Slashdot Mirror


Russia's Role in the ISS in Trouble

Uhh_Duh writes "cnn.com is reporting that the Russian space program has fallen on hard times and is no longer capable of launching independent missions due to budget problems. The article touches on the fact that their annual funding is about 309 million versus the U.S. budget of 15 billion. They've also announced that they will not be meeting most of their future deliverables for the international space station." (corrected, the title originally said "IIS" instead of "ISS)

360 comments

  1. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 0, Redundant
    wait a sec

    uh, nevermind.

    1. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By my count, you're sixth.

      Sorry, thanks for playing.

    2. Re:in soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT FUNNY...

      In Soviet Russia there are 1000 unemployed comedians!

      PA

      Oh Yes!!

  2. I say they should... by craenor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Carry all of the boy bands into space for $100 million...then take bids on an open auction to leave them there...

    1. Re:I say they should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, a joke about a boybands. my sides are aching. seriously folks, these jokes just aren't funny. find a harder target

    2. Re:I say they should... by rowanxmas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Carry all of the boy bands into space for $100 million...then take bids on an open auction to leave them there...

      I see nothing wrong with this idea. If pop stars are willing to pay for the station, and keep our (important?) research going, then, by god let them. I would rather the boy bands pay for it than my tax dollars.

    3. Re:I say they should... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really! They should go totally commercial - build a moon station and fill it with $20M/week tourists. One the infrastructure was in place maybe they could up the volume, lower the price, and start ferrying the rest of us poor schmucks up there too.

      One of my lifetime goals is to fuck in space.

    4. Re:I say they should... by saider · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fucking in space would be rather painful. I'd much rather fuck in a spaceship.

      0-G sex would also introduce control and fluid problems. If you want to try it, I know there are pilots who will take you up in a private airplane and let you join the Mile High club. They top it off by doing Vomit-Comet maneuvers to simulate microgravity.

      Russia should consider a porn in space. It helped with the proliferation of the internet.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    5. Re:I say they should... by JHromadka · · Score: 1
      I say that America should just take over the whole thing. 300M vs 2B? Bah!

      Of course, the new name would be the United States Space Station, aka USSS. :)

      --
      "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
    6. Re:I say they should... by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      With the ages of most in the US and Russian space program (especially moreso those on Ground Control), you should send them up and call it:

      United States Space Resthome (USSR)

    7. Re:I say they should... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      It's all about the zero-G. Fucking during a space-walk would be OK in a spacesuit made for two, but I'm more inclined to do it in the station... aside from the arial box munching possibilities you could also use bungees to strap the two of you to the ceiling, and use it as a substitute for gravity. I've got it all worked out!

      Never mind the ride up, having a 1/6G 20lb girlfriend in a moonbase hotel would be interesting too!

      Just need the Russians to seize the opportunity.

    8. Re:I say they should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google for the Artemis Project, among others. there are several commercial space ventures in the works...

    9. Re:I say they should... by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, and moreover the boy bands would pay for the space program through voluntary trade, in contrast to your tax dollars which are collected by force. The more the space program is funded through voluntary trade, the more the space program is representative of the market (the people) rather than government.

    10. Re:I say they should... by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Yeeeeaaaaaarrrrrrghghhghgghhhhhhhh!

      Thanks.

      I know, I used to be a libertarian too. Just try and resist the urge to TESTAFAH! now and then, please.

    11. Re:I say they should... by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      Without the extra work I have to do to counteract gravity during sex, and with the aid of a couple of well-placed bungee cords, space-fucking could be *so* much easier than regular fucking! It seems like, 30 or 45 minutes into sex, I get tired!

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    12. Re:I say they should... by Thunderhead · · Score: 1
      Russia should consider a porn in space.
      Already been done.
      The zero-G bit at least.
      --

      THS
      ---
      "Poor girl looks as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market." - Simon R. Green
    13. Re:I say they should... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Never mind the ride up, having a 1/6G 20lb girlfriend in a moonbase hotel would be interesting too!

      better yet, imagine taking your 400 lb wife up into space so you can finally get laid again!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  3. IIS? by DJPenguin · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm not suprised Russia had a hand in making MSFT's web server product.

    Maybe they mean ISS? Who knows? Who cares?

    Oh god I've just had a premonition. We are going to have a lot of In Soviet Russia jokes aren't we...

    1. Re:IIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK so now pointing out errors in article summaries on the front page is OT?

      Whether it's offtopic or not doesn't really matter. But pointing out such obvious oversights is about as mature as a class full of 3rd graders laughing at the substitute teacher for mispronouncing little Bobby's last name.

      Grow up.

  4. write them off by Metaldsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is NASA planning on writing off Russia totally? Do they get to use the Internation Space Station later on if they get funding (economy improves, etc)?

    1. Re:write them off by krlynch · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think NASA can write them off if they have any plans to expand the station. One of the only major technical reasons the Russians were invited in the first place is that they were the only country that had rocket designs with the heavy lift capability necessary to loft all of the various modules into orbit. It is possible, I suppose, that all of the remaining modules can be lofted by other smaller capacity launch vehicles, but I'm doubting that.

    2. Re:write them off by RocketJeff · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem is that NASA can't write-off Russia for the ISS. Russia provides the only escape system for the long-term crews (via their Soyuz spacecraft).

      Without the Soyuz capsules, the ISS can't have a full-time crew since there'd be no way to leave in an emergency. With the (non)reliability of the Space Shuttle, NASA can't depend on using it for rescue mission even if they had over a week notice.

      There's also the issue of the periodic reboosts the ISS needs. Right now, the Progress cargo missions also boost the ISS back up to its optimal orbit. Without the Progress, the ISS will keep getting lower and lower (until eventually it does a bad impression of the Sklab...).

    3. Re:write them off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Bill and Al Gore had actually watched all of the 'loan' money (pocked by corrupt Russians) given to Russia to keep their space program alive.

    4. Re:write them off by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      Why won't NASA just revisit a page from the Apollo program, and build two or three command module capsules (with modern enhancements, of course - the concept is sound) and fly them up there? What makes the Russian's Soyuz spacecraft any different than our Apollo CMs?

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    5. Re:write them off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The primary russian module is refueled only by Progress supply rockets ( unmanned versions of Soyuz) and when that module is out of fuel it will not be able to maintain station attitude and altitude. The current 200 ton station falls to earth at a rate of 1.5 miles per week. If the station is built up to the 300 ton size with all solar cells installed it will probably fall to earth at a rate of 2.5 miles a week. At that rate it will take less than 100 weeks ( 2 years to burn up. The US had had a boost module planned 2 years ago but it was canceled. It will probably take 4- 5 years to restart that project. High probability that the 100 billion dollar space station will fall to earth, thus ending the space program for Russia and US and leaving it to the Chinese who will have the only manned program left.

    6. Re:write them off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What makes the Russian's Soyuz spacecraft any different than our Apollo CMs?

      the fact that the soyuz is still being built and no one has built an apollo cm in 30 years. it'd be cheaper (so they say) to just design a new vehicle from scratch than to rebuild apollo hardware.

    7. Re:write them off by RocketJeff · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What makes the Russian's Soyuz spacecraft any different than our Apollo CMs?

      The only difference is that the Soyuz has been produced in the past 20 years (they still use the same technology)


      The only problem with using the Apollo CM is that NASA would rather do it 'sexier' - witness the X-38 project. Instead of building simple, reliable (and cheap) Apollo-style CMs, they decided it would be better to design a ship from scratch that'd also use the largest Parasail ever.


      Unfortunately, they didn;t have enough money to finish it. A slightly redesigned Apollo CM would probably have been done for less then they did spend on the X-38...

    8. Re:write them off by yog · · Score: 2

      The space shuttle has boosted the ISS several times. e.g., http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/junk_iss_0201 07.html

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    9. Re:write them off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without the Progress, the ISS will keep getting lower and lower (until eventually it does a bad impression of the Sklab"

      Maybe THIS time I'll get in on those free tacos...

    10. Re:write them off by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      If they took a page from the Apollo program, they'd just shut the whole thing down when the public got bored.

      Like... right now.

  5. If the Russians can't help with the IIS... by Pastor+Fluff · · Score: 0, Funny

    are they going to switch to apache instead?

    --
    Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble... can't we just go to Starbuck's for coffee?
    1. Re:If the Russians can't help with the IIS... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "Are they going to switch to apache instead?"

      They did, it was called Mir. It was very patchy.

  6. What!? by Nefrayu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does this mean that we can no longer count on them to space the boy bands? That's really disappointing... :-(

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
  7. launch another spice boy by Brigadier · · Score: 0, Redundant



    can't they just launch another spice boy I mean nsyncer .... or at least get justn to pay his bills

  8. typo you fool by gingerTabs · · Score: 1, Funny

    I didn't realise The russians space program was so involved m$ products...

  9. I believe we've covered this before by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rule #1: Never never never give any critical roles to bankrupt nations.

    About the dumbest thing NASA (or the US) could do, get together a bunch of nations to build/launch/maintain a space station, then give the critical parts (life support, delivery of components) responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

    Brilliant, the IIS was doomed from the word go.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:I believe we've covered this before by Yakov+Smirnov · · Score: 1, Insightful
      About the dumbest thing NASA (or the US) could do, get together a bunch of nations to build/launch/maintain a space station, then give the critical parts (life support, delivery of components) responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

      Yes, it was better to let those rocket engineers and nuclear scientists go to some third-world country to produce a nuclear device. The ISS program is basically a way to keep Soviet engineers from doing just that.

    2. Re:I believe we've covered this before by back@slash · · Score: 2, Informative

      responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

      That responsibility was given to the nation that was the most qualified to do it. Do you honestly believe that bringing the Russians on board for this project was a bad idea? The Russians are far more advanced than NASA is when it comes to inhabiting space for long periods of time. You may call those who made the decision to include the Russians dumb but I disagree. They pulled off a major coup that saved years off of the time it would have taken NASA to get the ISS to the point it is now.

      --
      This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
    3. Re:I believe we've covered this before by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Didn't the USA almost go bankrupt, sometime during Clinton's presidency?

    4. Re:I believe we've covered this before by guacamole · · Score: 2

      No, in fact we have eliminated the budget deficits during his time.

    5. Re:I believe we've covered this before by 0WaitState · · Score: 2

      That would be had eliminated budget deficits during Clinton's terms. Now we're back to giving extraction industries and military contractors too large a skim off the GDP.

      --

      Remain calm! All is well!
    6. Re:I believe we've covered this before by sabinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course the reason that they did this was because Morther Russia had the most experience and expertise in those fields of Life Support and cheapest payload delivery souyez (don't know if i spelled it right), most information on long stays in orbit, and the infrastructure to be an immediate key player, and although poor, it is a relatively rich nation in resources.

      --
      http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
    7. Re:I believe we've covered this before by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

      That responsibility was given to the nation that was the most qualified to do it.

      Given the Russians' experience on Mir, I'd certainly insist on the life-support systems on my Mars ship being stamped 'Made in Moscow'. Trouble was, in order to get the US government to approve the funding for the station, sufficient pork-barrel spending had to be approved. So instead of simply sending the Russians a cheque for twenty million dollars for a life-support system proved by twelve years of extremely tough duty aboard Mir, they approve forty million to send to Lockheed to develop a new and unproved system from scratch - because that way the money goes to some congressman's voters.

      Of course, there was no way in hell NASA could hope to build a station alone, so Congress had to be persuaded to write the Russians a cheque anyway. That's where the 'if they don't work for us, they'll work for Saddam' argument came in.

      Still, though, most of the spending had to be done in the USA for political reasons. If America really wanted the best possible station as cheaply as possible, they would have had the Russians do the whole thing. As it was, it was a political compromise, with each senator bought off with a plum contract for his own voters...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:I believe we've covered this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're incorrect, the USA experienced one of it's most successful economic eras in the Clinton presidency (this is not open to interpretation or opinion, it is fact. Clinton had eliminated the budget deficit).

      Unfortunately, the Bush government has already broken what Clinton worked to set in place; fucking the economy over and bringing international relations to hell.

      -An anonymous angry conservative who will be voting liberal to escape the moronicism of his previous representatives.

    9. Re:I believe we've covered this before by MidKnight · · Score: 2


      About the dumbest thing NASA (or the US) could do... [is] give the critical parts to the nation than can least afford to do it.

      You think the ISS would be flying right now without Russian involvement? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's all about money.

      For instance, it was all that money that allowed the USSR/Russian space agency to keep Mir flying for 15 years. Meanwhile, since the US had so little money during the same period, they were limited to struggling with space shuttle consistency problems, and their space research could only limp along by collaborating with the Europeans on SpaceLab missions. Yes, you might detect a little bit of sarcasm there....

      Simply put, Mir is one of the most ambitious and successful off-this-world projects to date. It was continually inhabited for 10 years straight at one point, for crissake. Needless to say, the Russians know a thing or two about living in space, finances aside.

      Maybe you should limit your knee-jerk reactions to Gnome vs. KDE discussions....

      --Mid

    10. Re:I believe we've covered this before by joggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's more than just politics behind the reason why Congress would want to keep manufacturing in the US. It's probably true that if the US wanted the cheapest possible space station, Russia could have been paid to build and launch the entire thing. However, all of the money flowing to Russia would probably have no economic impact on the US other than depleting our reserves. By manufacturing in the US, the money stays within the US economy, creating jobs here and generally having the same effect as the huge job contracts given by the government in the past (think FDR economics...) and, theoretically, improving the strength of the economy here (as opposed to improving the economy in Russia).

    11. Re:I believe we've covered this before by joss · · Score: 2

      Maybe you were just being funny, money is funny stuff. The US has massive debt, which it theoretically owes to... er well, mostly private US banking interests.

      You have to remember what money is and where it comes from. 5% is in form of cash, and is invented by the government when it prints notes. 95% is invented when people/corporations/governments take out loans. Since they owe interest on those loans, more loans have to be continually taken out otherwise the existing loans cannot be repaid. It's very weird, but not as complicated as bankers like to pretend. Check out http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/longwaves/nov99/msg 01317.html

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    12. Re:I believe we've covered this before by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By manufacturing in the US, the money stays within the US economy, creating jobs here and generally having the same effect as the huge job contracts given by the government in the past (think FDR economics...) and, theoretically, improving the strength of the economy here (as opposed to improving the economy in Russia).

      This is not the best argument to use, given that we would have to put money into stabilizing Russia if it ever go into dire straits financially (not to mention, an economically strong Russia is a great market for US products.) Additionally, had we been able to build the ISS for cheap, we could have used the rest of the money to build other items of use in space, items that we could have designed and built in the US. Finally, we should look at return on investment for the US taxpayer, since whatever economic gains you have in the US will be offset by the taxes on that income.

      Bottom line, unless we do no trade with Russia (not true, they buy our wheat, we buy their oil, they sell boosters and launch facilities to private corporations, enabling stuff like SeaLaunch, and millions of dollars to both US and Russian economies), spending dollars abroad is not throwing the money away. Note that's spending dollars abroad, as opposed to no-strings aid, which usually is feel-good band-aid fix, rather than a real solution.

      The ultimate economic engine is if they opened space up to commercial enterprise. Mining, manufacturing (of space items, like ships, satelities, power generation, etc.) Problem is, all of the available launch tech is expensive. Had we been able to spend our dollars better (ie, develop a SSTO delivery system, and let the Russians build the space station modules), maybe we might have been able to lower the barrier into space. As it is, we're stuck in the same rut we've been for the last 25 years. Sad.

    13. Re:I believe we've covered this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting them would be cheaper.

    14. Re:I believe we've covered this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You have to remember what money is and where it comes from. 5% is in form of cash, and is invented by the government when it prints notes. 95% is invented when people/corporations/governments take out loans.

      It may be even worse than that. Only during last 3 years, consumer morgage dept raised 2.5 times. With current minimal mortgage rates, 0% for a year credit cards, etc I suspect the cash is much less than 5% currently.

    15. Re:I believe we've covered this before by gorilla · · Score: 2

      The project was a bad idea. Scrap it, and spend the money on something we can actually learn from.

  10. Misnomer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think the title's wrong. Shouldn't it be "ISS", not "IIS"? /me thinks the /. editors have done too much MS-bashing to think straight.

  11. Ah well by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Their money is probably better spent feeding their people and counting their nukes at this point anyway.

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
    1. Re:Ah well by mkweise · · Score: 1

      The same can be said of humanity as a whole.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
    2. Re:Ah well by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Since when it is gobenments responsibility to feed people? I live in Russia and a feed myself thank you very much

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    3. Re:Ah well by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 1

      Fine, spend more on counting nukes.

      You might surprised how much money your government spends is subsidies to feed you. I know in the US we have a lot of subsidies which keep the cost of food down and our farmers in business.

      --
      (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
    4. Re:Ah well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a moscovite now living in New York I can tell you food is dirt cheap in Russia. 50 cents buys a kilo of meat and apples were 14 cents a kilo when I left. Russias per capita GDP is nearly 8000 dollars a person according to the CIA because money goes a lot further in Russia. So, Russia is not as poor as it appears. On top of that the Russian defense budget adjusted for purchasing power is 60 billion dollars annually once you factor in all of Russias three different armies. So, a little can be redirected to the space program. The Russian government on December 18 is going to sell its stake in Slavneft for at least 1.7 billion dollars so it can fund its war in Chechnya. Russians also hold more US dollars in reserve than do Americans a little known fact but true non the less. 50 billion is held by the government and 80 billion is held by banks and consumers. These are hard currency reserves and dont include gold and euros. On top of this add the fact that there are over a billion dollars in jewels in the Kremlin. Russia could buy GE and build all the rockets it wants if Putin decides that is what he wants to do. Unfortunately he wants to stomp the Chechens and continue to support the Belarussian and Ukrainian regimes which without Russian support would have crumbled long ago. Russia has single handidly funded the Belarussian army through Slavneft for years. It is the largest and best equipped force in Europe and is all that keeps Belarussias dictator in power. Russia probably has more billionares than the United States and more paupers and hungry children as well. Oleg Deripaska the Russian Aluminum magnate is probably the richest man on earth since he controls and area the size of Alaska and produces a huge percentage of the worlds ore, coal, and soon most of Russias electricity. Our government doesnt give a damn about its people. That is Russias problem not a lack of freedom or money the Russian people are freer than ever, but so are our politicians. The old system kept everyone in check but today its a free for all. I left because the only way to get rich in Russia is to crush somebody else and most Russians have no problem doing just that.

    5. Re:Ah well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with overall idea - that money go much furter in Russia, than in US. But some details you're mentioning, a seriously wrong.

    6. Re:Ah well by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You poor baby, mut be real sorry you left huh? Especially now that there so many opportunities to make monry and live geat in Russia?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  12. IIS - ISS by frieked · · Score: 1

    Funniest typo ever -Comic Book store guy

    --

    I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
    -Xenocrates
  13. Re:Commence "In Soviet Russia Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct, sir. My eyes are bleeding already.

  14. Don't you mean ISS? by trubble · · Score: 0, Redundant

    IIS is the frequently maligned Internet Information Server from Microsoft. I think you meant ISS: International Space Station.

    1. Re:Don't you mean ISS? by chrisd · · Score: 2

      Only on slashdot would that not look like a typo.....my bad. Sorry.

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Commence "In Soviet Russia Jokes by Nevermore-Spoon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Props
    on the speed at which you preemptivly caught all the Soviet jokes

    --
    I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
  17. They changed my title by Uhh_Duh · · Score: 5, Informative


    I hate it when slashdot changes the title of the story and makes ME look like a bafoon!! I submitted it as "Russia's Space Program in Trouble".

    I've been framed as a spelling idiot!

    --
    -- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
    1. Re:They changed my title by MrEd · · Score: 2
      Sucker!


      Should've made it into a k5 story instead. ;)

      --

      Wah!

    2. Re:They changed my title by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's a bafoon?

      Do you mean buffoon?

      You are a spelling idiot. Self-fullfilling prophecy?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:They changed my title by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2
      by stratjakt (596332)on Wednesday December 11, @04:29PM (#4865748)

      What's a bafoon?
      Do you mean buffoon?
      You are a spelling idiot. Self-fullfilling prophecy?


      Look who's talking, Mr. 'Stratjakt'.
    4. Re:They changed my title by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next time add a few obvious spelling errors in the post so that the editors don't have to add them themselves.

    5. Re:They changed my title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, you frame spelling idiots!

    6. Re:They changed my title by Ghoser777 · · Score: 2

      For those who don't know, it's self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why calling people "a spelling idiot" is stupid. Everyone mispells something every once in a while. For slashdot editors, that translates to at least one spelling/grammar error per post, but who's counting =D

      F-bacher

      --
      James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    7. Re:They changed my title by Plutor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Self-fullfilling prophecy?

      That's self-fulfilling. Only three L's, like in gulllible.

    8. Re:They changed my title by Ross+Finlayson · · Score: 1

      Just be thankful they accepted your submission. I'll bet that several other people had already submitted the same story, only to be rejected (with no explanation).

  18. They finally shot IIS into space? Good riddance! by mkweise · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    When will Windows follow?

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  19. Metaduplication? by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1

    I was going to look for the last time something along these lines was posted (geez it must have been in the last 14 days), but I am afraid it will be modded as redundant by the time I can find it and put it up. I think we need some metaduplication to handle this.

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
    1. Re:Metaduplication? by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1

      Here it is. 14 days exactly!

      --
      Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
  20. Disturbing by zmalone · · Score: 0, Troll

    This article's comments may set a new low for shitty "In SOVIET RUSSIA" posts. I count 5 or 6 in the first 10 posts. I hope that everyone can get this shit out of their systems now.

    Of the remaining posts, nearly all of them comment on the IIS/ISS mix up. I would imagine that the few that slip through the cracks will be the shitty meta-posts like this one.

    Does the soviet Russia thing bother anyone else? I suppose soviet USSR, or communist USSR could work, but soviet Russia?

    1. Re:Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only added that 3rd line so you wouldn't be totally offtopic. The first 2 lines of your post point out known bullshit.

    2. Re:Disturbing by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      Soviet Russia is a perfectly well-defined object -- The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was one of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics in the old USSR. It is just as correct as "Soviet Ukraine" or "Confederate Tennessee" or "Colonial Uttar Pradesh."

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    3. Re:Disturbing by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2

      Look on the bright side: at least it wasn't some lame "first post" shit. Instead, it was lame "In Soviet Russia" shit. I'm not sure if this is an improvement but at least its different.

      BTW, USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was the official name for the country when it had a communist government. So "Soviet USSR" is definitely redundant and "communist USSR" is only slightly less so. "Soviet Russia" and "Communist Russia" are somewhat cold war relics since Russia was the name for the czarist country that was replaced by the USSR and the west continuing to call the country "Russia" rankled the rulers of the USSR. Its kind of like when the Brits refer to the U.S.A. as "the colonies".

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    4. Re:Disturbing by 21mhz · · Score: 2

      To be anal to the core, there was a thing called Soviet Russia, and its official name was RSFSR -- Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (ugh). It was one of the 15 "republics" that made the USSR, and its territory is precisely the Russia of today.

      There was a daily newspaper named Sovetskaya Rossiya; it outlasted the Soviet era and in the recent years served as a tribune for those favoring restoration of Communism, who still hold considerable ground.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    5. Re:Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the soviet Russia thing bother anyone else?

      No.

      I suppose soviet USSR, or communist USSR could work, but soviet Russia?

      Clearly, you just don't get it.

    6. Re:Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RSFSR was in fact the government that followed the 1991 Soviet collapse and ruled not only over Russia but those Soviet republics that chose not to leave. It was followed in 1993 by todays Russian Federation after they adapted a brand new constitution. To this day the constitution has yet to be fully ratified, but it is followed. Russia has adapted a system similiar to the french system so dont be surprised if they adapt a new constitution in a decade or two. This also explains why Russia and France are such good friends. With the French selling Russia avionics equipment and the Russians giving the french missile and ship technolgy (anti ship cruise missile tech more precisely). I dont know if the French have gotten their filthy cheese eating hands on the S-300 but I wouldnt be surprised. Russias best missile it scares the shit out of every general in Washington cause there are no proven counter measures against it. A few hundred of these babies and Saddam is as safe as a turtle in its shell.

  21. Tourists by selderrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess that this will louden the cry for billionaire space tourism. IMHO the russians should make that stuff their top priority !

    Let the russians handle the tourist part, let the yanks handle the military sillyness and we europeans will do the real stuff :-)

    1. Re:Tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      completely wrong then =)

      euro's do the military stuff = no war
      US does the tourist stuff = milkshakes at 0g should be fun
      PanAsia does the real work = it works

    2. Re:Tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let the russians handle the tourist part, let the yanks handle the military sillyness and we europeans will do the real stuff


      Does that include getting braces?

    3. Re:Tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl...and I thought the Americans were supposed to be the arrogant bastards.

    4. Re:Tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahahahhahahahaaaaa!

    5. Re:Tourists by oPless · · Score: 2

      Yes we Europeans are good at the space thing:

      As this story proves.

      Well okay it's the fault of the French. Why the heck us British have sorted the Hotol project, instead of canning it with the lame excuse of national security I don't know. US involvement? Probably. Stupid politicians? definatly.

  22. Time to dump the space station anyway by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The space program has become ridiculous, between failed attempts to launch boy bands into space and new projects like virtual planets http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=96&ncid =96&e=1&u=/space/20021210/sc_space/cyber_planets__ building_virtual_worlds_to_explore_signs_of_real_l ife it seems to have drifted far from actual space exploration. If they ever want public support for government dollars, they need to start looking at sending someone to Mars, or at least back to the moon,

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
    1. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Cujo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to say it, but it may be time to suck it up admit the reality that continued funding of the ISS is good money after bad. Whole careers have been poured into it, and AT LEAST $40 billion current-year dollars (prob. much more), and there's little prospect we'll have much to show for it. And no, it ain't no waystation to Mars or the Moon. This would largely ground the shuttle, but that wold also save big bucks.

      For the same billions, we could mount really aggressive Mars and Europa programs and learn how to build a lunar colony.

      BTW, please see next time you want to post a long URL.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    2. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The space program has become ridiculous

      But don't you know: the terrorists are building platforms out in space from which to launch attacks on us! We _must_ occupy Mars, denying it to the terrorists.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    3. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by esanbock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before building "a lunar colony" we must first learn how to live in space. Remember that before man even stepped on the moon, someone in Soviet Russia sent out a useless piece of metal to orbit the earth. It didn't do much, but was it a waste of money? No. Same goes for the space station. It would be nice if we could go strait to lunar colonizing, but there are intermediary steps that we must take.

    4. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by jmichaelg · · Score: 2
      It's not clear that the ISS is one of those steps.

      For some reason, our society has become so risk adverse that we'd be hard pressed to settle the West if that's what was called for. A lunar colony won't be tackled not because a useless space station isn't cutting it but because nobody is willing to risk a life any more.

    5. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "and there's little prospect we'll have much to show for it."

      Only because you think it's a short-term investment. Beyond physiological studies, there's little that can be done on a space station that can't be done without a satellite or a spacecraft. The point of the ISS isn't to be an exploration vessel, it's to be a port.

      Just because the Port of New York doesn't go anywhere and very little oceanographic work is done in Long Island Sound doesn't mean it's not vital to NOAA's exploration missions.

    6. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I am.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    7. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      No, people are willing to risk their lives for all sorts of mundane things, and do it every day.

      Lunar colonies aren't being tackled because they aren't worth building. This would remain true even it were perfectly safe.

    8. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      ISS is not a jumping off point to thre greater solar system. It's in the wrong orbit. A high inclination orbit is a stupid place to stage from, since the delta-V to get there is considerably higher.

      If missions to the moon, Mars, or asteroids are sent out, they won't be from the ISS.

    9. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame Selwyn.

    10. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Cujo · · Score: 2
      The point of the ISS isn't to be an exploration vessel, it's to be a port.

      Excuse me? A port to where? Even if ISS were in a better orbit, it isn't designed to be any sort of port, and here are NO PLANS to make it into one.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    11. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by gorilla · · Score: 2
      I think it's clear that ISS is not one of those steps.

      To build a lunar colony we need bulk lifing capability to lunar orbit, and experience with construction techniques in low gravity.

      ISS is giving us small scale lifting capability to LEO, and some experience with construction in microgravity gravity.

    12. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you learn to make a URL link, you stupid fuck, your URL won't get all fucked up by the lameness filter.

      Fucking loser.

  23. If they don't pay up... by esanbock · · Score: 5, Funny

    We better tell the Soviet Russians that if they don't pay up, all their space base are belong to us.

    Please try to keep posts on topic.

    1. Re:If they don't pay up... by 21mhz · · Score: 2

      No, I demand mothballing and sealing up our tourist cabin... erm, corner of the station.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    2. Re:If they don't pay up... by oPless · · Score: 2

      Their missions have no chance to survive, their making their time?

      They're not launching every Zig are they?

  24. MOD UP PARENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modding this as a troll is just wrong!!!! It's frickin hilarious!

  25. In Soviet Russia... by arglesnaf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    IIS makes jokes about YOU!

  26. The US now rules space by Nefrayu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So aside from all the typos and joking, does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space? Although the article mentions India spending $500 mil on space, it doesn't come close to our spending or our expertise. Personally I think it's a good thing. Space is the next military battleground, or so it is said. So what are your thoughts?

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    1. Re:The US now rules space by Psiren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not content with bullying everyone here on Earth, you want to do the same in Space too? Give me a break, good thing my arse.

    2. Re:The US now rules space by Hamstaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally I think it's a good thing. Space is the next military battleground So, to get this straight, you would like to see space turned into a war zone? I don't think you're going to find many opinions to agree with you on that part. Space holds mysteries we cannot even imagine. To see tiny human nations squabble over who "owns" it is something we should strive to avoid. If we put weapons in space, even to support earth-based combat, then we start on a slippery slope.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
    3. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its good cos it's new military background?
      goodness.

      for a moment i thought you would say it's good cos 0g research might give us a cure for cancer or aids or something...

    4. Re:The US now rules space by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Space is the next military battleground, or so it is said. So what are your thoughts?

      Yes, I too am worried about Hussein's Mars Exploration Program, and the military uses he might put that to.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    5. Re:The US now rules space by FlexAgain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space? Although the article mentions India spending $500 mil on space, it doesn't come close to our spending or our expertise....

      Leaving aside from the somewhat gung ho attitude of this post, many other nations have active space programs. ESA are currently funding many advanced satellites and systems (although addmitedly manned spaceflight is not a high priority currently). Just because the USSR is having funding problems doesn't leave the field clear for the US.

      And just in case you haven't noticed, you ought to keep an eye on the Chinese space program, they are very enthusiastic, and have the political will to push things onwards rapidly.

      --
      Actually it is rocket science...
    6. Re:The US now rules space by Soft · · Score: 5, Informative
      does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space?

      The Ariane 5 lifts more than any commercial US rocket; the very latest (Atlas 5, Delta 4) have just matched its performance, though hopefully the 10-ton version will up the bar again in two minutes; the Space Shuttle and Titan 4B have more capacity but cost two or three times as much.

      Alcatel Space now builds over 50 percent of geostationary satellites.

      The US manned space program, mostly the ISS, still depends on Russian Soyuzes (used as lifeboats) and will continue that way until 2010 at least.

      Want more?

    7. Re:The US now rules space by Soft · · Score: 1
      hopefully the 10-ton version will up the bar again in two minutes

      Aw, sh*t, good liftoff but first stage failure some time after booster separation. Boeing and LockMart just won a few months. It's not over yet.

    8. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ariane 5 - It go boom

    9. Re:The US now rules space by markmier · · Score: 1

      The Ariane 5 rocket is now out of the running. The latest one just blew up a couple minutes after launch. Story here.

    10. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as of this evening, the Ariane 5 isn't lifting much of anything. The news reported a failure of the maiden flight of the Ariane 5 rocket that lost its entire payload. The previous launch was botched by a main engine failure.

      When your pet rocket finally lifts something off the ground further than the pieces of the explosion fly, then you can talk about how it outlifts the Atlas and Delta.

    11. Re:The US now rules space by mentin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Although the article mentions India spending $500 mil on space, it doesn't come close to our spending or our expertise.

      Well, there is big difference between $500 mil spent by India and $500 mil spent by US. India can do considerably more than US with same money. Most of US money are wasted due to high overhead cost imposed by NASA, and general higher cost of IT and engineering. So I would not be surprised if India will soon accomplish as much as US by spending 30 times less.

      As for expertise, Russia is still far away. Mir spent 15 years in space, and was continuously inhabited for 10 years. It will be long time till ISS match it.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    12. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing and LockMart just won a few months. It's not over yet.

      This launch failure really puts Ariane in a bad spot. This is either their third or fourth failure out of 14 flights, depending on how you count. I don't think that the launch insurance companies will be happy about this.

      (It was the maiden flight of the revamped main engine, though, so maybe they will be cut more slack than I expect. It'll depend on what the accident report says.)

      Ariane has been in not-great financial shape anyway. This ain't gonna help.

    13. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ariane certainly surpasses current lifting capabilities of both Delta and Atlas. Ariane-5 already flew multiple times.

    14. Re:The US now rules space by doormat · · Score: 2

      The Ariane 5 lifts more than any commercial US rocket; the very latest (Atlas 5, Delta 4) have just matched its performance, though hopefully the 10-ton version will up the bar again in two minutes

      Bzzzzt, try again. Ka-boom!! 5 failures in 14 missions. Thats more than 30%. French rockets... blah..

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    15. Re:The US now rules space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for expertise, Russia is still far away. Mir spent 15 years in space, and was continuously inhabited for 10 years. It will be long time till ISS match it.

      You mean about 15 years?

    16. Re:The US now rules space by foxtrot · · Score: 2

      The Ariane 5 lifts more than any commercial US rocket

      Yes, but it doesn't lift it as far.

    17. Re:The US now rules space by gorilla · · Score: 2
      although addmitedly manned spaceflight is not a high priority currently

      That's the way it should be. Manned spaceflight is a waste of money which cannot be justified scientifically or commerically.

  27. Problems from the Beginning by WatertonMan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The whole way that NASA has run the Space Station program and the Mars program have been dismall. On the one hand the public doesn't really give a damn about science, so if NASA pursued fairly cheap science projects with a good return, they'd dry up quickly. At the same time though the space station is a solution in search of a problem - and one that is VERY expensive.

    To a degree all of this was just to help keep Soviet scientists around in Russia and not heading to the mid-east to develop nasty weapons. Further the military clearly had motives in keeping the Space Shuttle running. However now the Russians can't do much and haven't been able to move into commercial projects. Even in NASA the shuttles are wearing out with no replacements on the horizon.

    The big question is whether all of these problems are a good thing or a bad thing. When you consider the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars spent on all this, one can ask what the return has been. (Say it in a Carl Sagan voice) There are plenty of good scientific projects. Further R&D on making space flight cheaper is a big deal. But space research itself needs to be seriously rethought.

    1. Re:Problems from the Beginning by WankersRevenge · · Score: 2

      People like yourself love to complain about the BILLIONS and BILLIONS that NASA is spending, yet you turn a blind eye to the military which last time I checked (and it was awhile ago) they were clocked in a 300 Billion. Nasa spending is tit compared to the rest of the US budget.

      IMHO - I don't give a rats ass at how much Nasa spends. I'd rather have an organization blow a few billion dollars on the betterment of human kind, rather than some military complex spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to develop better weapons which in most cases will be used on some third world country.

    2. Re:Problems from the Beginning by negacao · · Score: 1

      GAH! Carl Sagan did /not/ say "billions and billions." What scientific mind would say that? I'd suggest reading his book, entitled "Billions and billions," which points out this "mediaism." (Not to mention it's pretty damn good.)

  28. Re:First Post!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, it fails you!

  29. Money Dependence by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The global dependence on money is appalling and ridiculous. Money as motivation will only bring the human race so far, and probably in the wrong direction. What happens now, when such a major player in the space race is forced to resign because they cannot secure enough meaningless currency to further scientific research in space? It is a terrible waste of human potential.

    Future generations will look at us as petty and shortsighted, squandering finite resources we have no claim to with regards only to our own instant gratification. That is, if there are any resources left for the human race to survive on after a few hundred years.

    Cynical? Not me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to drive my SUV through a red light while talking on a cell phone.

    --
    "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    1. Re:Money Dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sorry, for a moment there I thought I read it as "Monkey" Dependence. Said to self, "Are they still sending those poor things up there? No wonder..."

    2. Re:Money Dependence by k3v0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they tried the old "let human compassion rule the government" over there already, look where that ended up. I'm not trying to be a total buzzkill but human potential is a double edged sword.

    3. Re:Money Dependence by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The global dependence on money is appalling and ridiculous. Money as motivation will only bring the human race so far, and probably in the wrong direction. What happens now, when such a major player in the space race is forced to resign because they cannot secure enough meaningless currency to further scientific research in space? It is a terrible waste of human potential.

      It doesn't take a lot to churn out a lot of fiat money. Just crank up the printing presses. But it's not about _money_, really. Your breathtaking ignorance of basic economics tells me you lean to socialism/ communism.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    4. Re:Money Dependence by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 1

      It is about money. So much revolves around it, when in reality it is just an abstraction, an idea.

      If not money, then what is it about, pray tell? Enlighten me with your breathtaking wisdom.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    5. Re:Money Dependence by stormshadow97 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the parent, but we do we do about it? I think it all comes down to the fact that nobody is willing to sacrifice their "piece of the pie" for the greater good of humanity, especially when they know it may very well make no difference in the grand scheme of things. It's unfortunate that we haven't come up with a better system than money to motivate people, but it isn't an easy problem to solve.

      No one raindrop thinks that it is responsible for the flood.

      --
      Unauthorized feeding of Metroids is strictly prohibited.
    6. Re:Money Dependence by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If not money, then what is it about, pray tell? Enlighten me with your breathtaking wisdom.

      It's about people trying to improve their lot in life. Money is simply a medium of exchange that makes an economy work well. Read Mises' _Human Action_.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    7. Re:Money Dependence by arodland · · Score: 1

      Good to see that _someone_ mentions Mises on this thread. :)

    8. Re:Money Dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Income and prices for most strategic resources including people in Russia 5 times lower than in US. So I suppose in terms of money 300 mill $ sound like not enought, but in terms of resources available Russia has enought to keep most space and military programs running. More important is a problem of brain drain - it is not easy to keep engineers in if I can make $110K /yr in US working on stupid satellite radio project, comparable to $7K while working on military app. in Russia. If they could provide higher life standard back in Russia - many will be back, but when it happen many of us will be to old and kids won't go back

    9. Re:Money Dependence by sethanon · · Score: 1

      Yeah money is an abstraction. It is an abstraction designed to simplify the trade of goods and services. Also makes it a hell of a lot easier to redistribute wealth through taxation.

      What exactly were you planning on replacing money with? Direct trade? Communal resources?

      Are you really upset with money? Or is it greed? Beaurocracy?

    10. Re:Money Dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think they tried the old "let human compassion rule the government" over there already, look where that ended up

      It ended up with Sputnik and the Space Race, and eventually resulted in the first American manned missions to the moon. Of course, there was the whole 'oppressive communist government slaughtering countless millions of its own citizens' thing, but it did get us into orbit, and resulted in the hyper-accelerated development of science over those fifty year.

    11. Re:Money Dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The global dependence on money is appalling and ridiculous. Money as motivation will only bring the human race so far, and probably in the wrong direction.


      Umm, didn't the Russians already try communism? :)
    12. Re:Money Dependence by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 1

      I am upset that their are people who cannot get an education or even feed themselves because of a lack of money (just to touch the tip of the iceburg). Yes, people can get scholarships. Yes, they can go to food kitchens, etc. But these "solutions" are only there because someone else is willing to foot the bill.

      It seems to me that education and food are pretty basic human rights. Take a step back and look at our society. There are people who struggle very hard to maintain these two very important pieces of their lives and the lives of those they support. That doesn't strike anyone else as completely asinine?

      Picture it without the money and the ego and the greed. People work all day to keep the human ecosystem going, and they still get the "rewards" of food, clothing, etc.

      "But what about the extras? Shouldn't I be able to buy myself a cruise if I work hard? Shouldn't I be able to lease that new car and buy a new PDA?"

      "Shouldn't I watch my family and friends starve to death in some third-world country that most Americans have never heard of?"

      I don't claim to have any answers. I wish I did.. Just asking people to maybe consider things a little differently.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
    13. Re:Money Dependence by johnjay · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're ignorant of economics, but I'm stuck at the same point you are. I don't know how to advance beyond the first question.

      Money is just a universal means of exchange, so that for all stuff this equation should hold: X*money=Y*stuff. So, what you are saying is why are people still motivated by the desire to have more stuff.

      Ever since A.Smith, it been generally believed that if everyone is powered by a burning desire for stuff and the ability to choose their employment, all the pieces needed for community life will naturally fall into place.

      The problem is, this is based entirely on self-interest, and self-interest has been found through experience to be short-sighted. So, things like wellfare and public transportation and government can only be enacted by laws and threats (sure, there's a bit of a paradox about who makes the laws and threatens whom, but the short-sightedness helps work this out).

      So critics point out that self interest alone does not make the economy work: there are things that self-interest does not make magically appear.

      In addition, the current economic activity seems to prove these flaws. When the Bush team is at the reins, greed always seems to win over common sense and every change in regulation seems designed to benefit greedy rather than help the poor. The average observer worries that since the desire for stuff is so powerful that it can corrupt laws and regulations, maybe we should use another quality as the spur for the economy.

      Here's an example of a replacement: A common slashdot sentiment is to posit an economy based on the "Desire for recognition and urge to explore". It's a nice idea, but no one has proven that it works; it sounds too utopian. And I personally can think of no proof for it.

      So, motivation for money has very bad effects, but it has enormous benefits. Another theory will have to be proven to surpass the enormous benefits of the system in use today (and not have worse effects). And, the greatest challenge to capitalism failed spectacularly. People argue that's more a fault of the way the experiment in Socialism was carried out rather than a flaw in the theory of Socialism, but even if that's true, it still means that people will be nervous about going that way for quite some time.

      In conclusion, I agree with you that question worth raising, but I don't have any idea where to go or an answer.

    14. Re:Money Dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are you really upset with money? Or is it
      > greed? Beaurocracy?

      He's probably just some dirty hippy unemployed geek who lives in his parents' basement.

      Why is it that it's always the lazy, unemployed, hippy loser who bitches about how corrupt The System is? It's always everybody elses fault that thier life sucks, isn't it? Goddamn hippies.

  30. In Soviet Russia... by ocie · · Score: 2, Redundant

    IIS crashes you.

    Oops, that is ISS.

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
  31. Mistake by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was a mistake to have Russia as a "partner".

    NASA/USAF should have bought thier technology outright like LockMart did with the advanced trans-sonic S/VTOL Yak-41.

    1. Re:Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the idea similar to buying the american nuclear weapons by, say, Iraq. Iraq can't buy it. So can't USA.

  32. Trouble by KKin8or · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Russia seems to be having all sorts of problems these days. I saw a blurb on CNN the other day about a Russian rocket failing to make orbit and falling back into the atmosphere, destroying the satellite it was carrying. I feel like we hear about something like this in Russia every few months lately. But it makes me wonder-- does the US have this kind of problem (maybe not NASA, but commercial satellites going up, or military stuff), and the media just doesn't make a big deal of it?

    1. Re:Trouble by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      does the US have this kind of problem (maybe not NASA, but commercial satellites going up, or military stuff), and the media just doesn't make a big deal of it?

      Yeah, it makes the papers, headlines even. I don't remember anything recently, but back in '99 there was a string of six failures resulting in some $3.5 billion in losses, including the explosion of a tried and true Titan IV which destroyed a $1B super secret spy satellite, and the failure of a couple of new Delta III rockets. Plenty of info on Google about these, it was big news back then.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  33. Here's a topic for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The International Space Station is now neither International nor a Space Station. Discuss amongst yourselves.

  34. In Soviet USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet Russia bothers YOU!

  35. SOVIET RUSSIA, n. by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "soviet USSR" would be redundant, as Soviet is the first "S" (or the middle "C" in CCCP).

    I take "Soviet Russia" as the combination of a place and a time. "Russia between the years 1917 and 1992, more or less" or perhaps "Russia during the second half of the 20th century (the cold war years)"

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
  36. Re:paging Yakov Smirnoff by jonerik · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    [...]or dead.

    I thought he had a theatre in Branson. Which is far worse than death.

  37. In CAPITALIST AMERICA by Nefrayu · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In Captitalist America I'd charge you per post for all the "In Soviet Russia" messages I just had to wade through...

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    1. Re:In CAPITALIST AMERICA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captitalist... that's funny.

    2. Re:In CAPITALIST AMERICA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Kapitalist Amerika, comrade.

  38. Reminds me of the old engineer joke... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Russians may have budget problems, but...

    An American astronaut in space in 1970 was asked by a reporter, "How do you feel?"

    "How would you feel," the astronaut replied, "if you were stuck here, on top of 20,000 parts, each one supplied by the lowest engineering bidder?"

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  39. 15 biilion for Nasa monopoly--- by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    15 billion for Nasa monopoly

    Russian engineers starving --pricelss..brought to you by the Father son tag team of BUSH!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  40. Sadly, I no longer need to imagine by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    what a Beowulf cluster of "In Soviet Russia" posts would look like.

    1. Re:Sadly, I no longer need to imagine by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, I have to....

      In Soviet Union, Comrade Natalie Portman pours hot grits down your pants!

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Sadly, I no longer need to imagine by rela · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Would someone please explain to me where this bit about Natalie Portman and hot grits comes from?

      Please don't let it be somethingawful. Please...!

    3. Re:Sadly, I no longer need to imagine by haggar · · Score: 1

      Natalie Portman is completely unrelated to the "hot grits poured on my pants" line, but they all belong to the rich history of Slashdot subculture, together with the "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of.." and AYB.

      --
      Sigged!
  41. Title now corrected by anonymous+coword · · Score: 0

    Now you can mod those stupid iis jokes down as -1, redundant!

  42. it should be done by now by xmnemonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Originally (according to a 1998 issue of Popular Science), the ISS was to be completed by 2003.

    1. Re:it should be done by now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hah, try 1994....shit, politics have screwed the station since the first Bush.

  43. Re:What a maroon! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "For a second there I thought my IIS server was going to start serving up "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" web pages!"

    Error 404

    The file has not found you!

  44. Corrected... by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

    Ah, and here I was wondering since I'm sure IIS *does* have a 15 billion dollar budget...

  45. Honestly... by lonedfx · · Score: 2, Funny

    When has Russia's role NOT been in trouble as a partner in ISS ? Honestly I'm waiting for the news that'll say :

    Russia's Role in ISS no longer in trouble!

    Now THAT will be news.

    lone, dfx.

    1. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American media thinks otherwise :) . It is news, again and again, when Russia is in trouble. It is not "newsworthy", when, for a change, Russia does its part and it is NASA, that suddenly changes international agreements...

  46. Re:Lameness Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'n Svet rssua, CDs BURN you!

  47. in soviet russia by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    TEH FAILURE is ME.

    what a country

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  48. Read slashdot - Avoid mistakes by ehiris · · Score: 3, Funny

    Based on this article confusing the ISS with IIS is due to reading slashdot too much. It's safe to assume the person who posted IIS isn't reading slashdot enough to be warned of BIG mistakes (considering the amount of invaluable posts moderated high) which could be made.

  49. Not only that, but... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I heard the Lone Gunmen are dead!

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  50. Russia's space program has fallen on hard times? by sab39 · · Score: 0, Troll

    In Soviet Russia, hard times fall on YOU!

    (I am sooo sorry)

  51. Even if their ROLE is in trouble... by Tsar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...can't they compensate with pitch and yaw?

    1. Re:Even if their ROLE is in trouble... by rela · · Score: 1
      AIIIIIIIIGH HORRIBLE PUN!

      If I had mod points I'd mod you up. :)

  52. Brilliant! by Inoshiro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Brilliant, the IIS was doomed from the word go."

    If you didn't know that after CodeRed, did it really take Nimda to tell you this?

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  53. Re:Lameness Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IN 50vi37 Ru5514, the lameness filters YOU!

  54. IIS vs ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Whats the difference - seems the're both flawed in design, implementation and dependence on unreliable suppliers...

    1. Re:IIS vs ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...like NASA?

      Last time everybody checked, NASA was going to cut the original plan to a smaller version. No wonder ISS doesn't have much scientific value...

  55. think more by axxackall · · Score: 2
    The article touches on the fact that their annual funding is about 309 million versus the U.S. budget of 15 billion.

    The article doesn't touch the fact that space engineers in Russia (not in Moscow - in real Russia, where most of space programs are located) have $309 of monthly salary, compared to $15,000 in US. That makes them even in terms of working hours contributed to the project.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:think more by krlynch · · Score: 2

      not in Moscow - in real Russia, where most of space programs are located

      I thought most of the Russian space program wasn't even located in Russia, but rather in Kazakhstan. The launch sites are all there at least: "Russia leases approximately 6,000 sq km of territory enclosing the Baykonur Cosmodrome" (CIA World Factbook)

    2. Re:think more by axxackall · · Score: 3, Informative
      I estimate that Baykonur Cosmodrome hires less than 0.01% of Russian engineers working on various space programs all over the place from Europe to Far East. Most of them work in Siberia.

      Cosmodrome is the fastest way to burn money (fuel), Institutes and Manufacturing Plants is very slow way to do that (brains are cheapper than fuel) :)

      Besides, Baikonur is not the only Russian Cosmodrome. Plesetsk is another one.

      Finally, due to political reasons and/or due to the location reasons (Kazakhstan is still far away from the equator) Russia plans to move Baikonur lounch pad business to the equatorial part of Pacific ocean. There are some plans about a joint venture project with Australia and/or other countries.

      All facts I know are from public russian sources. Don't call CIA - they should already know it :) CIA doesn't update/complete their World Fuckedbook just by political reasons - the Cold War is far from being over, it's just not for publicity now :(

      --

      Less is more !
    3. Re:think more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The article doesn't touch the fact that space engineers in Russia ... have $309 of monthly salary, compared to $15,000 in US.


      $15,000/mo?!?!? Dude, that number is way too high! (That's $180,000/yr!!!) $5000/mo ($60k/yr) would be much closer to reality. (I don't the actual number, but it's not $180k/year. :)
    4. Re:think more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read a number of 100 by 100 (which makes 10,000 sq km area) km as athe size of Baikonur.

      To say that most of Russian space activity happens in Kazakhstan is similar to saying, that most of American space activity happens on Odissey launch platform... which goes to equator each time the Sea Launch company launches the Zenit to orbit.

    5. Re:think more by vandy1 · · Score: 1

      The reason they'd do that is that you need a *lot* less fuel near the equator to launch than you do in Russia, which is quite near the poles. Hence they don't build their launch sites on their own land.

      My A$0.02

      Michael

  56. In Russia, they have no greater problems... by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Russia has problems that plague the USA, and NASA. Just a few months ago, a person on the ground was killed when a Proton rocket exploded when launched. Less than 20 years ago, NASA lost 7 people to the Challenger disaster. I don't think Russia has any greater problems than NASA.
    In fact I think it is wonderful that they are given the oportunity to contribute to a world class effort like the ISS. Go and look at it.. There isn't anything more spectacular in the space program than that, for the moment. Missions to the Moon are a long way off for NASA.
    The discussion of space exploration always brings out the whiners about how much money it is costing, when it could be feeding the hungry. Oh, yeah? So could all the money put into the tobacco industry, and canceling cigarettes would actually benefit mankind, not removing our link to space.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:In Russia, they have no greater problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! but do the Russians have cigarettes?!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:In Russia, they have no greater problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly can you compare private companies to NASA? People actively choose to support tobacco companies by buying their product. Cigerettes aren't a subscription. You can't "cancel" them and make them magically disappear. They are a product that anyone could make. If you don't like them, don't buy them. And let everyone else make that choice for themselves.

    3. Re:In Russia, they have no greater problems... by saskboy · · Score: 2

      Well AC smoker, you prove my point rather well. The whiner doesn't even have the courage to speak to me and face the wrath of the moderators.
      How can you compare the economic style of the world with the incalculable human suffering caused by hunger and smoking? The space program is providing medical treatments, and increasing our knowledge about the universe, while cigarettes are the symbol of ignorance, poverty, and greed.
      It is sad that Russians are seen as such as separate entity from North Americans, that our money is too good for them. We'd rather burn our money, than help them work with us and build unity, and science. AC smoker you make me very mad!

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    4. Re:In Russia, they have no greater problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that was the Soyuz-U launcher explosion, not Proton.

  57. In other news... by Soft · · Score: 3, Informative
    Russia agreed to double Soyuz production starting in 2006. "The RSA's ISS partners will foot the bill". This is required to support the ISS from 2006 (end of previous agreement) to 2010 (availability of new US spaceplane to act as lifeboat instead of Soyuz), preferably with more than 3 crew.

    Hmmm, are we looking forward to another "we need more money or the crew has to leave" every week, like before the service module was launched?

  58. It really kinda sucks by core+plexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you think about it, we need more scientists working to develop new technology. If the Russian space program, or that of any nation, tanks, then those scientists and skilled workers will be forced to seek employment elsewhere, and progress will surely suffer.

  59. Budget by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    The article touches on the fact that their annual funding is about 309 million versus the U.S. budget of 15 billion.

    Also considered a contributing factor, the Russians' budget was in Roubles, the Americans' in US Dollars.

    --
    Fuck it
    1. Re:Budget by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? The article clearly states that the Russian budget was converted from rubles to dollars in order to make the comparison and is quoted as "US300 million". It's not 300M rubles vs. 15 billion dollars, eh.

    2. Re:Budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it was meant to be +1 Funny, but you knoow how moderators can be :)

  60. IN SOVIET ISS... by FurryFeet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    RUSSIA goes bankrupt on YOU!

  61. It's never been just about science and space... by KoNfUzEd · · Score: 1

    ...but about keeping erstwhile Soviet scientists in a backrupt nation from being easily bought by other countries which would have readily available funds to being their own missile programs.

    It's just now we're seeing the US can't keep dangling new projects in from of Russia to keep its resources and skills targetted towards something semi-useful and productive, and the whole problem has to be revisited. Think of some neighbors of Russia's who'd love to have some experienced rocket scientists, literally.

  62. Sad by chriso11 · · Score: 2

    Too bad Russia can't allocate more money. But they have bigger problems - crime, poverty, health, gassing of rebels.

    I think that every $1 that the US aids Russia saves $2 in the military budget, even after acounting for the corruption. Of course, IANAA (accountant). Then again, Worldcom looked pretty solid to accountants, too...

    I just hope Russia is able to maintain their current level of funding for space - every bit counts.

    If humanity does not have a significant presence in space (1000000+ people) within the next 200 years, I fear that we will always be on this rock, overcrowding it and eventually destroying it.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  63. Re:In Soviet Russia... by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    >> what *is* the Russian word for Weenie anyway?

    Yakov

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  64. 300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by alex733 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Income and prices for most strategic resources including people in Russia 5 times lower than in US. So I suppose in terms of money 300 mill $ sound like not enought, but in terms of resources available Russia has enought to keep most space and military programs running. More important is a problem of brain drain - it is not easy to keep engineers in if I can make $110K /yr in US working on stupid satellite radio project, comparable to $7K while working on military app. in Russia. If they could provide higher life standard back in Russia - many will be back, but when it happen many of us will be to old and kids won't go back.

    1. Re:300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember Dr. Zvorykin (TV inventor), Igor Sikorsky (creator of first commercial helicopter), ... and many other engineers. They never came back.

    2. Re:300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      + David Sarnoff

    3. Re:300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he, not that one, he was Jew

    4. Re:300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if he was a jew, they aren't only steal money, sometimes they get Nobel prizes :)

    5. Re:300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if they don't have to bye stuff for real $ ?

  65. China? by job0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although China has announced that it's planning a permanently manned space station this seems like a waste of time, effort and money. I think it would make more sense to let China either take Russia's place or just let them join the ISS program. But I guess relations between the US and China need to improve before this could happen.

    1. Re:China? by Ma$$acre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, let's go from a bankrupt space program to one which despises us and will steal every bit of technology it can get to reinforce a non-democratically elected regime that is in many ways much worse than Soviet Russia in terms of human rights.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
    2. Re:China? by WolF-g · · Score: 1

      This is sick though, why should scientific research be dependant on if the polical leaders can agree or not. Didn't anyone watch 2001/2010?

    3. Re:China? by job0 · · Score: 2

      I would have thought it would be a bold and intelligent move to ask the Chinese to
      make a contribution. Wouldn't you rather have the Chinese to be working with the ISS partners rather than competing against them.

      I agree that Chinese spies on ISS are simply unacceptable but hasn't China signed all the various non-proliferation agreements and surely the international prestige such a participation would bring them would stop the Chinese doing anything stupid.

      Their human rights record does bother me and it needs to improve but that has never stopped the US getting into bed with countries with similar or worse records.

    4. Re:China? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wouldn't you rather have the Chinese to be working with the ISS partners rather than competing against them.

      Considering that the competition between the US and the Soviet Union is what took us to the moon in 10-15 years, and competition between Nazi Germany and the rest of the world is what brought us rockets in the first place, I'd say some competition in the market could do us all some good.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  66. Re:Funniest Typo Ever by GuidoDEV · · Score: 1

    I think not, a friend of mine misspelled "public" in a history paper once. The spell-checker didn't seem to mind, although his teacher didn't think it was too funny... ;-)

  67. New lame joke - please forward and copy/paste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, all your bases are belong to us!

  68. Re:has fallen on hard times ? by Orne · · Score: 2

    In this case, I'd have to say that Mir has fallen the hardest of all...

  69. As one who by mo+wiggley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    went to spacecamp as a kid, and therefore an authority on the matters of the space program, I can say that until we progress past the "Lets see what this will do if we take it into space" way of exploration, we're going to wallow in this outdated space program for decades to come. We need research and development, not morale boosters. Almost every dollar spent on feelgood space is wasted in the race (which we still must continue to run) for world dominance and superiority. Remember the tortaise and the hare?

    --
    Libranet GNU/Linux - Excellent Debian Based Distro http://www.libranet.com Check it out!
  70. Cheeseloaf Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Windows runs well!

  71. Won't this be frustrating... by Alethes · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) The International Space Station becomes the American Space Station due to the lack of participation from other nations.

    2) 10 years from now, the full project is launched. Yeah, this is hypothetical, just deal.

    3) Teachers get excited and want to show their students the breaking news at cnn.com.

    4) Censorware detects "ASS" all over the site and denies the teachers and students access to the biggest NASA news in years.

  72. FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Final Post!

  73. Re:Funniest Typo Ever by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then there was the time I accidentally misspelled "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury" as "I'll kill you! I'll kill all of you! And burn your goddanmed houses down!"

    Boy, that was a doozie.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  74. The ISS is simply a WPA project by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a former NASA nut, used to research the Soviet space program, etc., and so was very forgiving...
    This ISS program is a turkey, though, and we should cut our losses.

    The problem is simply that the ONLY reason for the existence of the ISS is to KEEP PEOPLE EMPLOYED. First of all, NASA itself as a beaurocracy has pushed and pushed for the only mega-project that it could keep getting funding for because a beaurocracy wants to EAT. They couldn't get funding for more sensible programs like a shuttle replacement, or other more mundane but necessary things, so they push for funding for the incredibly wasteful ISS because $15 billion a year wasted is $15 billion a year they WANT, no matter what it's for.
    If they can't have $15 billion a year for sensible things, they'll take $15 billion for non-sensible things, just so long as no one loses their job.

    As far as the Russian's involvement, it was actually the PLAN to get them involved simply to keep them employed! The Clinton administration changed the ISS from a US program, space station Freedom, to the ISS, almost exclusively to keep former soviet rocket scientists at their jobs instead of following money to other, more threatening sources. That was almost the sole reason for it.
    That, actually, made a least a LITTLE bit of sense. Sort of.
    Anyway, you could argue that with the Russian's participation the ISS has been more successful that it would have been otherwise, even WITH them dragging the program down - because with billions thrown down a rathole in either case, at least this way it was a bit more interesting, and did at least give the US and Russia something to strengthen our ties.

    --
    This space available.
  75. Sounds familiar. . . by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

    The USA is now the ultimate power in the universe. . .I suggest we use it.

    The more you tighten your grip, the more pieces of space junk, specks of paint, and bolts will slip through your fingers.

    Lordy, back to work.

  76. In Soviet Slashdot by UnixRevolution · · Score: 0, Redundant

    title of story changes YOU!!!

    --
    You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  77. Hmm.... by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    If the russian can no longer make there scheduled deliveries on time, does that mean that the ISS gets its domino pizzas for free? (Pizza dude's late, 30 minutes late = free pizza)

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  78. Re:In Soviet Russian Capitalist America by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, "In Soviet Russia" messages get paid for wading through YOU!!

    --
    You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  79. I had to... by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, Posts imagine what beowulf cluster of YOU would look like.

    --
    You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  80. Russia's Big Mistake by serutan · · Score: 2

    Jeez, didn't you see Armageddon? They wouldn't be strapped now if they hadn't spent so many rubles hauling cigarettes up to their orbital refueling stations.

  81. Mandatory Star Trek Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Menagerie:
    "their society had decayed to the point they could no longer repair the machines left behind by their ancestors"

  82. Space is now mostly commercial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finito the old skylab, the Russian space agency needs hard cash and so does everyone else. So you use your rockets to put sats and charge for the fee, not go broke to answer the question of a few fighting long bearded professors in their ivory tower. Have you ever seen this BBC doocumentary called the planets? Do you knwo how much those scientists religious ego wars are actualy costing?

    This is why lotsa other space agencies like NASDA and ESA sorta went shy with the ISS.

    We have come a long way from the old "is there life on the Moon?" or "Are they realy coronal mass ejections from the Sun?" We now know these answers now. No need to walk on the Moon until it's part of a development project.

    If you want to spend billions to find out if there is really a layer of unicellular life form 100 miles under the surface of Mars, be my guest to send a whole drilling crew, but you pay for it. If you want to know what composition is that new planet discovered amongst many hundreds of others on distant stars do it, but now you are looking at +infinite of such questions.

    Probes are currently on their way to do their minimal "investment" search on Venus or Titan to satisfy the thirst of a few people, but all in all the old "we absolutely need to know what zero gravity might be like" days are over. We know the solar system and people are getting quite bored of the usual "oh maybe there are people on Mars?" the press still seem to hang on.

    Today it's payload and how much cheaper than the others you can orbit for the same launch. There are dozens of commercial projects waiting for liftoff. This is where space is today.

    The ISS can be canned for all we care, it still won't change a thing to the need for meteo, navigation and comms sats.

  83. Sick of payouts on russian space tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Several years ago Russia was making good money from their space agency doing lots of foreign launches. As part of a US deal to supply aid to Russia one of the conditions was to scale back the amount of foreign launces they were doing as it was hurting NASA's profitability. More US economic terrorism.

    2. Everyone jokes about MIR. Remember SKYLAB? It fell out of the sky ages ago.
    MIR lasted 2-3 times as long as it was supposed to. SKYLAB Didnt it was launched May 14, 1973, fell to earth July 11, 1979

    MIR lasted 15 years!

  84. russia=disingenuous by zogger · · Score: 2
    well, gee the poor bankrupt russian government doesn't seem to have enough money to chip in on the peaceful space station project.

    Now, just perhaps, perhaps if they weren't building 500 or more new sixth generation topol-m strategicmissiles they wouldn't be so "broke".

    Perhaps if the russians weren't building over 200 underground nuclear war fighting bunkers including one as large as the entire DC area inside the beltway , then perhaps they wouldn't be so "broke".

    Nope, IMO the russian leaders, like most insane megalomanaic world leaders, are big fat liars.

    1. Re:russia=disingenuous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you Americans our leaders are as democratically elected as yours and Im proud of country. We need those missiles to insure that you dont turn us into another Iraq, hell we have more oil than Iraq. So fuck you. We spend 1/6 of what you spend on defense stop blaming us for the worlds problems!

  85. Manned Space Exploration is not Science orResearch by parabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ,..one can ask what the return has been. [...] ...scientific projects...space research

    The wrong idea that sending people into space is science and research goes all back to the Apollo program, when after the first landing on the moon NASA tried to sell subsequent missions as "scientific missions".

    IMHO, sending a man to the moon was the highest cultural achievement of mankind in history so far, but as a piece of art, there is no much value in repeating it, and as nobody had the balls to admit that hundred billion dollars were spent for art, it had to be science.

    There is plenty of important science that happens in space, but you don't need people hanging around for that.

    Manned Space Exploration is about beeing there, and to feel how it feels to be there. It is about living there. It is about building houses, planting trees and fathering children out there. And cruising around with a cool car, if you are american.

    After Apollo 17 all space programs world started to decline, and there is no end in sight. The Space Shuttle program started by crippling Wernherr von Braun's original design that had a piloted, horizontal landing reuasable first stage by using a cheap throw-away fuel tank and reusable solid fuel boosters, ending up with a Space Shuttle with more expensive payload than using throw-away rockets. The buerocrats way of wasting money by budget cutting. And every news I heard about the ISS the last twenty years was about budget cuts and delays. I heard you need 2.5 people just to operate it, and there are three guys up there. SNAFU.

    It is sad, and I hope I will be wrong, but within a decade we will see:

    • The ISS will be abandoned a finally reenter the atmosphere
    • The last Space Shuttle will go out of service
    • There will be no more capabilities to send humans into orbit any more
    I just hope mankind will regain manned space travel before we will have depleted our natural resources here down on earth.

    --
    Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.
  86. enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia all your beowolf clusters of bases are belong to you.

  87. OFF TOPIC MY ASS!! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    This is just wonderful. A *bunch* of my posts got modded all the way down to -1 Off Topic in relation to the Soviets and IIS. I lost 11 karma points over it!

    When the article was originally posted, it said IIS and not ISS. That means that my jokes were on-topic, not off-topic.

    If I had lost one ore two points, I wouldn't even care. (heck, even 4'd be fine since that's how many comments I made.) But 11?!

    That is rather overly zealous moderation

    1. Re:OFF TOPIC MY ASS!! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Because of your dedication to your art and the humor you display, I've made you a friend. That's worth 43 karma points right there.

      I also noticed "sheldonb" hates you. He hates me too. Yet he never posts. I'll bet he's one of those unlimited mod point fucks, just sitting around modding people with a little color in their posts down. Ironically, in Soviet Russia he would probably fit right in.

      Well sheldonb, I got a message for you: don't hate the players, hate the game.

    2. Re:OFF TOPIC MY ASS!! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Heh. Well I have no idea. I think somebody modded the entire thread down 3 times. That bugs the hell out of me.

      Thanks for the kind words. :)

  88. Re:Manned Space Exploration is not Science orResea by WatertonMan · · Score: 2
    As mentioned, the military NEEDS the space shuttle. Remember how much involvement they had in its design. They made sure the payload bay could fit its spying equipment. While many of these systems can be launched via cheaper means, recall that many shuttle missions are still primarily military in nature. With the war on terror there will be that much of an impetus to have better spy equipment and probably better GPS equipment and communication equipment.

    The problem really is NASA as being more than simply a military shipping company.

  89. /me comes back for encore by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    On the ISS, Soviet Russia can't get to YOU!

    Ah HA! Thank you ladies and gentlemens!

    /me dances off stage

    This post was returned to you by the helpful folk at Sovietdot.

    ModHelper(TM) - If you read this post carefully, you'll find it succinctly sums up the story, is ontopic, insightful, funny, interesting, and best of all, completely over your head. Thanks for using ModHelper(TM)! Press Alt-F4 for help.

  90. Re:TOP OFF MY ASS IC!! by mkweise · · Score: 1

    Get over it, karma is by definition infallible and supremely just. It all works out perfectly in the end.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  91. Re:What a maroon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet you took a karma hit too. Damn mods...that's what you get from a bunch of no-sex single white fat pimply ass greasy haired soda drinking chip eating geeks at christmas...

    Of course, in Soviet Russia karma hits you! Uh oh...I can't seem to stop...

  92. Does this mean they get evicted? by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that the Russians are going to get evicted from the ISS and are they going to loose their security deposit.

  93. Re:Commence "In Soviet Russia Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone tell me where the 'In Soviet Russia' jokes actually come from? I had a look in Google, but all I found were pages using the actual 'joke'. Is it from an ad or something?

  94. Re:Parent is redundant... by dryopterix · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, In Soviet Russia... jokes count YOU!

  95. Re:Parent is redundant by dryopterix · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, IIS/ISS posts count YOU!

  96. No way dude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, the Apollo CSM was never "cheap." :)

    Second, the Apollo CSM would suffer from on of the main problems the Shuttle would have in a lifeboat role: It was never intended to be in space for months or years at a time. For that and other reasons, the guts would have to be mostly redesigned.

    (Actually, it wouldn't be an insane amount of work to modify the Shuttle to remain at Station for a long time. It is being considered.)

    I totally agree with the decision to build a reusable crew-transfer vehicle (now called the Orbital Space Plane) to ride up on an expendable rocket. It won't be active until 2010, which is a problem, but it will give us a hell of a lot of flexibility in the future. (For instance, stacked on the right rocket it may be able to reach the Earth-Moon L1 point.)

    Anyway, just say no to more Apollo CSMs. :)

  97. Re:Manned Space Exploration is not Science orResea by pfdietz · · Score: 1

    The military abandoned the space shuttle for expendable launchers years ago. The expendables are cheaper and easier to keep under the military's control. They also go into polar orbit as the shuttle does not.

  98. Re:Funniest Typo Ever by mkweise · · Score: 1

    A long, long time ago in 8th grade English class, I was called upon to read aloud the next paragraph from the book we all had before us. I, having my mind on tracking down a bug in my latest ZX-80 BASIC program, proceeded to misread something about "plankton and other orgasms." Then came the embarassing part: the teacher asked whether everyone knew what a Freudian Slip is and, when some of the class shook their heads, went into a lenghty explanation which referred repeatedly to my example.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  99. It is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. To buy additional Soyuz from Russia is by far the most cheap, reliable and straightforward way of going. Orbital plane still have to prove it will be comparably cheap.

  100. Re:Parent is redundant..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :)) Come on, the parent was funny - it made me chuckle anyway! Even though folks don't seem to think so, or maybe I ought to get some sleep.

    One more joke wont hurt!
    -SG

  101. Put more money in, not less by imbezol · · Score: 1

    People need to realize that space research is our only way of survival. Our little blue green planet is extremely vulnerable, whether it be a wayward chunk of space rock or even worse, the millions of threats we haven't thought of. Why should we risk our existence on the survival of this planet alone. If you and a friend had to fly to another country to push the button that would save the world, would you take the same plane there?

  102. (somewhat OT) Re:I say they should... by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
    Oh dear.. I envision a whole new genre of porn.

    Imagine cum shots that get squirted on some big titted woman 10 meters away.

    Oh dear...

    1. Re:(somewhat OT) Re:I say they should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you fuck a baby in space, would you hear his pelvis crack?

  103. When I am Fuhrer-- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --All Libertarians will be used as slave labor to build the launch pads for my space colonization program. Then they'll build my Autobahn and my V-weapons. Then I'll have them shot, and their bodies parted out for transplants. Burn in Hell, Randroid scum.

  104. When I am Fuhrer-- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --Altruistic fags such as yourself will be ground up and used as fertilizer for agribusiness. That's after we've shot you and taken out all the good parts (heart, lungs, etc) for transplants. You do wanna help your fellow man, right? Untermensch.

  105. You have a fundamentally flawed view by jpmorgan · · Score: 2

    You have a fundamentally flawed view of money. Money is not meaningless, it is a universal mechanism by which capitalist economies quantify resources. A dollar represents some amount of resources - the actual amount depends on what resource you're trying to aquire, how much of it is available, and how much other people want it. Very basic capitalism.

    If Russia doesn't have enough money to fund its space program, does not mean some stupid people decided not to print a few extra pieces of paper. It means that Russia cannot reasonably provide the resources to keep up its part of the ISS bargain. A country can only produce so much, and the Russians have decided that it's more important to build critical infrastructure and to feed people to continue building components for the ISS and blasting them into space.

    The only thing more shocking than your ignorance of basic economics and their relevance to society is the fact you got moderated up to 5.

    1. Re:You have a fundamentally flawed view by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 1

      Several people have mentioned "printing more money" in response to my original post. I never implied that printing money is the answer to the problems that people are seeing. Quite the opposite, really. What I criticize is the capitalist mindset, and the point when money becomes a barrier to progress.

      Resources are available. Assuming Russia would not blindly squander them, why shouldn't they be provided? Their "payment" is research and advancement in space technology, which could benefit us all.

      --
      "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
  106. Budget cutbacks by jpmorgan · · Score: 2

    And it would have been if it hadn't been for cutbacks. And don't go blaming just the Russians, NASA's funding has also been cut a lot in recent years.

    1. Re:Budget cutbacks by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      No, actually, NASA's funding has not been cut a lot in recent years. It's been relatively stable. What's happened is that NASA's lowballing of cost estimates has finally caught up with them, so the budgets they said are adequate have turned out not to be.

  107. Re:nope by saskboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually AC, the Proton is the rocket, the Soyuz is the capsule.

    http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/19 99 b/112299z.htm

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  108. Re:Commence "In Soviet Russia Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia jokes come from YOU!!!

  109. Just a minute... by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

    Did I hear things or is everybody ignoring some recent news about ISS? A few days ago I heard that USA and Russia had agreed to grow ISS's crew some people more by 2004 or 2006. Sincerly, I didn't take serious attention as I was running out to work and saw just a glimpse of some meeting showing on TV. Did anyone here saw this thing?

    And how can this fit with this news?

    On what concerns the objective of ISS... Well it was and it is a turkey... One of you guys pointed correctly. While politicians (both sides!) played Space Station to keep people happy, Science and all the rest went through the pipe.

  110. $15 Billion? by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

    I assume that the $15B mentioned here was arrived at by simply grabbing NASA's budget numbers?
    It doesn't all go to the ISS or even to space.
    Most of it but not all. That first A in NASA stands
    for Aeronautics to the tune of about $1B more or less.

  111. IIS is doomed apace is coming:) by Alehandro · · Score: 0

    Without Russia IIS will not exist. Simply because US doesn't have much knowledge of space stations while Russians do. Also American rockets are not capable to lift modules as for example living module. From all modules only one module was US build. So I say IIS project is doomed. Bush will better spend more money on war then on space research. Russia is in the dippest !@#$%%^%& hole. So if nothing is done IIS is doomed.

    1. Re:IIS is doomed apace is coming:) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware of the fact that Microsoft subcontracted huge parts of IIS to russian consultants.

      It will be a huge loss without Russia, but getting rid of IIS mitigates the pain.

  112. Evil Empire Wars, Episode I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet Russia folded about ten years ago. You can still get pieces of it on e-bay.

  113. Offtopic question: Re:You fail it by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

    This is admittedly OT, but... Can someone explain to me what the trolls mean by saying "You fail it"? I've noticed a bunch of trolls referring to FP posts with "you fail it" when the poster doesn't actually make an FP. But, do they mean that the poster failed to make FP, or is it a larger insult in that the person fails at everything? Any idea when it originated? I kind of like to follow troll history.

  114. blind patriotism by zogger · · Score: 2

    --blind patriotism is just that, "blind". If you read more of my stuff you'd see I'm just as "down" on our US goon insane "leaders" as yours, or red china's, or any other agressive nation's. Your country has a dismal track record of invading and occupying and you know it. It has a past dismal record of enslaving it's own pople, from the czars on up, a master/serf nation. If you can break that cycle, good for you! Unfortunately my country has set itself down the same path, we are heading to a two class society of masters and serfs, and I think *all* of it sucks. All I do when I post is point out inconsisterncies with what government or corporate leaders "say" as opposed to what reality is, and I usually try to back it up with relevant linkages, just like I did in my post. Step back a second and think about it that way, the original post was russia is " too broke" and "can't afford" peaceful space station payments. I pointed out it's not as "broke" as they say publically, that they divert money from peaceful projects into weapons of mass destruction, and it doesn't get acknowledged or covered much in the mainstream press. they get caught lying blatantly, same as our leaders get caught lying, it just happens. The same applies to the US, we let these international arms and construction contractors drive our foreign policy via their tame bribed politicians WAY too much, in my opinion, because "war" is "good for business" at least according to these spilled blood merchants. I find I am fair and consistent with my "dissing" and "put downs" of these people, in any country, and your country don't get a skate on it as far as I am concerned, I'm an equal opportunity complainer!

    Be proud of the good things your nation does, as I am of mine, but don't be blind to the things that slide into the "bad" area. Best advice I have.

  115. Re:Manned Space Exploration is not Science orResea by gorilla · · Score: 2

    No, the military gave up on the space shuttle after the Challenger accident. They finished with stuff already in the pipeline, and that was it. There have only been 2 military shuttle missions since 1995.

  116. Re:Russian Participation Rationale by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    Remember, the real reason that the Russians were
    invited to join the Space Station after the cold
    war ended was to keep their rocket scientists busy.
    That way they wouldn't go to work building missiles
    for the highest bidder.

    Having been there when the redesign to add the
    Russian hardware happened, I can say it probably
    added cost and complexity to the program. But the
    effects on the civilian space program were secondary
    to the avoided cost of having to deal with
    half a dozen countries hiring former russian
    rocket scientists.

    Remember our own space program was started by
    former _German_ rocket scientists

    Daniel

  117. IMAX movie about the ISS by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

    Right now there is a great IMAX movie playing at my local IMAX theater (Denver Museum of Nature & Science). I imagine it is also playing at IMAX theaters around the nation. Although many seem to agree that the ISS was a waste of money, you can't help getting inspired and impressed if you go to see this film.

    (Also it's narrated by Tom Cruise, if that makes a difference to you.)

    --
    Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
  118. The US has already spent heaps on Russia by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    The amount of industrial nepotism that goes on, to say nothing of hundreds of millions in political back-rooms deals, is amazing. America was actually funding Russia to some extent during the Cold War. American industrialists had a hand in building the missiles at the heart of the Cuban crisis. The problem is that you can't formalise such arrangements.

    Both Russia and China have impressive heavy-lift credentials. They got those by not farting around with fancy stuff (just getting the basic engineering right), and by reducing the politics to the level of `if this succeeds, you will be a national hero, if it fails you will be dead'. They should try that in the US; the burgeoning litigation industry there would implode.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  119. Going to Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many pessimists. Not to worry. Jealousy and
    hate are stronger emotions than curiousity and
    altruism, and that is one of the sad, bad lessons
    of history.
    Gentle reader weak of will and heart. Take read
    of recent Chinese ststements pursuant to space
    exploration. They WANT to go there and not just
    for science. They mean to plant the flag on the
    moon and Mars for their nation. They WILL weaponize space given the chance.
    One of the lessons of fighter jet combat is
    situational awareness. Often while maintaining
    ones own in one combat at the cost of ones total
    concentration on that problem, the result will be
    the loss of the battle that the pilot did not
    know or even suspect that he was in.
    Oh yes! We will stay in space. We cannot
    afford not to. The cost of our absence will be
    the chains of slavery. Have we forgotten that
    we went to the Moon because the Russians launched
    a basketball named Sputnik into low orbit in 1957?
    It only went: "beep....beep....beep!". New ventures launched by our rivals in the world will
    do a little more than that.
    Remember, space is the high ground.

  120. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    In a minimum-phase system there is an inextricable link between
    frequency response, phase response and transient response, as they
    are all merely transforms of one another. This combined with
    minimalization of open-loop errors in output amplifiers and correct
    compensation for non-linear passive crossover network loading can
    lead to a significant decrease in system resolution lost. However,
    this all means jack when you listen to Pink Floyd.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...