various critical regions. This combined with the lack of oxygen is ultimately what would kill you in a vacuum.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Bastian]

Id say asphyxiation and freezing to death wouldn't be a very big problem.

To freeze to death, you'd need to have some matter around to absorb the heat off your body. That ain't going to happen all that quickly in space.

For asphyxiation, you would have the air sucked out of your lungs, but you would probably still have enough oxygen in your bloodstream to keep you going for a minute or two.

I think someting related to part of your body bursting would be the worst problem.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but all boy band members wear shiny clothes, which reflect the emitted heat radiation. Problem solved.

Seriously, though, radiation leakage for a human at 305 K isn't quite as bad as one might think.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Dun Malg]

unfortunately for you the inky blackness of space is about 4 degrees kelvin

But isn't temperature a characteristic of matter? Isn't the inky blackness of space mostly vacuum? How can a vacuum have a temperature? If you put a thermometer in a vacuum, you're getting the temperature of the thermometer glass, right?

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

No, vacuum is an extremely good insulator (think thermos flasks!). With no convection (or conduction) the main source of heat loss is removed. Heat loss from radiation is very very slow.

Ironically their may well be a serious problem with sunburn, if the subject had any exposed skin.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

['Lose', Not 'Loose']

Than I'll loose more then my job!

Hi. That should be 'lose', not 'loose'.

Thanks,
'Lose', Not 'Loose' Guy

P.S. Yes, I know you know that, and that your sig is a joke. I'm just doing my job here.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine having your *entire* body weight on a 3.16 square inch portion of your body... (That's if you weighed 140 lbs....)

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[aiabx]

No, temperature is a characteristic of energy. And there's enough microwave radiation floating around in space to bring anything up to equilibrium at 4K.
-aiabx

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[aiabx]

Vacuum only acts as an insulator as far as conduction of heat is concerned. You will still radiate away all of your heat, and pretty quickly too, though probably not as quickly as you would asphyxiate.
-aiabx

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[TheMidget]

Imagine having your *entire* body weight on a 3.16 square inch portion of your body...

Like, errr, tiptoeing on one foot? And 140 lbs is nothing, as far as geeks are concerned...

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[sunking2]

Assuming a relatively small surface area is exposed then the major immediate concern is blood boiling off. The Russian Orlan space suit has a protective rubber bladder on the inside that is supposed to buy you enough time to save yourself in the event of a glove blowing off or puncture.

The US suit on the other hand put more effort in ensuring that the situation won't occure at all.

My understanding is that it takes 2 seconds or so for your blood to start boiling when exposed to space.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[PyroMosh]

Exactly. Once you pass Armstrong's line, (apx 63,000 ft.) removing yourself from a pressure suit will boil off your blood and other bodily fluids nearly instantly. Possibly even the water in each individual cell would boil off bursting each individual cell if the pressure were low enough.

I mean immagine that. It's not like putting a bomb in a building. It's like putting a bomb in a building, AND putting a small explosive charge INSIDE every brick and every beam and every plank of wood that makes up the building. Then detonating it all at once.

Best case, a few seconds to live. Worst case, death would be immidiate. Or possibly reverse that, depending on your point of view.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[spike hay]

You will not explode in a vacuum, provided you exhale before depressurization. In space, you would remain concious for about 10 seconds (this happened to one person who was accidentally depresurized during training.) and you would live for about 2 minutes. It takes a long time for the blood in all of your tiny little capillaries to boil off and cause swelling, long enough for you to die of asphyxiation before you have to worry about that.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[spike hay]

You'ld freeze before you'ld suffocate.

I disagree. Yes, space is very cold, but the vacuum acts like a thermos bottle. You would only have radiant heat, which is actually very little. You would stay quite warm. You would suffocate in about 2 minutes and stay conscious for 10 seconds.

BTW, one guy (from NASA) was depressurized once during training. He was able to escape the chamber, which was in a vacuum, completely conscious and no worse for wear.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[gravelpup]

Tom Clancy's Without Remorse has a particularly gruesome description of death by decompression chamber. Has to be one of the worst ways to die that I can think of.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[timeOday]

Would you really get the bends if your space suit popped? It's only one atmosphere of difference. In diving that's, what, 32 feet?

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the pressure inside your body (blood has pressure, remember?), you would literally explode, and it would be nearly instantaneous.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the inky blackness of space mostly vacuum?

Yes. "Mostly" being the key word there.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... except over your entire body equally... including eye sockets, eardrums, etc...

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[puusism]

Actually we calculated this on a physics class a couple of years ago. Human metabolism generates about 700 W of energy. The rate of heat radiation depends on the temperature of the object. In this case, the temperature point where all energy that the metabolism creates is radiated away is about 70 degrees celsius. Of course, we had to make a number of assumptions and simplifications about human skin area, shape and such, but the professor seemed pretty confident with these figures.

The conclusion is that a human would die of warmth in vacuum, if some means of breathing were available.

- Ismo

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice the big freaking radiators on the ISS? According to you they wouldn't need them, because all the heat energy gets radiated away instantaneously. Radiating away energy is NOT very fast or efficient.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[octal_flare]

Umm, in a vaccuum, wouldn't all the liquids in your body suddenly become gases? Also, I have a feeling all your soft tissues would come flying out of your mouth/nose due to the pressure difference. I don't think temp/radiation/lack of air would be that big of a deal when your chasing your giblets around in zero G. Actually, if things worked out right, the liquid turning to gas may jet propel things away from you making you a temporary rocket. Kinda a neat picture if it;s not you...

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

That pressure is in the other direction.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to remember that the next time I'm thrown out of a spaceship. It's quite a relief to hear that I could live for 2 minutes, as I read that I would be dead in thirty seconds.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

There are things in the US space suits that are still "top secret" because the Russians still haven't "invented" the same tech. If you look at NASA designs of the space suits, they claimed they were for "heating" well into the 1980's when what they were doing was cooling. A human in space generages go much heat, it has to go somewhere. One of the near fatal accidents in the early Gemini space walks resulted in someone sweating so much its a wonder he lived.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

There is surface tension that prevents it. The water on your eyes and in your mounth would boil (at room temp). Since your mouth can deal with about 2 atm pressure change, that wouldn't be the problem. Not having any o2 would make it all not matter in about 15 seconds.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[iJed]

I was told that your cells would start to burst instantly. Then your eyeballs would pop and your ear dums explode... And surely your body would explode from the blood pressure?

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding isn't very good then. A NASA astronaut was accidently exposed to vacuum, and passed out after about 15 seconds. The water on his tongue started boiling, but his blood was just fine, he went unconscious because he ran out of oxygen. They started represurizing about the point he went unconsicous, and was just fine afterwards.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[The G Man]

It's called dividing (or multiplying) by zero. Math's funny like that.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[dacaldar]

Don't forget that you cannot exhale your entire lung volume. I think I remember from high-school that the average male can exhale 4-5 litres of air, but there is still 1-2 litres remaining, no matter how hard you push. A quick search turns up a reference to average numbers that shows I'm not too far off. (Disclaimer: one search does not a good scientific study make, and I have no idea about the credibility of the source) The question is - is that last litre or two enough to explode you?

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[ShadowBlasko]

Someone may have posted this already, I admit to being too lazy to check the whole thread.

If you want to see what death in a vacuum would be like, go to your video store and rent "Event Horizon". It's not a bad movie, and they did quite a bit of research on a scene which portrays someone cycling through an airlock, and then being exposed to a vacuum for around 30 to 45 seconds.

It's not a pretty thing. Imagine those "bleed out" ebola type deaths, just happening very quickly.

I was talking about Heinlein novels with someone who did support for JPL, and the subject came up. He said that the representation in the movie is pretty accurate. (Unlike my spelling this evening)

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

The prick deserved it, though.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[hplasm]

Don't forget severe sunburn. The naked sun in space would be a killer.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Dun Malg]

No, temperature is a characteristic of energy. And there's enough microwave radiation floating around in space to bring anything up to equilibrium at 4K.

errrm...the word "anything" above...does that word by chance refer to MATTER? If so, my question stands...Is it not MATTER in space that has a temp of 4deg K?

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[KieranElby]

Don't have a link to hand, but I remember reading in a magazine that experiments on chimps in the 60s showed that you can expect to survive for up to two minutes in a vacuum, of which you'll be conscious for about 20-30 seconds.

Freezing is not a major problem since there's no conduction/convection of heat away from you; only radiation, which is inefficient.

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[aiabx]

We measure temperature by observing the effect of energy on matter, but the energy is there whether the thermometer is there or not.
-aiabx

Re:Exposure to vacuum

[Dun Malg]

We measure temperature by observing the effect of energy on matter, but the energy is there whether the thermometer is there or not.

Which brings us to my original point: you can't have temperature without matter. The Inky Blackness of Space cannot be said to have any temperature, much less an exact temperature like 4degK. Presumably, matter floating in space will stabilize at 4degK, but that's doesn't mean that the space itself is 4degK. Therefore, the argument that one would freeze to death if exposed to the vacuum of space because it "has a temperature of 4degK" is invalid based on the fact that empty space has no temperature. In fact, I'd say that one would freeze to death faster in a walk-in freezer chilled to 270degK, since in space heat loss is almost entirely radiative and the air in the freezer is sapping your heat conductively as well.

But whatever it is that kills you, I'd say being ejected out of the airlock doesn't leave you a whole lot of time for analysis...

Doh!m

[oniony]

Maybe they should send it back to Earth, sell it to the UK and we can place it next to our dome.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/UK/England/Gre en wichMillenniumDome.html

Re:Doh!m

[Anonymous Coward]

thats coz you inglish are so stoopid.

Like NASA is any better themselves

[FlemLion]

I think NASA should look more closely in the mirror first. Their own statement that they are delaying or canceling the CRV (Crew Return Vehicle) is what has put into question the whole viability of the ISS in the first place.

If it was not for the Soyuz that's attached there now, the ISS would not be inhabited at this time. What do they want now, have the Russians cough up a second Soyuz, so at least a crew of six could stay, because they are not up to their part of the CRV?

And by the way, this is no treat at all for the Russians, they were the first to suggest this, when NASA started complaining about the CRV.

Re:Like NASA is any better themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never understand the way NASA is run, or the way the US government persecutes it when it can do so much good research and exciting missions.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Havoc'ing]

our new economy iz to zimply commit and have otherz pay. Dah. is goot.

Whip round?

[psyconaut]

If NASA want to setup "SaveISS.com" and get a Paypal account, I'm prepared to chip in a few bucks. Who's with me?

If SaveKaryn.com can generate ~$14k in donations, I'm sure a high profile begging project like this can generate some serious cash ;-)

-psy

Re:Whip round?

[Eric Smith]

It would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not so sure that it would work well. Except for geeks like us, I think an individual begging will get more sympathy than the government (NASA) would. After all, most US residents already pay to support the ISS.

Re:Whip round?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. I pay NASA every 15th of April.

A siren song

[christurkel]

I was never in favor of the ISS; its just a multibillion dollar turkey that sucked money out of other projects. With the money we could have saved on the ISS, we could have sent probes to every planet in the solar system but we let the siren call of the space station distract us.
I am not against the space station, I just think it was ill concieved, thats all. I agree with a previous poster: Let's rent it and move on to other, more interesting things.

Re:A siren song

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I should have been able to go to the moon by now. I mean, we were landing folks on the moon 33 years ago. Commercial aviation took off within a couple of decades of the first flight, so why hasn't space travel?

The fact is, the space station teaches us how our bodies react to zero gravity in the long term, and how to cope with the stresses. Further, the ships that will carry us to those planets will be far to large to launch from Earth. They either get built from a floating construction platform, or the moon.

So, if we ever want to set foot on another planet, and see it for ourselves, a space station is an important first step. Quite frankly, space probes are nice, but being able to run your fingers through the Martian soil would be even nicer.

Don't be so short sighted, we have enough short sighted bean counters in the world already.

Some fun links

[ShawnDoc]

Just for discussions sake, here's a few links and excerpts:

The Space Station's Cost

INITIAL DESIGN PAPERWORK -- $10 billion
HARDWARE -- $25 billion
SHUTTLE SERVICING COSTS -- $20 billion
MAINTENANCE -- $41 billion
YEAR 2001 COST OVERRUN (disclosed immediately AFTER the presidential election of 2000): $5 billion.

Scrap the Shuttle Program

documents how the USA slipped to just 29% of the world's launch market share in the year 2000, even though we had 48% of it in 1996, and apparently all of it the decade before.

How did this happen if NASA has a larger space budget than all other civilian space agencies combined, as well as its Congressional mandate to: "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space"? How did some countries evolve from non-players in space two decades ago into dominant commercial players today?

Perhaps NASA should build a "Sea Station" 1000 feet below the sea and use submarines to take foreigners and other salaried government tourists on "missions" to conduct "experiments" and set "endurance records" while "improving international relations". This idea may seem crazy, but it would be much cheaper than the shuttle program and accomplish just as much.

Imagine what could happen if the $4 billion a year and 30,000 shuttle experts were diverted to R&D?

I just can't help but feel the whole ISS and Shuttle Programs are a waste of money. I'm much rather see NASA's time and money spent researching other ways of getting into space.

Re:Some fun links

[kannibal_klown]

Having massive Zero-G kegger with zero-G orgy... Priceless.

Re:Some fun links

[PsiPsiStar]

Getting Lance Bass off the fucking planet... priceless.

Re:Some fun links

[Anonymous Coward]

Sealab 2021!

One word: Kegger!

[burgburgburg]

Just imagine the hot space chicks you can score with on your own ISS.

And if you get bored with geosynchronous orbit, use the adjustment rockets to take her over to Neptune. It's beautiful this time of season.

Methinks...

[danimrich]

It's a pity that Russia is unable to pay for the space station. Sure it is questionable whether the ISS is as useful for scientific experiments as it was thought to be. However, there is a lot of scientific research involved in building and maintaining the station itself (like, for example, whou brought you Teflon?), and this is also an important aspect. For now, I think the gov't could cough up a bit of money so that NASA can take over the ISS from Russia (a lot of diplomacy is needed for this) and develop sensible plans for usage of the ISS. At the time being, I'm opposed to space tourism, because I fear that as soon as the concept takes off, it will have severe effects to the environment and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Unless, of course, we find a sensible (energy-efficient and re-usable) alternative to rockets.

Re:Methinks...

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

...there is a lot of scientific research involved in building and maintaining the station itself (like, for example, whou brought you Teflon?)...

Wasn't Teflon invented years ago for some non-space program purpose in the '70s? My understanding is that they couldn't make it stick to anything to make it useful, until the US military found a way to use it to coat the inside of rifle barrels.

...another good use

[cyt0plas]

They just need to find a way to commercialize it. Something like sports. It would certainly make for some interesting scenes.

First off, NBA does "Space Jam". I could just see Shaq with his 45-foot slam dunk ;)

Of course, good wholesome programming like that would have to be followed up with a intellectualy stimulating program like "Extreme Gladiator" - The winner gets to leave the arena before they depressurize it :)

Re:...another good use

[octalc0de]

Too late! Space Jam, 1996 movie, starring Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny.

Vision = space exploration is so...60s

[Anonymous Coward]

The money spent on ISS would have been better spent on nanotech, quantum computing, genetics research, alternative energy, food science...spending money on ANYTHING else, even just giving it away to the poor, actually would have VISIBLY improved life on earth.

What is the net benefit of ISS? Have we learned anything about space? Have we advanced the art of aerospace engineering? It doesn't appear that the answer is a resounding yes.

What we have learned at great cost is that a space station is a great pie-in-the-sky (pun intended) white elephant project with little tangible benefit.

More to the point, it is one more way the government funnels your money to large military contractors, with whom they have been in bed with for decades.

Political Brinksmanship

[Chris Y Taylor]

I suspect that this is not so much a Space Policy move as it is a step in the dance of international diplomacy. The administration wants Russia to bear more of the costs, so they are floating out the idea of shutting down ISS as a negotiating tactic. I would not be surprised if they "settle" for Russia agreeing to extend their obligation to supply the station lifeboat for a few more years until NASA's orbital space plane is ready.

Shutting down the ISS is probably not likely. If it comes to that, however, I would not mind sacrificing a couple of years of 3 man station occupation in order to spend that money on getting a 6 or 7 man crew onboard sooner. Twice as large a crew should yield a lot more than twice the science.

The way such byzantine things work they may actually be after something completely different, like Russian support for a particular postwar Iraqi governmental structure.

Re:Political Brinksmanship

[mayns]

Which orbital space plane? The space shuttle replacement that Congress just refused to pay for, or the escape glider that Congress cut off the budget a few years back? Or maybe you're refering to the secret super-shuttles that they used in Armageddon? I agree with you that the ISS seems nothing more to the state department than a bargaining chip with the Russians. As such, the station has been screwed from day 1.

Re:Political Brinksmanship

[Wampus Aurelius]

The whole space station was originally intended to keep former Soviet rocket scientists employed so that they wouldn't go build rockets for Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. Even if this is a waste of money from a scientific/space standpoint, it was way to spend our foreign policy money to keep us from having nuclear tipped missiles built and pointed towards us and our allies.

In Richard Feynman's book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" he mentioned something about the space program's scientific value. Specifically, he said that he kept hearing about various experiments being performed in space, and people learning things and making scientific advances, but he never saw any studies or results published in any scientific journals. To him, this meant that whatever they were doing didn't have enough scientific value to be subjected to peer review, and the only reason that they were going on about "experiments" was to make people think that the space program wasn't a giant waste of money.

The experiments I've heard about sounded like nothing more than glorified science fair projects: "How Do Plants Grow in Zero Gravity?" "How Do Animals Behave in Zero Gravity?" etc.

Re:Political Brinksmanship

[weiyuent]

Interesting perspective.

The cynic in me thinks NASA wants to shut down the ISS anyway (so it should be), and the Russians are just a convenient political scapegoat. Let's face it -- the darn thing is too expensive and of little practical benefit. No hard science comes out of it that could be achieved by much cheaper means, earthbound or not. The only reason why the ISS is still aloft is because of some irrational public fascination with manned space exploration. Time for us to wake up from that dream and focus on real work.

Aha!

[Raul654]

I did a quick websearch -- Nasa had a page up (which has since disappeared), but there are copies floating around out there. Interesting reading though.

Too late!

[TheMidget]

They are already down here, although they did miss the Taco target!

ad astra per idiota!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! Let's just tell GWB that there's terrorists on the moon! We'll have an occupying force there in six months! We can conquer space YET!

Re:ad astra per idiota!

[Un pobre guey]

The CIA has already found evidence of Al Qaeda camps on the moon, based on anomalous magnetic fields near the crater Tycho.

I have a idea for this

[GeXX]

Here's a idea, we have 5 shuttles, and several capusls, so we do have escape vehicles for the ISS. Here's a idea, launch 2 shuttles up to space, leave one up there, for a get around vehicle, and also a escape vehicle, bring the other one back with the crew. Because we don't need the 4 or 5 shuttles just sitting here collecting dust, we can use our tax payers money better. Or use one of those capsuls (one of those things that we used in the 60's). And then take the ISS, and start to do research, and get it to pay for it's self, through reasearch, sure we will have to finance it all, but hey, we do that already. All of the things that can come out of it, the space tourism, products, even advertisers. Get the private sector into it, because the government is to busy spending the tax payers money on pointless things, wasting time and resources, not taking care of business. Space can help elimiate the waste problem, lack of resources problems, and space problem. We are running out of room, well we have a infinite playground right outside our atmosphere. Go figure.

Uhmmmmm....

[unicorn]

I think you'd have to get there first, to qualify as a squatter.

Re:Boot the Russians Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Then buy it from them. They could use the money and purchasing is a lot less costly than the beaurocracy costs needed to replace them.

Why mothball?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Open the windows and the moths will die.

Russia's Financial Statement

[bytesmythe]

Is this anything like the movie industry? Russia just goes along with everything until its time to pay up, then oops! Looks like we're outta cash! Sorry we can't pay you Mr. Lee... errr... NASA!

We're sending UN weapons inspectors to Baghdad, so why not send a crew of SEC auditors over to Moscow and find out where all their money is going? ;)

Re:Russia's Financial Statement

[Ektanoor]

Why not send also a crew of Federal Taxes Inspection auditors to the US? Sincerly I would be happy to see that. Note that ISS came up to Life when Russia was painfully trying to hold up Mir and making ISS's main module. All this when Russia's economy went nearly bankrupt. Yes, US helped financing part of the Russian segment so that they could hold up the timings. But, sincerly, there were lots of complaints on how these agreements were made into reality.

We can blame things on Russians, Canadians, US Feds or the aliens. The fact is people that we all screwed the thing up! ISS was and is the Space Titanic. It is a huge megaproject mainly based in the state of affairs we had in the 70s. Back then it could be possible that US only or USSR only could have made something similar (well if we ignore some technical difficulties of the time and consider the money factor only). However, today we all retreated from Space. The US keeps going up with some crappy shuttle that was wrong from start. Russia did one but sent it into the trashcan. Europe and Japan didn't rise theirs from the paper. We still are using rockets that are basically all the crap we had in the 60s, even those fresh new Titans. We stopped sending interplanetary probes, with some exception to Mars. The Moon is so far away that lots of people doubt we have been there.

That's the state of affairs people. Frankly this is not an auditors problem. It is a question much bigger and that calls some serious questions to the political elites that ruled us for the last 30 years: Who screwed up the Space Age and why?

Some may say that it's financial problems and that we should solve the famine in Ethiopia/Somalia/Sudan/Whatever and then go to Space. Sorry, the famine has been there always and screwing up the Space Age have not helped to solve it a bit. And frankly, USSR and America were not in a good financial position when the runup started in 1957. However we only didn't manage to reach Pluto/Charon... And just because someone scrapped up everything in the middle of the 70's. Back then there were no serious financial problems to keep up the run, even on a slower step.

Frankly if ISS shut up, then there will be only two escape hatches for Earth. One is to rethink everything and seriously consider how to return back to Space in solid foot. The other is to keep screwing up everything and wait that we make a second Mars out of the Earth... Me joking? Naaaa...

The whole story

[mayns]

I think this is just a PR move on NASA's part to try to get some money from the Russians. This whole station has been a fiasco because of American Congressional insistance that Russia be involved, and now NASA is tired of dragging them along. Not only does this look like a turf fight between NASA and Russia, it all smells of a turf fight between NASA and congress. I've been following this for a while, and this is some of the background you need to know.

1) What's wrong with mothballing ISS for a year or two? Well, if it's anything like Mir, and by which I mean it has people on board, it will, if not properly maintained, fill up with fun things like fungus and mold. Mir had problems where a computer would short out, and they'd open up panel to fix it and find that all of the circuit boards were covered in a sticky, stinky blue-green mold. Or they couldn't see out of the windows because of the layer of film growing on them. Not fun. No wonder the crew spends so much time cleaning.

2) Wonder why only 3 people are on board a station designed for at least 7? How abour the fact that congress ccut the budget for a new 7-man escape module, so all they've got is an old 3-man Soyuz capsule lashed to the side of the station to get them out of trouble. And unlike the proposed and now cancelled escape craft, which would have been automated, the Soyuz needs a cosmonaut to bring it down, so the station must have a Russian pilot on board at all times doing housework, as opposed to someone useful like an ESA scientist would would have been on board anyways if they had a big enough escape pod.

3) Ever wonder why a station build and finance almost entirely by America has two Russians on board compared to one American. Is it because of their years of experience fighting mold and electrical fires on Mir, or is it because the State Department ordered NASA to through the Russians a bone. You be the judge!

4) Speaking of throwing the Russians a bone, the entire history of this station has been littered with decisions made solely to appease the Russians. Remember, the station is years behind schedule because some of the corecomponent modules had been assigned to the Russians. And the Russians were taking their sweet time putting said modules up. they kept claiming that money was a factor, but the fact of the matter is all of the Russian modules were paid for almost entirely with American funds. Sometimes a module would be on the pad ready to be launched and the Russians would hold on putting them up until they got even more money. the worst part is this was a State Department decision, not a NASA one. In fact, NASA at the time had a duplicate of every Russian module built and ready to go up 2-3 years before the Russians actually put them up, but were ordered by the American government to not use those modules and instead had to wait on the Russians.

5) What about money from space tourists being used to help save the station? Well, that might work if NASA allowed space tourists on their end, but they don't. It might also work if any of the money from spce tourism actually made it to the Russian space agency, but that doesn't happen either. I don't know the breakdown on where the money went from the two space tourists Russia has already sent up, but I do know that when the Russians put a giant Pizza Hut ad on the side of one of their rockets, the fee for the placement agency was 90%, and most of the rest of the money went staight into the pockets of the space agency heads. (BTW, a standard placement fee for advertising like that is around 10%).

The moral of this story: modern day Russian is full of corruption and graft, and is nowhere close to the technological creativity they displayed in the 1950's. They do still have, however, many nuclear weapons, so the United States gives them a reach around at every opportunity. I wish the Americans would evict the Russians from the station and replace them with the Europeans and the Japanese. Then we might actually see the station be good for something other than video clips on the news. Or news stories buried on page A72 of the paper describing how two male cosmonauts spent 6 months sexually harrasing a female American astronaut, and how NASA told her to shut up about the whole matter. YEAH RUSSIA! Make rocket go now!

Re:The whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic problem with NASA (and for that matter Americans) is that they borrow a whole lot when it suits them and then later start complaining about it.
The reason core components were assigned to Russia is because they KNEW how to build them. If instead of trying to build duplicate models (if it is true) of all the components, NASA had done the job it was assigned, maybe the ISS schedule wont be lagging behind.
It is ONLY money which is the final deciding factor. Every other country has the technical capability and resources (in fact far better ones than America). And not to forget that USA itself is in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars !!
So, knowing it was a white elephant project in the first place will not casue sane peole to decide against it. Think of it as an orbiter post in the space as an advertisement for EARTH.
Grow up and think of yourself as an earthling (forget american, russian etc) and STOP COMPLAINING !

Re:The whole story

[Syncdata]

3) Ever wonder why a station build and finance almost entirely by America has two Russians on board compared to one American. Is it because of their years of experience fighting mold and electrical fires on Mir, or is it because the State Department ordered NASA to through the Russians a bone. You be the judge!
It's most likely a combination of the two, as well as the point you made about the soyuz capsule needing a russian pilot.
You also make valid points about Congress and the State Dept getting in the way of making the ISS a truly valuable tool for science. Politicians have a tendancy to give money with strings attached. It is to be expected.
It's no surprise that the biggest gains the space program made were when we were in direct competition with the USSR. When that was the case, the politicians had no choice but to let NASA do it's thing, because meddling from congress would slow progress, and might allow for a Soviet victory in the race for the moon.
For the time being, I think the wisest course of action is to mothball the station, at least temporarily, and concentrate on smaller projects (probes) in which congress has limited meddling capability. Only when we have a clear adversary with space capabilities (China? The EU?) will NASA once again be allowed to try big projects with limited hindrance. Untill that day, congress will meddle as it see's fit, as there is no reason for them not to.

privatization

[Dexter's Laboratory]

Maybe privatization is the only way to come up with the money. The exploration and exploitation of space and the celestial bodies will be carried out by private companies anyway.

Hrmm

[Raul654]

At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes, you're dying. The limits are not really known.

Like I said, we have now found the perfect use for boy-bands

don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

THEFT. There's no moonmen that we can rob and kill up there.

What if MTV were to purchase it?

[Gavitron_zero]

this week on "The Real World"...

James gets angry as Kara's juice is always floating towards him due to his large gravitational effect. Rick and Julio's ongoing power struggle leads to the inevitable...taking it outside.

Studies in Maintenance

[glassware]

Nice comment from the article:

"Significant risk increase" is expected based on the loss of the ability for a permanent crew to make an urgent repair spacewalk, as may become necessary under the normal rate of equipment breakdown.

If NASA wants to do some useful science on the ISS, they should start researching equipment that doesn't break down in orbit. Even if the ISS doesn't provide any great research or achievements, why not use it to validate methods of building things and keeping stuff in orbit reliably?

NASA could stop sending up identical copies of the gyros and oxygen scrubbers that break every week, and start sending up experimental items to find one with a better failure ratio (while of course keeping spares handy to avert disaster, I'm sure).

Maybe this way, when a cheaper space vehicle or space station comes about, they'll know how to keep it working.

Re:Studies in Maintenance

[cybercuzco]

If NASA wants to do some useful science on the ISS, they should start researching equipment that doesn't break down in orbit. Even if the ISS doesn't provide any great research or achievements, why not use it to validate methods of building things and keeping stuff in orbit reliably?

NASA could stop sending up identical copies of the gyros and oxygen scrubbers that break every week, and start sending up experimental items to find one with a better failure ratio (while of course keeping spares handy to avert disaster, I'm sure).

As somone who has actually designed hardware that is currently on the Hubble space telescope, I think im qualified to answer your assertion that Nasa should just "design better hardware" When doing hardware design, you live within constraints. Widget X must perform function Y with a 10% margin of error, and it must be as light as possible. And has to fit with widgets A-R that have already been designed and fabricated, so they cant be changed. And it has to be light. But it also has to be strong enough to do its job. And it cant break down more than 9 times out of 10 And it has to be light. And then you have to redesign it because widget F that you have to interface with changed and now your widget doesnt work anymore. And did i mention it has to be light? Finally if humans are involved all the requirements are multiplied bby 10 because no human has ever been lost in space and damned if itll happen on my watch. Heres the thing, NASA only sends stuff up thats been proven to work either through extensive ground testing or flight testing. But its only designed to work with a 10-40% margin of error. In other words, if your gyro is on orbit for 10 years, and thats what it was designed for, its only gaurenteed to last 1 more year. Thats why they carry spares. Experimental new forms of equipment dont decrease the failure rate, they increase it. If you want to do your testing in orbit, fine but dont rip out the main computer and replace it with a beowulf cluster of linux running pocket PC's and expect it not to fail. Space is a harsh environment. You have to design hardware to withstand a temperature range of up to 600 degrees F, and the radiation tends to fry any normal electronics. Theres a reason they only have P1 processors. Processors have to be specially adapted for the radiation so they dont immediatly throw a transistor and fry. Bottom line is Space isnt earth, earth rules on manufacturing dont apply.

Re:Studies in Maintenance

[glassware]

Yeah, designing for space is a bitch - a good friend's uncle worked on the Saturn moon rockets. I bet to a technical person my suggestion didn't make much sense; I wrote it targeting a layman [read: linux geek].

To a more technical person, I would suggest developing and launching more experimental products that have longer lifespans and greater margins of error. Find the thing (maybe it's a fan blade in an oxygen pump) that broke, design a better fan blade or a better oxygen pump, and connect it to the space station to see if you can actually get a better lifespan out of it.

I would like to imagine the ISS as a gigantic workshop where the issues of manned spaceflight are gradually being solved and better approaches are being developed. However, I suspect that this is not the case; all the design work was probably done during the first few years of the nineties. Most likely, when a part fails today, Nasa simply pays their contractor another $5 million for a replacement part and throws it on the shuttle. That's the safest approach; but it makes each shuttle trip just another fix-it mission.

My suggestion would be, why not pay the $5 million for a spare part, and also put $1 million into designing a jury rigged replacement that might prove an interesting design concept? I'd expect most of these jury rigged replacement parts to fail, but every once in a while you might discover something ... and then you'd have more knowledge to build better parts in the future.

Re:Studies in Maintenance

[Graff]

If NASA wants to do some useful science on the ISS, they should start researching equipment that doesn't break down in orbit. Even if the ISS doesn't provide any great research or achievements, why not use it to validate methods of building things and keeping stuff in orbit reliably?

Equipment breaks down no matter where you are using it. Every single part which is used has a probability of breaking down every day it is around, even if it is just sitting in a locked safe on Earth. The reason they need to do so many repairs is because anything that you bring with you into space has a ton of parts. These parts are very durable but there are so many of them that even if you only get a 0.01% failure rate per year you are still going to have several failures over the course of that year.

Add to this the fact that objects which are put into space face tremendous stresses. The acceleration of being put into orbit, the radiation, the wide variations in temperature, the forces in any direction due to course corrections. Even if the parts are very durable on Earth they are still going to have higher failure rates in a space vehicle.

Most systems have triple (or more) redundancy to offset these problems, so that when something breaks the replacement can come into action immediately. That means that even with several failures there is very little danger to the station. However, you still need to repair the failures so that you can keep the redundancy in place.

I'm sure that NASA engineers do plenty of research into making the parts of the various space vehicles as durable as possible. In fact, I have worked with several people who help with just this kind of research. At RPI there is a linear particle accelerator which is used to bombard equipment, especially electronic components, with various types of particles. As a research assistant I helped to prepare and test some of the equipment. This was 10 years ago, but I'm certain that this type of testing is still being performed in order to improve the failure rates of equipment in space.

Calling all NASA Slashdot readers...

[CommieLib]

Can anyone here explain exactly why the Space Station takes so much time and effort to maintain? What is it that can't be automated on ISS?

Sell it to the Japanese

[cmpalmer]

Maybe they can find some way of making money with it or doing some real cool research for microgravity manufacturing. Aside from our really cool planetary probes, all of our other space exploration accomplishments have been a result of the "Space Race". If we have an economic space race, maybe something will get accomplished.

Hell, if we want a *real* cold war style space race, sell it to the Saudi's -- then we'll be forced to spend a lot of money building another space station to one-up them and to keep an eye on them :-)

Be careful what you wish for

[Ethelred Unraed]

If you really think you want go up to the ISS, remember that there is no broadband Net access up there, and therefore no access to pr0n -- and even worse, there's no pizza delivery.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[grub]

remember that there is no broadband Net access up there, and therefore no access to pr0n

Will they let me bring my RealDoll up?

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[Tackhead]

> If you really think you want go up to the ISS, remember that there is no broadband Net access up there, and therefore no access to pr0n -- and even worse, there's no pizza delivery.

Someone else pointed out that 1000 people at $10,000 per head doesn't make sense, but 10 people at $1,000,000 just might.

How about 5 major pr0n studios with $2,000,000 each? (My contribution? Well, I volunteer to wear a pizza delivery guy's uniform.)

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[Anonymous Coward]

There will however, be a Starbucks.

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[Mac Degger]

Sure there's pizza delivery...it just costs you $20.000.010 for a pie :)

It's our fault

[techsoldaten]

Perhaps the Russians could go back to Lance Bass and get the deal going again in order to secure the financing for their part of the space station. Alternately, they could approach other boy bands and offer a space for cash deal.

Re:It's our fault

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Shouldn't they offer a 'will space for cash' deal instead? They'd make a lot more money.

N'Sync killed the ISS...

[joebeone]

"One contributing factor to the budget crisis was the failure in recent months of commercial flights aboard Soyuz vehicles. Although some seats have been sold to European astronauts, the financial collapse of the project to fly pop singer Lance Bass, and the apparent inability of the Russians to find a paying customer for the third seat on the Soyuz that is set to launch next April, have resulted in losses of between $20 million and $30 million. Each Soyuz spacecraft costs $10 million, with additional costs to launch and operate."

Damn... I knew there was some sort of hidden agenda with this whole Lance Bass in Space idea... I thought it was just a PR stunt! But a secret plan to force NASA et al. to mothball the ISS? I'm stunned.

Money Problems Solved

[telstar]

It seems the primary factor that caused Lance Bass not to go to space was the $20 million he couldn't raise. I say, don't worry about the return trip. Let's raise $10 and send him on his way. It's a win/win.

Maybe...

[zomB1kenoB]

Also, I would be glad to house-sit, I use very little oxygen.

Maybe one of these guys would use less? Maybe send up a couple dosen and hope they don't start a space colony, revolt, take over the rest of our com sats and invade...

Oh shit! I just gave Hollywood an idea for the next Stuart Little/Independence Day sequel. Filthy's gonna be pissed.

Don't Know Why Anyone is Surprised

[kalidasa]

It was clear when the Bush administration nominated a bean counter to run NASA that science and exploration were no longer matters of public policy. I'm just surprised it's taken them this long to find an excuse to end it.

How much do you want to bet that the next NASA budget will severely curtail manned spaceflight activities? They'll use the excuse that the shuttles are too old, and that they're waiting for the X-37 to come out.

Re:Don't Know Why Anyone is Surprised

[Orne]

One of the first things to come out of NASA after Bush took over was to focus on Mars again... a much loftier goal with some actual gains to be had.

I'd rather that they can the political abortion that the ISS has become... a cost-overrun political appeasement project solely designed to boost Clinton's foreign policy appearance... and all it got us was a hole in the wallet, rocket designs delievered to the Chinese, and a new foreign aid program for Russia.

Re:Don't Know Why Anyone is Surprised

[kalidasa]

ISS dates back to the Carter administration. That's what the space shuttle is supposed to be, well, shuttling people to.

Going to Mars without a real-time LEO simulation strikes me as very, very bad idea. Once you're on a semi-Hohmann orbit to Mars, there's just no way help is going to come.

So what is this thing being used for???

[Anonymous Coward]

So, they are willing to walk away from it if Russia doesn't "cough up" its share of the expense, or something along those lines. So it's not exactly "mission-critical" work that is being performed up there right now. So, what *is* going on? Exactly what is the return on investment of this thing? Does anyone actually know of an estimated breakdown of overall global economic impact of the ISS, as in the number of jobs created, etc? Seemed to me all along that this thing was of dubious benefit, and NASA's position on funding tends to confirm that. They aren't screaming, hey, look at what we are going to lose if we mothball this thing...

rho alpha zete?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you a rho alpha zete?

Dangers of commercialism of Space

[Martin S.]

Wouldn't this be a good time to allow the private sector in on this?

I really can't believe that somebody is seriously suggesting the commercialism of Space, you clearly have not considered the consequences of even this first apparently small step. There is good reason that the commercialisation is illegal under international law and treaty. You only have to look at the actions of the old Colonial Charter Companies to see the dangers. They ran riot over large parts of the globe and where only constrained by finite space of the Colonies.

New Space based commercial entities are a genie that once out of the bottle are never likely to be every constrained again, they would grow unchecked by earth bound morality, law, or nation, any unchecked at all by an essentially infinite space. They exhibit exponential growth and would quickly become more powerful than you could ever imagine, driven by one overwhelming factor; the accumulation of resources on an near infinite scale, an accumulation that would redefine the term greed.

The resulting 'Companies' would make the Commerical enties of SCI-FI look like cartoon kittens.

Re:Dangers of commercialism of Space

[fferreres]

First: I am looking forward to that day. Second, if a poll was made and all humans on earth consulted, I am pretty sure they would allow companies to try to reach the stars.

Remember, thoughout history, goverment weren't any better than companies. In fact, they were mostly the property of a selected bunch of individuals, and that's still the case today. Regarding companies, as long as they are not granted monopolies from the states, they usually tend to favour developement and empower the people.

Moreover, it the was motivation that opened up the way for the modern states, as you'd recall from when you studied history.

Re:Dangers of commercialism of Space

[drinkypoo]

New Space based commercial entities are a genie that once out of the bottle are never likely to be every constrained again, they would grow unchecked by earth bound morality, law, or nation, any unchecked at all by an essentially infinite space.

Now maybe I grew up reading too much C.J. Cherryh, but I can't help but think that this is a good thing overall. While bad things (tm) are generally done during the expansion phase, once you become stable in a certain area morality starts creeping back in whether you want it or not. Personally I welcome the chance to live by my own morality, or at least to have a wider selection of moral codes to choose from when I'm picking a place to live.

Face it, this mudball isn't big enough for everything humans want to do. At some point you have to leave it. You can't just tell people "No I'm sorry earth has reached its carrying capacity, we're going to have to sterilize you" -- Which is what we are moving toward. One of the sci-fi-esque predictions I don't want to see come true is the tight global control of child-rearing. A system like that won't work without a global government anyway, a prospect which I find highly unlikely given the various disparate moral codes found on earth.

To not move industry -- especially polluting industry -- into space is short-sighted. Power generation would definitely best be done in space. Any other kind of heavy industry which creates a lot of pollution, likewise. Mining asteroids (and/or the moon) for metals would allow us to stop strip-mining large portions of our planet because there would simply be no need.

While it's easy to take the coward's position, you wouldn't even be able to express it on a computer without the prior "unchecked" expansion of companies that we love to hate. What new technology will commercialization of space bring us?

Re:Dangers of commercialism of Space

[Vagary]

"We're not flying blind here, you know. This is United Systems military, not some greedy corporation." - Dr. Wren, Alien: Resurrection

Re:Dangers of commercialism of Space

[Martin S.]

While bad things (tm) are generally done during the expansion phase... I welcome the chance to live by my own morality

I think this underlines my point rather than undermining it 'the expansion phase' would last an unimaginable period of time as the rim of known space was expanded indefinitely. I think there is little doubt these companies would claim ownership of the space within there rim and seek to utilize it, indeed maximise its utility. Therefore unless you were a major stakeholder in that company your chance to live by your own morality is near zero.

Face it... Which is what we are moving toward.

Come on the rest is a strawman, my post does not advocate any of it; Indeed I strongly agree that sitting back and abandoning the exploration of space is not a credible option if we wish to survive the remaining universe as a species or meta-species. I strongly support a momentous effort to pursue the exploitation of space. I do not object to commercial utilisation of space or space based resources, providing they are within the rim of our governed space.

I oppose indefinitely the commercial exploration of space for the very specific reason raise in my initial post, because once release, the unchecked consequences are too dangerous. (AIH I also oppose the release of von-nueman machine for much the same reason). However I do not even suggest this ban would last forever, just indefinitely because I also have to believe we can evolve past the problem.

Re:Dangers of commercialism of Space

[drinkypoo]

While bad things (tm) are generally done during the expansion phase... I welcome the chance to live by my own morality

I think this underlines my point rather than undermining it 'the expansion phase' would last an unimaginable period of time as the rim of known space was expanded indefinitely.

If it underlined your point it would only be because it is based on false assumptions, IE that all of known space would be considered a single system and that all of known space is interesting.

First of all, I think it's safe to say that in the absence of FTL the only places we're going to go are in our solar system. So the expansion phase as it relates to us directly most likely goes no further than pluto. Odds are pluto will be interesting only from a scientific standpoint so we won't even see commercialization that far out. Everything we're interested in is well within that orbit.

Second of all even after the development of FTL it is likely that it will consume enormous quantities of energy and so travel between systems will still be impractical for all but the most significant purposes. So each of those systems can reasonably be seen as their own entity. Each of them is going to need a certain number of humans to operate, and those humans will enforce their will against the system.

I think there is little doubt these companies would claim ownership of the space within there rim and seek to utilize it, indeed maximise its utility.

The 'simple' way to avoid this is to simply not allow corporations to claim ground. In order for them to claim it, they must claim it in the name of a government, at which point they are subject to enforcement and the laws thereof. Of course some countries will operate like a ship's registry; Do whatever you want. But I don't imagine that the other countries will sit idly by and let that proceed, either. In the end I expect it will be business as usual, except in space.

Now with that said, you must realize what is going on here, now -- Big Industry really runs the world, by a complicated system of bribes to government officials. For example Big Oil is one of the most powerful groups in the US economy, they (essentially) control when we go to war for example. We don't let them form a cartel (ALA OPEC) so they have to manipulate the government into manipulating OPEC, because OPEC's oil prices set OUR oil prices. So basically, the gulf war really WAS about oil more than anything else. Your point about possible abuses of human rights is insignificant in the face of modern reality; we have no rights. We might as well have no rights in space.

Therefore unless you were a major stakeholder in that company your chance to live by your own morality is near zero.

I don't follow your logic here. My values include a fair wage paid for work done, and the right to do whatever I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. I think that there are plenty of companies which would be happy to provide me an environment like that, especially since corporations tend not to have morality as governments do.

I do not object to commercial utilisation of space or space based resources, providing they are within the rim of our governed space.
...
I oppose indefinitely the commercial exploration of space for the very specific reason raise in my initial post, because once release, the unchecked consequences are too dangerous.

But you are neglecting the fact that it is not lucrative for a government to pursue space-related activity except in very special circumstances. IE, a space race which is intended to break the bank of another nation, or in order to deploy space-based engines of war. Anything else is hard to sell to the people, and therefore difficult to implement. You have to convince people that NASA is a worthy place for their money to go, and most people just aren't equipped to understand the idea of all the plastics which came out of space research, let alone the more vague connections between what we learn by doing something new, and the seemingly unrelated advances in science that come from it.

So basically, except war-related scenarios, governent has no incentive to explore space. Business doesn't have much more, but it does have some. If we are going to get into space in any significant way (IE, other than some orbits and maybe the occasional visit to Luna to pick up some rocks) then it's going to have to be commercially-driven. I am not advocating a lack of governmental control but I do think that it should be fairly light.

Finally, the usual appeal; One comet could wipe us all out irrevocably and we wouldn't know anything about it until it was too late. It's time to put our eggs in separate baskets; Not now, but yesterday. Given a lack of a way to do it yesterday (or earlier) I'd say now is the time, by any means necessary as long as we aren't destroying our planet in the process. Indeed, by not going into space for keeps, we are destroying our planet.

probably a good idea

[Cnik70]

right now we half-ass the iss with a minimal crew which ends up doing more work to operate the station than they do research. why should we continue to fund something which will most likely never show results.

space travel, while important, is far from being a top priority when you consider all the other issues which need to be addressed here on earth.

if russia want to continue sending crews to it, let them, but lets stop throwing money at a space staton which does not help americans, and while we are at it, it may be time to reconsider shuttle missions untill a less costly means of transport is created.

I think Russia...

[craenor]

Could make a TON of money by selling rides into space to both NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys.

Then they could make several times more then that by accepting donations to leave them there.

ISS = political boondoggle

[asfasmcdas]

The ISS can best be understood by looking at its history. It was conceived amidst the collapse of the Soviet Union and related worries that and underpaid Russian space scientists would sell their services to Iran,Iraq, North Korea etc. and assist them in their missile and nuclear programs.
It is a tremendous engineering feat but it represents a difference in degree rather than kind when compared with Skylab or Mir.
I took an astronomy course a couple of years ago. The professor teaching it had served as chief scientist on the Hubble Space Telescope project. He mentioned during the course that the only truly useful and unique function of the ISS would be as an isolation lab for handling samples returned from Mars. To read some of his other reflections on his time dealing with NASA I can highly recommend his book.
Hubble Wars - Eric Chaisson

Large Manned Missions are a Mistake

[Un pobre guey]

It was a mistake to make the ISS. It is far too expensive to support human life in space, with very little to gain from it. We should have spent that same amount of money on unmanned robots, thousands of them, orbiting the earth, going to the moon and mars, wandering around the asteroid belt and the greater solar system, sending back vast streams of video, audio, and all sorts of other telemetry.

This could stimulate a much broader industrial and academic base, and provide several modalities of fascinating edutainment to those of us sitting at home watching 3D video with stereo sound from the martian surface, coming from an intrepid band of autonomous rovers.

Five orbiters? Dream on.

[Buran]

Five shuttles? Don't count Enterprise -- she can't fly in space. There are four: Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour.

Discovery is down for maintenance and upgrades right now, which leaves three. Columbia is too heavy to fly to the space station with any amount of useful payload on board, so she flies research missions that don't dock with the station -- the next flight will be a research mission, actually.

That leaves two: Endeavour, in orbit now, and Atlantis, which is being processed right now to carry the next bit of the station up. When Atlantis is up, Endeavour will be in processing.

Re:Patrick Beaver would be proud of you

[Anonymous Coward]

sneaky bastard.

Film p0rn up there

[SunPin]

Launch p0rn stars up for free and take 90% of the proceeds for the space program... a little astrofornication would do wonders to the future of spaced. NASA seems to forget:

ALL viable technology is pioneered and financed by p0rn.

Re:Film p0rn up there

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. We have a grumpy moderator today.

IMHO, sex would stink up the ISS. However, the cause is worthy. Why be prudish?

A sex module should do the trick.

Re:Film p0rn up there

[ScooterBill]

...and you could probably grow some incredible hydroponic mutant pot. Sell that, tax the hell out of it and you'd have NASA's budget ten times over. Of course, they would have to change the name to the International Vice Station... Sometimes the solution is right in front of you.

Re:Film p0rn up there

[SunPin]

That's what I'm getting at... between p0rn and pot, we can free ourselves from oil dependency and start building lunar bases.

In addition to NASA needing to grow up, the dude that moderated the parent down needs to grow up.

This is a perfectly valid and on topic thread.

*sigh*

[Blob Pet]

I thought the title read "NASA Considers Abondoning IIS". Oh well.

Seriously, though, in previous adminstrations this might have been an idle threat, but, with this one, I wouldn't be surprised if it were otherwise. NASA's becoming harder and harder to fund with the current budge crunch, and Russia's not living up to its end of the deal. If anything, the Russians made a mockery of the IIS by allowing tourism on the space station. I'd rather see more money being put into replacing the space shuttles.

Check your facts

[simong_oz]

Your numbers are way off base:

Cost of Skylab was about US$10 billion.

TOTAL (ie. not just the US) cost of the ISS is about $100 billion over 30 years (Reference)

The original US Share of this was about US$15 billion (for comparison, ESA's share was US$8 billion) when the plans were finalized in 1993 (I think?). NASA's cost overruns in January were revised to be a little under US$5 billion

For comparison, the American Manned Lunar Program (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) cost about $100 billion (in 1994 currency terms). Reference

One of the reasons this option was not used is that NASA doesn't have any boosters that could be retrofitted.

Re:Check your facts

[Rich0]

TOTAL (ie. not just the US) cost of the ISS is about $100 billion over 30 years

You quote $15 billion for the US and $8 billion for the ESA. Who is paying the other $77 billion? I'm sure the Russians are giving a fair amount, but even if they chipped in as much as both the USA and the ESA, then that leaves $50 billion to go...

Re:Check your facts

[simong_oz]

yeh, I also realised this when I posted it. I'm not sure where the rest is coming from, but those were the numbers quoted on the websites I referenced. I've heard the US and ESA figures before, so I'm fairly confident of those. The total cost is from ESA's website, so I'd assume that is fairly accurate.

The US, Canada, Japan, Russia and ESA are the partners, so I'm not completely sure where the shortfall is coming from?

Re:Check your facts

[Rich0]

Hmm - typical government project...

What's a few dozen billion between friends?

"Russia": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

It appalls me that so many ostensibly well-educated people actually believe the lie that has been perpetually put forth by the leftist establishment in this country: namely, that there is an Eastern Hemisphere country named "Russia", and that it is larger than the United States! The idea that a single country can span eleven time zones ought to make any moral person with basic geography knowledge laugh themselves sick. And yet, if you go to liberal parties, you will doubtless find dozens of smug bastards in their velvet smoking jackets, gobbling caviar by the handful, guzzling martinis like they were going out of style, and running around shrieking "Russia! Russia! For the love of Mother Earth, Russia!."

Friends, I don't believe in Russia, and neither should you. Russianistism is one of the basic tenets of liberalism, a philosophy that is anti-American at its core. Liberalism fails if people find out that the United States is, in fact, the largest country on the planet. It is for this reason that liberals advance lies such as the existence of "Russia." Interestingly enough, no leftist agitator has ever been able to definitivelty prove that Russia actually exists. Sure, there are maps in geography textbooks, but remember who writes those textbooks: the National Education Association (NEA), which is the teacher's union that is about 145% liberal.

I reject Russia. I reject the idea that there is a country larger than the United States. Other than the United States, I can't think of a single nation that even comes close. (Brazil comes to mind, but they hardly quality as a real country anyway.) In this time of war and strife it is important to support one's homeland. For us, it means that we must laugh off the liberal lies about Russia and all of these foreign lands that no moral person has ever set eyes on. Our integrity demands it.

Thank you for your time.

Re:"Russia": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is bigger. Suck it.

Just business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

My company has a plan on how to evacuate people in case of fire. This is the same thing. NASA is running scenarios. Just business as usual. It doesn't mean that they will do it.

I'll go to... if you can smoke on the station

[variable26]

i would stay up there for a year for free to save money... as long as you can smoke and i can bring my PC

Tune in next week �

[Snork Asaurus]

for a very special episode of Junkyard Wars, when an American and a Russian team will be tasked with converting disused space stations, space debris , and old computers into nuclear powered mopeds.

Re:requires companies to think long term

[constantnormal]

long term... is that two quarters or three?

Sea Station

[Animats]

It's been done. The SeaLab projects, in the 1960s, did just that.

In the 1960s, it looked like the sea was being opened up as a new frontier. Nuclear submarines were cruising the oceans and exploring under the polar icecap, undersea habitats were built, big offshore drilling platforms were constructed, ocean-bottom mining was tried, and deep-submergence research submarines descended into the deepest parts of the ocean. There was even a whole genere of undersea science fiction.

But, like space, it turned out that all the essential tasks could be done without sending people there. Today, there are many underwater robot vehicles, but no underwater habitats. The deep ocean, like space, belongs to machines, not people.

United Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

The United Nations has already declared the atmosphere as well as the space between planet earth and its moon to be owned by the United Nations. How will the enforce that without the assistance of a huge corporation like the UNITED STATES? Oh wait...the UN is supported by the UNITED STATES. And if the UNITED STATES doesn't get its NASA division back up there to claim it before you do, they'll just prevent you from selling it to anyone but NASA, and of course they'll only pay you a nickel for bringing it back to them. I'm way ahead of you...just shoot a fucking rocket at the ISS and be done with that flying filthy dumpster lab.

Manned spaceflight

[XNormal]

The private sector doesn't want anything to do with manned spaceflight

The solution is simple: separate people and cargo. A cargo launcher needs to be cheap and have a pretty good chance to reach orbit. The private sector can handle that just fine, thank you. Reusable or expendable, horizontal or vertical launch and landing - whatever. Let the market sort it out. NASA should just commit to buying orbital delivery services and not compete with their own suppliers with your tax dollars.

A crew taxi vehicle needs to have a good chance of reaching orbit and an excellent chance of bringing the passengers back alive in case it doesn't. In other words, it must have effective abort modes in all stages of the launch. NASA will handle this part.

NASA: manned operations, deep space probes, science stuff and X vehicles.

Private sector: Orbital delivery. Off-limits to NASA.

Re:Manned spaceflight

[Anonymous Coward]

"NASA should just commit to buying orbital delivery services and not compete with their own suppliers with your tax dollars."

Which is exactly why we shouldn't try to privatize space in the first place. Imagine a space MS holding space station personnel hostage...

fucking libertarian idiots.

mod this UP

[simong_oz]

Wow ... someone mod this post up as high as possible. One of the most insightful posts I've seen on slashdot.

US now running record deficits

[Ars-Fartsica]

At every level of government, from your local municipality to the state level to the feds, record deficits are being set. Your state taxes are almost certainly going to rise in the next two years. sorry, something has to give, and I elect Buck Rodgers.

The other alternative is to tax the citizenry into oblivion and turn the US into the very Russia it is seeking to get money from.

Super Collider

[fain0v]

I am still pissed off at congress for giving the international space the money to run and letting the collider in Texas go to waste. One of the problems with letting uninformed politician make scientific decisions based not on science, but on their re-election strategy. At this point though, I would hate to see the iss program dropped.

USA running out money?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange.. to send fire into Saddam Husein, they have money...

Possible outcomes:

[seanellis]

So here's my personal best possible outcome of this:

$$$ saved:

1. ISS scrapped or mothballed long term.

2. Shuttle upgrade program scrapped - expires at end of current lifetime.

$$$ spent:

1. Money allocated up-front to be spent on fast-track development of low cost, manned, VTVL reusable launcher (a la Roton, DC-Y, ISAS RVT, PHOENIX, etc.) with incremental build-and-fly development. Orbital 2-man demonstration vehicle to be flight ready by end of 2006.

2. VTVL design licensed to multiple commercial implementers (Boeing, MD, ArianeSpace, ISAS, etc.) Commitment to buy cargo space from cheapest bidder, starting 2008.

3. Award commercial, fixed price contracts for operating local spaceports (Mojave, Utah, etc.) If your state has a pro-space senator, then they can set up local jobs in space!

Re:Possible outcomes:

[NeuroManson]

Don't forget...

(wait for it)

4. Profit!

Glad you asked. . .

[Monkey-Man2000]

I think that's sarcasm.

Re:Glad you asked. . .

[sh00z]

I think that's sarcasm.

Well, four moderators thought it was informative, and with that kind of score, dozens of other readers were bound to believe likewise. Sarcasm of this sort definitely needs HTML tags.

Re:Glad you asked. . .

[Christopher Thomas]

I think that's sarcasm.

Well, four moderators thought it was informative

It was.

It correctly pointed out that Russia wasn't the only entity hindering the space station's development.

Re:Glad you asked. . .

[simong_oz]

Fair point, but it was indeed sarcasm. I actually put a /sarcasm tag at the end enclosed in angled brackets , but didn't realise slashdot would strip that from the post.

my bad :)

NASA Blackmail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to the misconception of many posters, NASA isn't threatening to evacuate the ISS in order to get money from the Russians. NASA doesn't get any money from the Russians or its other ISS partners. (They refer to this as the "no exchange of funds" principle.) What they get from the Russians (as Russia's contribution to ISS) is hardware and operational services. In particular, the Russians provide the Soyuz emergency return vehicle and the Progress resupply vehicle. Without these elements, crews cannot remain aboard the ISS.

NASA isn't making threats. They've been warned by the Russians that they (the Russians) may be unable to provide the necessary Soyuz and Progress vehicles. So NASA has no choice but to prepare to abandon the ISS, at least temporarily.

In retrospect, reliance on the Russians for critical ISS capabilities was clearly a very bad idea. This is yet another example of a Clinton administration policy which has proved to be a disaster.

USA Defence spending

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't someone here mention that the total USA expenditure for space exploration since it began was something like 250billion yet GWB was putting aside 300billion to spend on defence this year alone !, yet with all the trillions of dollars spent on defence and military spending it did absolutley nothing to prevent or even stop the 9/11 attacks

and people are talking about space being a waste of money ?

Actually, the Progress is more important

[hpulley]

While the Soyuz can be used to save the people inside, the fuel in the Progress is used to keep the station's orbit from decaying. I'd say keeping the station up is a priority if they can keep it in the sky without people on board.

Cost

[ZHaDoom]

I hope the US Congress learned a lesson. How much money did we save making this an international project vs a us project?

Instead, studies in remote manipulation!

[hpulley]

I can't believe they need meat-bots up there to do things! Why not have autonomous, semi-autonomous or remote-controlled (perhaps virtually to stuff a buzzword in there) machines? Then you wouldn't need to fill the entire thing with an atmosphere and keep it heated. You'd just heat and pressurize the experiments that required it. Shuttles with space-walkers could still come up when necessary for repairs which require new parts.

Send people where they haven't gone before or where they haven't been for 30 years, not where they've been many times before and don't do much good.

Re:Instead, studies in remote manipulation!

[fferreres]

One word: the empathy factor (citizens expect to see human in space).

Not quite...

[Orne]

America is not suffering from a lack of vision; it is suffering from a lack of results, a plague of soured "return on investments". It's one thing to have lofty goals, but it is quite another to spend without purpose.

Why was the ISS built? Was it so NASA scientists could perform all of these hi-tech crystal expieriments & gravity tests? NASA lists a set of reasons here. Some goals are noble... "To create a permanent orbiting science institute in space capable of performing long-duration research in the materials and life sciences areas in a nearly gravity-free environment", "To conduct medical research in space", "To develop new materials and processes in collaboration with industry"

No, why was it really built? Two more "reasons" are more ominous (and really, the only goals that suceeded). "To forge new partnerships with the nations of the world." and "To sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest export sector-aerospace technology-which in 1995 exceeded $33 billion." In retrospect, we now know that that "export sector" was selling long range rocket diagrams & targeting systems to the Chinese, some of the more ethically dubious actions of the Clinton administration. ISS was a shortcut for the US government to funnel money out to other First World nations, which bloated the national budget and artifically increased our Gross Domestic Product... a surprising correlation to Wall Street's activities over the same time period.

So, where is America's spirit of exporation today? In my opinion, it's not outward to the stars, but inward... the Internet. We're working to build a world of interconnected services, where a doctor can telemeter themselves accross the country to perform operations, or have digital paper, or communicate in virtual worlds (EverQuest & now the Sims Online). Each new network discovery has the same effect as throwing another satelite in space, for a much smaller cost.

What will it take to rekindle the spirit to go to space? Money. Show me where I can make a profit, when the transportation costs are negligible, or maybe asteroid mining to find pure crystals of metal, or terraforming ... this time around, it's not government that's going to have to lead the way.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If the ISS is abandoned and

If I had a launch vehicle

Could I go up there and claim it as salvage?

Columbus, the latercomer....

[fantomas]

...and Columbus was a latecomer in the list of Europeans visiting America. The vikings had already explored down the coast looking for suitable settlements, while North European fishermen had been fishing the coasts of the North West for a couple of hundred years.

Perhaps the latter would be a better analogy as they were specifically looking for reaping commercial rewards, rather than than settlement. The only building they carried out were work places and temporary accomodation when it wasn't possible to get back (as far as I remember, feel free to correct me).

Re:Columbus, the latercomer....

[MacAndrew]

Yeah, well, I knew that but didn't want to bring it up because it gets people all pissy. There's even a theory, not well proven, that Africans may have made it to the Carribean. Interesting and inconclusive debate.

I think Columbus can be defended as not so much first (who really cares, only history books and monument makers do) but most clearly identifiable wellspring of the New World development that most concerns us moderns. "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." See, that's accurate and doesn't say anything about "first." :) He didn't do any building, either, and the only settlement he left behind got promptly massacred by natives, but he certainly piqued the interest of the monarchs.

Re:Columbus, the latercomer....

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also the Olmec statues that highly resemble Africans and traces of Cocaine found in ancient mummies in Egypt/Africa. There are also statues of people with slanted eyes which would show an Asian connection to. Trade has been going on for a long time between the old and new world with periods of inactivity scattered here and there.

Re:Columbus, the latercomer....

[banzai51]

What I don't understand is that while Columbus certainly wasn't the first to America, he gets tagged with the disease rap because he brought a native back. Why does everyone assume biological makeup is different for Native North Americans? Viking were there, Africans were there, hell, Native American can be more accurately described as Asian. Maybe the deseases that "Columbus brought with him" were already ravaging the interior of the new world.

Re:Columbus, the latercomer....

[erktrek]

Lest we become to Eurocentric - the Native Americans were really the first colonizers weren't they?

This isn't insightful...

[tgd]

All the commercial passengers they could possibly send up at twenty million a pop doesn't come even remotely close to paying for anything -- in fact, it wastes money, because the cost to them is far more than that.

Russia does that for one reason, and one reason only -- that money can help them in the very short term to pay off debts that are due, and can push the actual cost of the flight off even longer, and it provides publicity which clearly they hope will cause NASA to step in and foot the bill for the stuff that they're not getting done (as we've been doing all along).

This space race was lost by both sides before it even started. Killing the ISS would probably be the best thing NASA could do. Maybe our tax dollars and national efforts can do to something that is actually productive. There is little in the way of new technologies being developed for the ISS, and essentially zero science being done on the station because of budget cut backs.

Re:This isn't insightful...

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Russia does that for one reason, and one reason only -- that money can help them in the very short term to pay off debts that are due, and can push the actual cost of the flight off even longer, and it provides publicity which clearly they hope will cause NASA to step in and foot the bill for the stuff that they're not getting done (as we've been doing all along).

You modded me as a troll then said that dribble?
Every passenger who has paid for their flight has gone up on a SCHEDULED flight with a WORKING crew. No one has gotten their OWN ride thus the money was not adding costs.

Before you post such things 1. read about something 2. think about it and finally you might want to take a basic finance class.
I won't get into wether or not their are new technologies since you have only your own opinion to back it up.

Why IIS

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA should have abandoned IIS a long time ago!
Apache is much better.

you can't trust them

[fantomas]

Yeah, damn commies! give them a look at our free market system and whadda ya know, they go and do a better job of it than us. We should never have shared our ideas with them in the first place!

Re:NASA money for bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we need to stop wasting money on the
space program and use the funds to drop more
bombs out in the middle east.

Is emergency escape really needed?

[RobertB-DC]

While the "Progress" resupply ship is critical to keep the station stocked with food and fuel, I've long questioned the whole concept of the "Soyuz" escape capsule.

It may sound heartless, but do we have nobody in this country (or any other) willing to explore like they did 100 years ago? Lewis and Clark didn't have an emergency return system... but that didn't keep them from exploring the Mississippi (though there aren't any alien guides this time around).

Another example. In the 1700s, Captain James Cook lost several men each time he journeyed to unknown lands -- sometimes to hostile natives, often to disease, and not infrequently to accident. In fact, his journeys blow NASA's whole idea of long-voyage "I love you, you love me" compatibility to pieces: Cook was a fair captain, but did not hesitate to use the whip when it was needed.

Another interesting note in Cook's explorations: Free (as in beer) Beer! According to an interview with Cook biographer Tony Horwitz on the local PBS station, the rotten conditions on board ship were made tolerable by the large quantities of strong beer in the hold. This led, of course, to some of the death-by-accident statistics (such as sailors falling off the "comfort seat" -- the gangplank with a hole in it for use as a toilet).

I don't mean to paint too drab a picture of future exploration, and I wouldn't want to see the whip making a return on board ship... but until we're willing to lose more than a half-dozen explorers in 40 years, we're not going to get anywhere.

Re:Is emergency escape really needed?

[isorox]

Of course this doesnt mean be stupid. Cook had a surgeon on board, for example. Risk management is not the same as risk elimination though.

Re:Boot the Russians Out

[Havoc'ing]

Acutaully the Soyuz isnt that important NASA has been working on a emeregency re-entry vehicle for some time. It would actually glide back once past the atmosphere on parachute... see link http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2001/5000/5950dunlap .html

NASA is full of...

[Anonymous Coward]

...cowards and claim jumpers.

There is a reason that there is an annual award for the research group that is screwed the hardest by NASA. They fund research and then apply for patents for said research behind the backs and in front of the research companies while they are trying to patent it themselves.

Microsoft is NOTHING compared to NASA.

Another Idea

[Fascist Christ]

I propose that we develope a self-sustaining ecosystem as a man-made satellite of earth.Get that down and you can colonize anywhere (last I heard, the US and other countries are a part of a treaty that forbids colonization on any natural body in space).

We can have shuttles that are built specifically to go to said station and back to Earth... and that would be the extent of their function. Watch the efficiency grow. Every trip made should bring up more supplies than needed so that there is an abundance, limiting the number of emergency supplies-only trips. Have a couple suitable space stations and you can develope a transport vessel. No entering/exiting atmospheres, just zero-gravity transportation from one to another. Then you can build a station orbiting Mars, creating a dedicated transportation system to and from Mars' orbit from and to Earth's orbit. Then we can think of colonizing Mars.

But if these stations aren't mostly self-sustaining, they will not survive.

Re:Another Idea

[Winged Cat]

last I heard, the US and other countries are a part of a treaty that forbids colonization on any natural body in space

Claiming, perhaps, but not colonization. The US could not claim the Moon as its own even if a significant part of its population were to settle there, without backing out of the treaty as said treaty allows (with proper notice) - which you can bet they'd do if this happened.

Re:Another Idea

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Why bother creating your own satellite when there's a ready made one right next door? Granted, your idea that "if we can colonize that we can colonize anything" is definitely true, but why try to run when you have not yet learned to walk? You will eventually run, but the time and effort required to make such a leap would be enormous, with no payoff until the very end. By moving in more measured steps -- a moonbase first, a space station second, a Mars base third -- you get more consistent payoffs on your efforts and the learning curve is much less steep.

Re:If NASA is serious - Dead On Arrival

[The Dobber]

While it could be argued that the current Soyuz is a completely redesigned version of the original:

Soyuz 1

Mission Statistics:
Date: 04/23/67
Flight Time: 001d 02h 48m
Number of Orbits: 0018 orbits

Cosmonaut Crew:
Vladimir M. Komarov

EVA's:
None

Payloads:
None

Mission Highlights:
Komarov became the first Russian to make a second trip into space. The main purpose of this 1-day flight was to test out the new Soyuz spacecraft. The reentry process of Soyuz 1 appears to have gone completely normal through the routine communications blackout period. However, in the last few miles of descent, the parachute became twisted in its lines and the spacecraft was destroyed in a hard impact. Komarov was killed instantly on impact. It was ironic that both the United States and the Soviet Union suffered their first mission-related fatalities within a few months of each other.

AND

Soyuz 11 (Salyut 1)

Mission Statistics:
Date: 06/06/71
Flight Time: 023d 18h 22m
Number of Orbits: 0385 orbits

Cosmonaut Crew:
Georgi T. Dobrovolsky
Vladislav N. Volkov
Viktor A. Patsayev

EVA's:
None

Payloads:
None

Mission Highlights:
What had been a most successful mission aboard the Salyut 1 space station, turned into disaster upon reentry of the crew. A pressure release valve in the Soyuz spacecraft malfunctioned, allowing the oxygen to escape from the cabin during reentry. The crew, as was the custom on earlier Soyuz flights, was not wearing pressure suits. When the recovery teams opened the hatch on the spacecraft, they found the flight crew dead.

Re:WTF?!!!

[platypus]

Well, it's a nice change to get Nietcheian Republican moderator rather than the usual bunch of limp-wristed Socialist momma's boys.

LOL

btw, I too found the first troll funny. If you really intended to flamebait, you've overpaced, and landed in funnyland. But I liked it.

NASA needs to die

[Sloppy]

Government is for protecting me from other people. Protecting me from the overall fate of Earth, is outside their scope or purpose. That is something I'd rather that free men with vision and purpose work on.

If someone has to point a gun at me to get me to cough up, then their arguments lose a lot credibility. Their claim that the money will be used for "the future of humanity" is just a sick joke. Indeed, when I see all the money my federal government has thrown away just this month I'm convinced that almost none of the money withheld from my paycheck, will actually be spent on "the future of humanity."

We need to cancel as much of government as we possibly can, including NASA. If NASA's work is really important, we'll decide to do it on our own, and no one will have to force us.

Write a letter to your senators/representatives today, reminding them why they are allowed to govern at all, and warning them to not exceed their authority. I don't think getting rid of NASA is a top priority, but it's still a step in the right direction, and if we start treating NASA as some sort of sacred cow for nerds, that just makes it harder to justify slaughtering someone else's cow.

Re:NASA needs to die

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> Government is for protecting me from other people.

No, it's the armed forces of the govt. to "provide for the comman defense", & the right to keep & bear arms is for YOU to protect YOU from other people - the purpos of the U.S. Govt. is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". Try reading the damn constitution before posting about the purpose of the Govt., please.

Since the main impetus for NASA originally was as a defenseive measure against "space weapons" during the cold war - so, in essence, the govt. WAS providing for the comman defense when creating NASA, or as you so quaintly put it, protecting us from other people.

Also worthy of note - as almost all thinking people know, there are now & always have been projects that are too big for private enterprise to tackle. Space exploration is certianly one of them. As noted by sooooo many posts already, the economic benefiets of the space program have repeatedly outweighed the cost to taxpayers. Most every tech industry owes it's very exsistence to the space program. Anyone familiar w/ the writings of the Founding Fathers knows that one of the purposes of the U.S. govt. was to facilitate trade & commerce - something NASA has most certianly accomplished.

So . . . write a letter to your senators & congressmen today expressing support for expanded funding for one of the very few govt. programs that has had a positive effect on the U.S. economy.

P.S. - If you have such a huge problem w/ the realitively low taxation here in the U.S., please feel free to move to any other country in the industrialized west & pay taxes to a less wasteful regime.

I've got the perfect solution...

[ryanvm]

Hmmm - Lance Bass was willing to pay $20 million just for a couple weeks on it. Imagine how much rent they could charge all of N'Sync for an entire year!!

Just think - Earth could be N'Sync free for a whole year and NASA would have somebody to water the plants.

Galactic law states....

[Anonymous Coward]

Squatter's Rights!It is mine!!!!

An Idea: MTV's Real World In Space

[petele]

The True Story...
This is the true story of seven strangers, picked to live in an international space station to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real. The Real World!

Imagine if they kicked someone out? Pop'em in a space suit and send them home! Or well, into outer space!

ISS sucks away money from real science projects

[Anonymous Coward]

we get so much good science from missions like hubble, pioneer, chandra, etc... that cost much less money than the ISS. Think of how much our view of the universe has changed due to these robotic sensors.. they cost a fraction of the cost of the ISS, which, IMHO produces very little 'useful' science. Why don't we scrap the whole mission and get on with a europa mission to see if there is sub-surface life, and more mars missions... ? If we are going to have humans in space, at least do something useful with them like set up a moon base.

my $0.02

G

Homeland Security Office is epitome of socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism=evil=violation_of_unalienable_rights=d id isayevil

I am pulling the political card. I am praying to my father in heaven. I am for once reading about jesus and how I am suppose to be just like him, he my teacher. I think all you political parties should leave all us humans alone; go debate on the ISS if you like. We non-political_people will be happy living on our own property if only the banks didn't own the property.

Homeland Security Office, and the United States Corporation (in general), is evil (socialism).

Remember what I say:

IT IS ONLY SOCIALISM WHEN YOU ARE FORCED BY LAW OF MAN TO DO IT.

What ever happened to voluntary?

Space station? Think of Skylab

[Anonymous Coward]

A US space station launched in the 1970s, we put it up there, used it for a few experiments, and then abandoned it because we didn't want to pay the upkeep . Getting to be a habit, isn't it?

Columbus n all that old PR stuff

[fantomas]

Yeah I get your point but I think the man Colon had better PR but not a lot else (hence US school kids poem). It became very important for politics to make a big deal out of what he did (Spanish / Portuguese empire aspirations and influencing the Pope). There's some well proven archeological evidence of Viking presence (documents referring to Bjarni Herjolfsson's trip in 986 etc) and various written reports about the later European fishing industry. Columbus had an interest to publicise his discoveries, as did his sponsors, they wanted payback and he wanted more money to find that route through to India. I am more interested in the fishing industry metaphor for the parent thread as here was a group of people who were resource-picking rather than intending to settle. This I think is more likely our way to the stars or at least further exploration of the near solar system within our life time. They kept quiet because they didn't want their taxmen and kings finding out about their rich new fishing fields....

I think it's all a bit murky about the 'clearly identifiable' - I think he was the man who got the PR sorted well, plenty of Europeans had been sniffing round that part of the world. Mr Colon (as the Spanish and Portuguese prefer to call him) discovered Cuba and Hispaniola on that first trip, explored Venezuala in 1498 and did such a bad job of mismanaging his colony even by the rather low human rights levels of that time that he was taken back to Spain in chains in 1500.

I know this if offtopic but...

[ubrayj02]

What is the big deal with space exploration? Doesn't it strike anyone here as an enormous waste of money? I hear freak-o right and left wingers bring up a lack of funding for different social programs all the time - but everyone seems to think it is okay to waste BILLIONS of dollars on space stations. What is the point?
I can think of two, and neither are that good.
1)Space exploration (generally) funds allsorts of useful research into to fields/materials that provide a benefit to everyone. A good example of this is something like velcro, or the use of upper atmosphere satellites to monitor weather.
A good counter to this argument is that this sort of research isn't limited to just space exploration. If we wanted to benefit a great deal of people with research in materials and natural laws we could do so without the monumental waste of money that accompanies hurling some yutz into orbit in a mechanical womb.
2)Space exploration inspires us/helps us dream/blah/blah/blah.
This appeal to our "imagination" is so bogus that it gives me a headache just thinking about it. LSD inspires people - but those that produce it don't receive billions in government funding. Likewise, if inspiration was the point of space exploration - why couldn't we just shift focus to something other than some anthrpoid peering out of a tiny window high in orbit around Mars? The government could hire fleet of advertisers to inspire us - think of all the Nike campaigns that try to get us to feel like athletes just because we wear some flimsy shoes.
The benefits of having NASA around are negligible when confronted with the realtiy of the costs to our society as a whole. We could try and tackle much more difficult feats of technical sophistication and social benifit if we redirected funds into something else.
Sorry that thisis a rant, but i just get tired of incessant boosterism for something that is so truly unimportant to the betterment of the condition of humankind (and NO eventual coloniozation of other planets will not relieve problems on earth - those problems arise out of our humanity and natural facts like scarcity).

(p.s. sorry about any typos)

OH, well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the Russians are responsible for the parts that maintain the station in orbit, an all-too-likely scenario is that they'll shut that off too and the whole thing will fall in flaming pieces on some third-world country.

The really sad part, though, is the likelihood that there are fewer people in the US concerned about this than there are about the cancellation of "Farscape".

Maintenace $$$

[jeepliberty]

85% [wired.com] of their time is required for maintenance

I think its interesting that unmanned communication and photo satellites are essentially maintenace-free. Are they are designed better? Or is it the oxygen rich environment and human contact that causes the problems?

Reminds me of a design review of a software project.
Option 1. Implement mods to support new requirements: +$100K.
Option 2. Don't implement requested mods: +$105K.

Management decision: Knife the baby.

Lifeboat? Why?

[bleyddyn]

Seriously, why not just send a shuttle up, drop off a full crew (6 or 7), then go pick them up in four (or six) months. Russia would still have to send up Progress supply ships, but they're cheaper than Soyuzes. You would probably also need to leave one of the Italian cargo modules up there, both for extra supplies and for extra living space, since the US also cancelled the large habitation module.

I can already hear (read) the indignant replies: "What happens if there's an emergency?!?!?!" Well, first the brave astronauts try to fix the problem, then, maybe, they die. Yes that would be terrible, and I'd hate to be the NASA official who had to tell their families the bad news: "I'm deeply sorry Ma'm or Sir, but due to shortsighted budget cuts from Congress and the President we were unable to provide your loved one with an emergency escape vehicle", but I personally would be willing to take that risk.

Just in case any NASA officials are reading this, I just need to dig up my meager flight log and tweak the essays a bit and I'll finish resubmitting my application. The previous app is ten years out of date so please ignore it :)

Mod this troll UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, deserve your own talk show.

If they abandon it, is it *salvage*?

[Chriscypher]

Maritime Law has specific verbage about how long a ship at sea may remain unoccupied before it is deemed salvage.

What about Space Law?

russia stole my lunch money

[Anonymous Coward]

Nasa...the whiney kid in the sandbox

Find a Billionaire

[FU_Fish]

I'm sure there's some filthy rich guy out there who wouldn't mind living in the space station for a year while NASA takes a break. ;o)>

Re:Columbus, the leper....

[MacAndrew]

I haven't heard his group tagged so much as the disease vector, except for VD that I guess was very common in Europe. Syphilis can kill, but it was smallpox that did a number on North America IIRC.

Native Americans removed to Europe tended not to last long, and thus were quickly deemed unsuitable slaves. The absence of so much disaease among the Indians is still a puzzle (some think the bugs didn'ts survive teh Arctic trip), but it was real.

Lastly, as for discovers of America, it would have to be the Native Americans I think, who numbered in the millions before any Europeans showed up. Plus they got there the hard way -- they walked! But "discoverer" has different meanings depending on the context.

The Russians mount a comeback.

[CoachS]

ISS flight in doubt as Russian space launch explosion kills one.

So I guess it's all tied up at 1-1.

-Coach-

Re:The Russians mount a comeback.

[CoachS]

Sorry about the double-post. I thought the first post exploded on launch.

-Coach-

The Russians shoot and score!

[CoachS]

But really, how many fatal accidents has the Soyouz TM had? (0) how many the US shuttle? (1)

Actually...
ISS flight in doubt as Russian space launch explosion kills one.

-Coach-

Here's why we need this

[oakbox]

There are a lot of comments here about 'how wasteful and dumb it is to have a space station' and 'where is the return on investment?' and 'shouldn't we be putting our money into something else?'
The simple fact of the matter is that we don't really know a whole lot about living out there. We need a platform like the ISS to learn on. You figure out how to live in space, then you step up to the moon, then work your way outward. For those of you who are still wondering why we need to do these things, let me remind you about the several close passes of asteroids in the last few years and little things like. . . oh, I don't know, the K/T Boundary extinction. The Earth may seem all homey and comfy now, but this is NOT the status quo. We need to spread the human race out.
This isn't short term economic viability, this is LONG TERM SURVIVAL of your SPECIES.

Re:Here's why we need this

[pfdietz]

Ah, the 'asteroid' canard.

Building armored refuges on Earth where a group of people could survive the post-impact winter with enough food/etc. to restart civilization and restock the biosphere would be FAR cheaper than colonizing space. Besides, after the impact the earth would *still* be more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.

yes it is offtopic

[mutzinator]

and I think we'd all appreciate it if you took your communist drivel somewhere else. as exciting as your "social programs" sound, something tells me AMERICANS would rather build enormous lasers in space. I know if I got to choose what my tax dollars went to, I'd certainly pick something big, something fast, and something deadly. space lasers are all of these.

next you are gonna be telling me we should explore the oceans instead, but don't even start. everyone knows lasers don't work underwater.

later comrade.

Re:yes it is offtopic

[ubrayj02]

ahh Herr Rommel, how mistaken you are. There is a large body of evidence that in terms of big and dead, there are quite a few things that the ocean has to offer americans.
Take for instance these all american types.

well......

[sHu_pAc]

I believe that in all reality, we should not stop supporting things like the ISS, these are not mothball creating equipment, they do help promote exploration and advancement of knowledge. Unless you consider, spending 200% more money on being able to pin point down to a few cm the exact location were the next tomahawk missle will hit some unsuspecting middle estern building, that will undoubtedly kill people, if this is the research that we would rather pursue well then I'm moving to mexico :)

The Problem is NOT the Space Station:

[NeuroManson]

The problem is with the Russian space program and NASA. Back when both organizations started out, it was an extension of the cold war. Both were formed as branches of each country's military forces, and were funded as their research also influenced the nuclear war that in the end never happened. They were in competition with each other for the upper hand, with national pride as the prize. As such, they recieved a massive amount of funding (to the point of bankrupcy on the Russian side). With that threat diminished, if not dispensed with entirely, both programs have been largely gutted. Add to that, a growing public apathy for a program that is largely still dedicated to science, porkbarrelling and what has become, for the most part, a military country club.

For example, even though the Hubble telescope has proven invaluable as a research tool, in it's original deployment, it was a national joke. Even today, it's historical scope pales in comparison to the lunar landings.

What I propose, is an international effort between private and public corporations and civilian space enthusiasts. Currently, what exists is a massively disorganized scattering of individuals and individual groups trying their own thing, truly only sharing two things: A massive interest in space, and a large amount of enthusiasm. What is needed, however, is a common ground to operate on, and the organization to build with.

We need a largely centralized system to incorporate the best of the best concepts in space technology, independant from any government organizations or interferance. Governments beget beaurocracy, and beaurocracy begets stagnation.

As for financing, it isn't THAT difficult. If we could just get 1/10th of the world's population to contribute $10, then that would be sufficient to get the first manned launch vehicle off the ground, complete with launch facilities, administration et al. It wouldn't be a space plane per se, but a manned two or three person capsule. Perhaps one could even sell a seat on the capsule with a raffle system, which would make an incredible incentive for large donations.

Pilots and experienced space veterans are, frankly, a dime a dozen, I'm certain some of them would love the opportunity to be directly involved in a pioneering space program once more, one that'll influence it far more than any government controlled system today.

Experienced scientists are a dime a dozen as well, first off, there's many in aerospace who, while they exceed many requirements of the space programs, aren't taken in due to budget constraints, or because they simply don't know the right people. Additionally, grab as many whistle blowers as you can. Why? Because they not only knew what was wrong with the current system, but they *acted* on it. That is what we need. Instead, NASA and the Russian space administration would fire them or kick them out, resulting in the continuing backslide both organizations have been experiencing. And that, in fact, would give us an edge.

This is what needs to be done. Stop hoping and wishing for "space welfare" to come to the rescue, join forces and start your own space program! At the least, there's 2-3 million people around the world who want to go to space, and want to build rockets so they can do so, at least 1/4-1/3 of which are capable of doing so.

All that NASA and Russia have, is a couple hundred thousand who're hobbled by beaurocracy and ineptitude in the very same government, that, for the ol' Slashdot tie in, consider file swapping as theft and viewing your DVD on another operating system as hacking (and subsequently a major felony deserving of a life sentance, thanks to one of the new riders on the Homeland Security Act). How can anyone in their right mind expect these same people to see any scientific viability in space programs?

NASA...

[rootX]

I'd like to see the U.S. cough up what it owes to the U.N.

So Which Way Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read this article from the AP, which says at the bottom that Russia is not scrubbing its support for the station any time soon. So which way is it? Is the station going to be mothballed, or not?

Explode in vacuum... seems familiar

[mrd_yaddayadda]

This whole discussion reminds me of the early stories of the fear of driving fast. That the human body couldn't withstand such stresses and would explode...

Chicken Feed

[Anonymous Coward]

100 Billion divided by 30 Yrs comes to about 3.333 Billion per year.

What's that compared to the c-trillions spent with the Heimatsverteidigung ?

Heck ! Even my 3rd/4th whatever country country could foot that, just by starving the peasants some more every year (birth control just isn't going fast enough ! Not even with help from all those missionary and international aid ngo's! Slackers that they are. If it were'nt for the drug trade to 1st world martkets... ).

The fact is - no government likes open frontiers. The serfs keep getting this fleeing-into-the-woods away from those who take-care-of-them-for-their-own-good idea.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

America does not maintain a defence force, they maintain an agressive force. With the best form of defence being offense. Fair enough I say. Although don't have any illusions that this is a necessary expenditure. If America kept it hands out of other countries politics, an agressive force would be unnecessary.

But don't go feeding bullshit about how this makes a fully free nation. Funny how things like the DMCA still get passed.

The military is the ultimate enforcement of government policy. It is government policy that makes a free nation.

Besides, I think its about time for the military funding process to be reviewed. The military wastes more money then even the government due to mismanagement, and cockups.

The entire contract system (for developing/obtaining new equipment) is a joke.

The Right Incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

Make designers and production chiefs work up there. Better yet. See what can be made or put together up there.
Pirty that can't be done with the politicos, too.

Remember Freedom?

[ArmedGeek]

I remember when ISS was the Space Station Freedom and was an American project.

I suppose I'm just one of 'those arrogant bastards' but I wish it had stayed that way. I mean what did the US have to gain by bringing in other nations into the project? Money? Apparently not.

What the hell...

[kitzilla]

...more Tang for the rest of us.

waste of money

[niloroth]

damn, and here I thought when I first read the headline that NASA was threatening to mothball it because it is a huge waste of taxpayer money, and will fail to produce almost any results or experiments that couldn't be done for less cash by robots launched into space for 1/10 the price.

well, maybe next year.

I will go

[Anonymous Coward]

Send me up with a working escape pod, Gillian Anderson, and Martina Hingis. Provide us with enough food, water and oxygen to last 20 years.

In the event of some catastrophic failure on planet earth, we will come back and re-populate the planet. Finally, all members of the human race will be smart, athletic, good looking, and witty. :)

The real reason the space station was built?

[michaelmalak]

Excerpt from the Sep. 26, 2002 UnderReported.com story In 15 months, space station will have 1/4 MW of power, but hold just 3 people:

So the full 16 solar panels (not counting those in the science platform that will likely never be added) generate 1/4 Megawatt of continuous power. Now what would three people need with enough power for 200 homes? Recall that the space station was started (see history) in 1985 when Reagan was president.

Essentially, all the science and habitation modules of the space station have been nixed, but all the solar panels have been preserved.

Sadam's new presidential palace?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets sell it to Sadam. He could look down on the entire world and plot, plot, plot.

Then, we could fire a few missles at the ISS.

PayPerView would make a killing. ...Just an idea.

Gimme some canned food, air and a laptop...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I'll housesit the ISS until they contact ET.

and mothball the shuttle

[tgreenwalt]

If the ISS is mothballed there is very little reason to be doing shuttle launchs, so the shuttle would probably also be all but shutdown. That would also be a huge savings for NASA. Except of course NASA's whole reason for existance is manned space flight, so NASA could be mothballed as well. JPL can take the whole budget and send robot probes everywhere then.

burial in space

[MacAndrew]

I don't know about you, but I've got a long list of people I'd like to launch into space.

Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Its probably cheaper for me to rent the ISS than it is to find affordable housing in London - whens the next taxi? ;)

Ask the Chinese/Japanse for money;)

[forgoil]

Or the europeans, or the Saudi, or whomever. I am sure that someone else than Russia could be interested after all.

Abandon - NO; Reposess - Yes!!

[Steve McCown]

We don't need to abandon the project, we should just reposess the thing and keep going. I mean, since we're the Russian's creditors anyway, let's keep going and leave them at home... ...like the original poster, I'd be willing to house sit while NASA was gone...my kids and I would love to clean *those* windows!

Re:Boot the Russians Out

[tailgunner_on_a_milk]

just like walking to places isnt really important because there are people who have been working on teleportation for some time?

Re:Columbus, the leper....

[Planesdragon]

Lastly, as for discovers of America, it would have to be the Native Americans I think, who numbered in the millions before any Europeans showed up. Plus they got there the hard way -- they walked! But "discoverer" has different meanings depending on the context.

If you speak English, you're operating in the 1500 year old civilization that was once known as "Christendom" but now, since we beat up or absorbed just about everyone else, we simply call ourselves "civilization."

Besides which, our Asian-American ancestors didn't discover the Americas as much as they moved here. No one back in Aisa ever got a return-ship saying "look what we found!"

Re:Columbus, the leper....

[MacAndrew]

Was sagen sie?