Slashdot Mirror
NASA Consider "Demanning" Space Station
Heartbreak writes "James Oberg, in an article for MSNBC, says that NASA is making contingency plans to leave the International Space Station without a permanent crew for up to a year if the Russians can't deliver the required Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to support it. A serviceable Soyuz is required to evacuate the crew in an emergency when the US Shuttle isn't there, and Progress is needed for resupply. The Russian space program is doddering on the edge of financial collapse after several recent setbacks, including the failure of Lance Bass to pay up.
What SF writer could have imagined that humanity's dream of exploring space would be brought to the edge of extinction by the financial irresponsibility of a pop music star? It would be a boring and depressing story, at best." Of course, some would argue that the space station was a boondoogle to start with.
Exploring space is one of the most inspiring things mankind can do. Giving up on the space station might easily become permanent (once congress discovers they are paying a lot of money to have NO PEOPLE AT ALL in orbit); at that time we will have lost our only stepping stone towards the stars.
In order to get to other worlds we need better technology. Better technology does not grow on trees, it must be created. Without a manned space program we will not create that technology, and arguably without the space station there is not much of a manned space program left.
Stop this madness, before it is too late!
So give Lance a ride up to the station for free, then present the bill when it's time to go back home. If he doesn't pay, let him walk.
Than to put people there without the vehicles in place to support them.
The Russian space program is doddering on the edge of financial collapse after several recent setbacks, including the failure of Lance Bass to pay up.
Man that takes some balls right there. How you figure you're gonna screw over a world super power and get away with it?
A fair way to handle the fiasco would be to force all NASA programs to compete in the same kind of peer review that's required for NSF and DOE science. This would have the effect of killing off the crewed space program, while steering more funding to uncrewed probes, which are what actually do the science.
Find free books.
For the sake of everyone on Earth, I think it would be best to put all the Backstreet Boys and N*Sync in the ISS. Because in space, noone can hear you sing.
I'll go if I can have sex with Britney Spears....in space....on the space station.....sex with Britny on the spac station...in spc with brty on teh sation...ye that is waht i wnat!
Would they? Who? And why?
I find it a little trite to dismiss the effort of the International Space Station with a quick phrase that has no backing. Reasons? Well then, suggest 'em!
Cheers,
Ian
You wouldn't find me not paying the Russian government - what with the KGB and all. Not to mention all the corrupt Generals who are probably now looking to make a name for themselves by freeing the world from the likes Lance Bass. He is either very brave, or very stupid.
All I know is that when I'm building a bomb shelter in my backyard becuase Lance caused another missile crisis, and we're counting on Junior to save our asses, I'm gonnd be hella-pissed.
_sig_ is away
Dang! I just read this story, here on /. a few days ago? You guys tring to mess me up? Freakin me out.
Like anyone was really living in space to begin with. Sounds like the studio is just kicking NASA out to make way for another reality TV series.
First the Russians ended up losing the Mir because they could not get a deal to go through to save it and use it for a hotel, hence Mircorp.
Now they are trashing the Space Station too since they can not keep up their side of the bargain.
Send Lance Bass to China next!
He can help us end communism their too....
This submission has been sensored by China Communist Party since the words Lance Bass is in the article (see sometimes censorship is a good thing!)
I have to wonder, who made the decision to depend upon the russians for financial support.
I mean how bad can it be that you have to financially depend on a group that depends upon Lance Bass for financial support?
somebody oughta get fired for this one....
This article was posted November 26th. Methinks this topic has been discussed ad nauseum. Can we find something more recent to occupy our time?
for US Space Station. NASA should never have embarked on a "cooperative" project without having the wherewithal to go it alone should the partners have to bail out. I'm all for cooperation, the Soyuz/Apollo missions were great. US astronauts working on Mir, and Cosmonauts on Spacelab (had it lasted) are great ideas... but someone needs to be in charge, and capable of running the project by themselves if need be.
So not only is Lance a Plague to Earth, but he has just indirectly become a plague to space as well. Thanks......
Why Microsoft does not buy the Russian Aerospace up in order to get the monopoly in the space ?
It would be at least helpful for ManKind since Windows does not provide new Features anymore.
It would be great for Microsoft if they contribute to the Science and maybe contribute to send man on Mars.
After that, Microsoft will be loved by everyone
Reducing the amount of resources devoted to this project should actually benefit other projects in the long run. While the ability to study the long term effects of living in space has been very helpful in documenting what will be needed to support people for long trips, what other real breakthroughs have been made? Maybe now NASA can take a real look at trips to Mars.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
As a docking facility/point-of-departure, the ISS is a great (if premature) idea. As a ground-breaking testing lab for space-related sciences, it was a dud from it's conception; is there anything they can/could do on the ISS (aside from the ol' "how long can someone stay in space" trick) that couldn't/hasn't been done on any one of the NASA/Russian orbital missions?
To put it very briefly - as I already have (puts on fireproof suit) - the sooner we focus on the exploration of space, the sooner we retain the excitement and imagination of exploring, which is what we do best.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
I knew this would happen. It's always a bad idea to be rushin' space modules. They're complicated.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
did 'NASA' become plural this weekend?
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
That article was on the front page of MSNBC on Nov 26th!
Slashdot: News thats old. Stuff that doesn't matter anymore.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Blackmailing the rest of the world might work even better: If you don't make your montly payments we'll bring him back! ;)
Karma. Moderation. Is my
He is either very brave, or very stupid.
He's broke, on account of being ripped off by those nasty P2P criminals.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
OpenDK has never been involved in the ISS. It can not be blamed for the takedown.
The space experience would have been lost on Lance - he's a nimrod of the first stripe.
We should take up a collection and send up someone who would at least be entertaining to watch in space:
OZZY!!!
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
the space station demans you!
What is the point of he ISS? If NSA's actually ging to use it for somthing other than a pretty light the sky, then keep it going, oterwise no. Whateverhappenedto all this research that could be done in zero-grav. I haven't seen any of it. All that asie, i'd still be happy to runte lae wile nasa's gone. I usthope Dominos delvrs up there. Who wants to bet on the number of "in soviet russia" posts this one gets?
In related news, the Russians are considering 'demanning' Lance Bass
Of course, some would argue that the space station was a boondoogle to start with. [Emphasis mine -- AC]
Yet others would argue that you are in dire need of spell-checking.
It's strange that nobody (afaik) is planning to redesign the launchers to include cheaper parts. The technology is very specific, but there may be other uses for it that would (hopefully) allow mass production, reducing the total unit cost.
Ok now where's my rocket engine powered car?
The ENIAC Demo Competition
It is has been proven that people in tight social circles tend to pick up habits and mannerisms from one another. I wonder if the fact that the slashdot editors are so close, contributes to the generally poor grammar skills they show when posting articles.
--- I do not moderate.
I submit the following:
NASA hated the idea of 'common folk' leaving the planet. I wouldn't be suprised if NASA hired Lance Bass to 'pretend' to want to go to ISS, go through all the motions of being trained (thusly sucking up MORE of the Russian's resources), then 'back out' at the last minute due to 'lack of funding'...
Hmmm...
bork bork bork!
I'm one of those people that didn't think that the space station was a good use of NASA funds to begin with. I am a space buff, having been inspired to promote the exploration of space by the late Carl Sagan, but I just think that the funding would have been better spent in different areas. Having a lab outside of the atmosphere has obvious advantages, true, but spending billions on robotic research, research drones to the outer planets, and/or manned missions to Mars instead would have been more fruitful, IMH-astronomy education coming from Barnes and Nobles-O.
As a docking facility/point-of-departure, the ISS is *terrible*. Its inclination is so high that it's tough to get loads there and back, and subsequent exit/entry insertions are off the plane of the ecliptic, so you've got to correct there, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
What SF writer could have imagined that humanity's dream of exploring space would be brought to the edge of extinction by the financial irresponsibility of a pop music star?
What SF writer could have imagined a government that would make a significant portion of humanity's dream of exporing space dependant on an irresponsible pop star?
I just dont understand why space flight is so expensive. Is it all the people working on it? Could it be bad budgeting of NASA, you know $400 toilet seats and $200 haircuts, etc.? Do they use some rare materials that are hard to produce. I just don't get it, can anyone that has worked around the space program give some insight.
stories repeat slashdot!
Now, we're bringing home everyone from orbit.
Give it another few years, and we'll be crawling back into the oceans.
Consider the worst case scenario... say, the U.S. can't afford a (non-military) space program because we're too busy fighting a war with everyone else on the damn planet. If NASA decided to shut down the station indefinitely -- after one more shuttle flight to turn off the lights -- for how long could the station reasonably be mothballed? A year? Ten years? Fifty?
MSK
As per a previous article 85% of the time that the astronauts spendin the space station is used for repiars. Given how time consuming most research is, would it really ever be possible for them to do reasearch with only 15% of the day for science (not to mention eating and sleeping).
From there a problem arises that if you make the space station bigger and add dedicated science personell you will have more station to take care of, and need more people to tend to it.
Overall it seems that a little more planning on everyone's part would have gone a long way.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
" ... Of course, some would argue that the space station was a boondoogle to start with..."
Hmmm.. I'd say its more of a space-dongle (and poorly implemented at that).
m
The journey into space is a journey. It will take a long time, and there will be plenty of hiccups along the way, but it will happen. The first pioneer from New York who wanted to settle California probably didn't make it all the way - he probably stopped part way, and helped establish a town, and the next guy coming through was able to get farther.
Maybe the ISS isn't the right answer. Maybe space elevators are the right way to enable large-scale space travel. No one knows. But claiming that we're going to stop going into space because of a relatively minor setback is foolish. Where else are we going to go?
NASA has several space shuttles, which just sit idle in between mission ramp ups.
Couldn't NASA just park of these babies on the ISS in place of the Russion vehicle?
The very success of the United States proves that capitalism is the only answer. Compare the exponential advancement of computer technology to the thirty year old space shuttle technology. If NASA worked 98% to inspire commercial space ventures, working to help the nation's state of space technology rather than focusing on discovering if life ever existed on Mars, then we'd soon see space hotels orbiting between Earth and Mars, colonies on other planets, etc. Research would be far easier to manage given a better platform, rather than this "smarter, cheaper, faster" stuff that NASA and it's international counterparts are trying to come up with together. The average American says "Wow, space, that'd be a wild experience." That's how to get the public funding, and once you get public funding, and by public I mean general public, not crazy millionaires, then the sky is the limit, as computer technology has discovered. The X-prize is a very nice start towards this way of thinking, but we'll need much more focus on manned space technology and space tourism before we have serious competition in orbit.
The government pays you!!!!!!
This kind of like Skylab all over again, isn't it?
Skylab was never intended to be abandonned permanantly. The shuttle program was supposed to be done in time to boost Skylab's orbit and reoccupy America's first "space station." But budgets and schedules being what they are... The shuttle launched late, and Skylab's orbit decayed early.
So, when they say they're going to "temporarily" un-man ISS, I woner how temporary that would be...
The space station considers demanning YOU!
Having just seen Armageddon on network television, I have to wonder about this angle to getting ISS more funding...
Wouldn't an asteroid or comet striking the Earth be considered an act of Interstellar Terrorism?
If that's the case, perhaps the new Anti-terror legislation should be ammended to include funding for a federal interstellar security force to man the ISS...
the Heroes from Earth need a manned space station to dock with before flying off to save the planet!
What SF writer could have imagined that humanity's dream of exploring space would be brought to the edge of extinction by the financial irresponsibility of a pop music star?
Damn! Damn it anyway!
There goes my idea for a SF book...
Thanks alot!!!
In related news, reports are beginning to surface that demanning slashdot.org might not be such a bad idea, given that computers would be better than humans at spotting duplicate stories.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
The superpower screws YOU!
..Lance Bass guy not paying up? I understand he's a member of this boy band n'sync or what the foot. Now, I also know that he took part in training at the cosmodrome in Russia. Did he not even pay for the training, or did he pay for it, but pulled out from the actual flight?
I would be surprised, because I saw him boasting on the TV, how this has been always his dream, since his childhood (which was last year).
So what's the straight story here?
Sigged!
this may be offtopic, but the russian problems may just be an excuse for the US to temporarily mothball the space station so that more money can be diverted to the imminent war against Iraq. I mean, comeon, do you trully believe that the american government has any real interest in space exporation??? Don't get me wrong here, I think the americans are the only nation that can realy make a difference here, + they have achieved a great many in the past with the apollo program and the space shuttles, but I do not think that the US gov. is really serious about the ISS or the mars exploration or the return to the moon. And this is because none of the officials has any real vision. The war against terror is just a stupid trick to divert everyone's minds from the really important things. I think the americans are currently the only nation that can make a difference, and with the help of the European Union and Japan, great achievements that can capture the hearts and minds of all people can be accomplished. Next time you think about your petty problems here on earth, I suggest you look up towards the stars.
Somehow, I don't think you'd ever have made it out of the slush pile anyway. Call it a wild hunch.
"Deman" ISS by sending up a crew of hot-looking Russkie and American women. Install webcams everywhere, and charge by the hour. Boom! Instant solvency. I bet even Lance Bass will subscribe.
It would produce some unique science...
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Look at the amount of money we've sunk into this, and then compare the prices that other countries are expected to pay (and stil don't). It seems to me we just expect money from them as more of a membership due than real financial support. So why not just cover their debts and take over the ISS completely? It'd be expensive, but I think that even the threat of United States Space Dominance might motivate Russia to shell out a few more ruples to stay in the game..
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Time to turn to the one true money making venture - Live-feed porn from ISS. Think of the angles that weightlessness would provide. The whirring fans, the blinking lights, the russians moaning "Da! Da! Da!"
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
"...the RIAA recently declared MP3 music sharing led to the failure of the International Space Station, as reduced CD sales left Lance Bass unable to purchase his flight to the orbiting rathole."
...
The ISS hasn't done one of the most important things any space program can and must do: generate interest. It's not that NASA has to do a May sweeps thing, but they need to do something sexy and exciting (e.g. the Mars Rover) and do it well. One of the things that attracted all sorts of positive media attention was that the Mars Rover mission was cheap. The public ate that up. "We get all these cool pictures of Mars, a neat little robot to look at, and it didn't cost that much? Wow! Give me more of that." Of course, then someone mixed up inches and centimeters and the life went out of that balloon. Oh well.
The point is this: landing men on the moon was sexy. People were desperate for it. The goal wasn't just NASA's but was that of the entire country. And the goal of the ISS would be? Would be? Beuller? Beuller?
Why did we go to the moon? I would wager that part of the reason we went was because it sounded cool to do. I know that's simplistic and there was the whole cold war to think of, but basically, it was really, really cool as in, "dude, we walked on the moon." In the process a whole slew of stuff happened, was discovered, was improved...and we're better off because of it. (Of course, we never really went to the moon and only a fool believes otherwise , but the point is still the same.)
NASA _should_ scrap the ISS, now. Don't OS/2 it. (Pardon me while I put on the flame retardant suit.) Sure, a lot of money has been dumped into it. Fine. Leave it there for a while and if we can figure out a way to use it well, then go ahead.
Okay, now for the controversial part: Ground the space shuttles. The shuttle builds the ISS. The ISS is no more. The shuttle is needed no more. There are better ways to put satelites in orbit.
Without the ISS, NASA can concentrate on "cool" missions again. Send a probe to Pluto, to see if we can. Send rovers to the moons of Saturn, to see if we can. Do cool stuff that will capture the minds and hearts of the public who foots the bill.
Without the shuttle, NASA could concentrate on creating a "cool" and "inexpensive" manned spaceflight vehicle, one that doesn't need to blast off.
Not that any of this matters. I teach public school which isn't that different from NASA. Schools don't change even when they know they should---they don't change because they fear change. NASA, seems to me, is about the same.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Um, you seem to be under the impression that the US has this capability. The point of this whole "cooperation" dealie wasn't to patronize other countries, it's because their help is necessary.
sic transit gloria mundi
The ISS was conceived during a time when Soviet Russia had just collapsed, and Russian rocket scientists were freshly out of jobs. So I'm sure someone in the US government figured out a way to keep all those scientists employed so they wouldn't go off and design nuclear rockets for "rogue nations" like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.
Nowadays the situation has stablized quite a bit, and I figure that the US doesn't feel quite as threatened by Russian rocket scientists. Maybe they actually saw the quality of work these guys (don't) put out, and decided that they weren't as big a threat as first thought. So, with the threat gone away, so has the need for a giant lumbering science project to keep those scientists happy.
As it is, I can't really think of a useful purpose for this space station. People said all sorts of things it could do when the project started, like be a research platform, or a jumping-off point for more manned moon missions, or a large "symbol of international unity and cooperation," but have any of those things happened? Especially the whole "unity and cooperation" thing...it's like the US and Russia are roommates who aren't getting along, and Russia isn't paying the rent.
Where's a better place for US to spend its money? Perhaps we should fold up NASA, shift its budget to balancing the budget deficit, and allow privatization of space. That way, the money being lost in space won't be my taxpayer money. Now, if only I could pull my money out of ol' Dubya's little desert expedition...
Why doesn't the US Gov just "loan" the russians some cash to build their stupid part of the ISS.
.com guy could surely spare a couple tens of millions in the name of Space Exploration.
I mean, the US Gov bails out United Airlines and other bankrupt companies that don't deserve to stay in business, either.
At the very least, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or some other silicon valley
Not that I care about Lance Bass or anything, but to blame the failures of ISS on him is just plain stupid. How about blaming them on dealing with a government that can not afford to pay their own bills. The only reason Tito and others had a chance of getting in space was because the russian government has issues. Or blaming the american who decided that it would be a good idea to "partner" with the russians.
Why, Douglas Adams of course! Who else?
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
NASA is a wonderful place, they do accomplish a lot, but they have no business running what should be a civilian funded venture. These guys are holding up the works. They should shoot for core complete on the ISS and then sell it to the highest bidder. How much do you think Bill Gates would put up to own his own space-station? You'd have billionaires at each other's throats (always a good thing). It'll get the nitwit Delphi and Oracle CEOs to invest in something useful as opposed to World Cup yachts (losses 1 billion and counting). There are Universities and private materials companies who would sell their souls to use this facility. Better yet, get the government out of it completely and let a non-profit like Battelle administer the program. NASA should be folded imto the DOE and the Air Force, where it belongs. They've been allowed to be a road-block to the exploration of space long enough. Whatever is left of NASA can charge rent for laboratory space on the ISS and the profit will fund the space exploration side. Okay, flame away. [-)
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
First and foremost, there is no problem with idealism. Idealism is not a bad thing. Idealism is what pushes people to change the world.
Secondly, the front porch IS the portal to the rest of the world. I am currently on crutches, due to an accident, and just getting myself to the front frikkin door of my building requires work, some pain, and ingenuity. But it's a start. And if I figure out a new crutching technique while hitting those stairs, well, things have just got a little easier next time.
In fact, stepping out on your front porch is a NECESSITY to getting halfway around the globe.
I believe that Tolkien is in my corner for this one:
"...there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to."
I know, not exactly a scientific authority, but I think it speaks to my viewpoint- if we take that first step out the door, the stars don't seem so far away.
LOTR! Two Towers! Two days! Oh man!
I digress.
I believe that the space station offers us the challenges of surviving and working in space, in a very real, day to day way. We will encounter problems, setbacks and innovations that we simply wouldn't get just from unmanned satellites and on-Earth experiments.
As far as it being a waste of government money, I can think of plenty of off-topic things that the geovernment wastes it's resources on, that are far less valuable, interesting and inspiring as the ISS.------ What's sadder than realizing you've filtered out your own comments?
...is incredibly stupid. Sadly, in this day, it makes perfect sense to most people. If the Russians were counting on selling tourist tickets to rich people to fund their portion, they weren't being realistic. Blame the Russians for weaselling out of the space station deal, but don't blame it Lance. And no, I'm not a fan of NStinque or the BackDoorBoyz or whatever suck-ass boyband he was (is?) in. I'm just sick to death of people blaming everyone but themselves when they screw up. What's next - fat kids suing McDonalds? Oh wait, that did happen.
Sure, to do it on the scale it is being done. My point is that we need to either (a) scale back to a project we can afford, or (b) increase the budget to support the project we want to do.
the sooner we focus on the exploration of space, the sooner we retain the excitement and imagination of exploring, which is what we do best.
It's not really excitement that's needed. The sooner we focus on the exploitation of space, the sooner we will have a sustainable space program.
The neccessary capital will not be there untill there is obvious potential for profit.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
NASA already has space vehicles that don't blast off, why do you think the moon looks so much like the arizona desert?
Its humor, now laugh
US Space Station would be USSS. On the USSS they could have a BBBQ. The extra B is for BYOBB.
It's not really excitement that's needed. The sooner we focus on the exploitation of space, the sooner we will have a sustainable space program.
The neccessary capital will not be there untill there is obvious potential for profit.
Thank you for demonstrating a future without humanity.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
The point was specifically to patronize other counteries, in particular Russia. The Russian were brought on board partly to reduce costs. The main reason, though, was because the Clinton administration saw it as a showcase of US-Russian cooperation, and as a means to keep Russian rocket engineers gainfully imployed without moving to less friendly nations. (The Europeans were brought on board because we were fairly confident that they could help reduce costs, and carry their share of the burden. They were brought on long before the Russians.)
The US does indeed have the technical capability to build and operate a station on its own. But, specific pieces of equipment were not built (such as the crew return vehicle) because there was another country (Russia) entrusted with the task.
Get your facts straight.
The Economist has long advocated dropping ISS. Also, many many scientists have long advocated not only dropping ISS, but also dropping the space shuttle-- unmanned rockets can do the job cheaper and safer. If you are unaware of the many people who are against manned space exploration, I suspect you must not be very well informed about the issues. The comment was hardly trite... it was a simple statement of fact.
Space station considers "demanning" NASA
Many people want to fly into space, and they are "normal folk." Many scientists, engineers, secretaries, technicians, managers, etc., would love it if spaceflight was cheap and affordable. This is a goal of many of the people at NASA.
Get your conspiracy theorist head out of your ass and put down the crack pipe.
That's interesting. Why was such a high inclination chosen, what benefits did it offer?
If it happens that the Russkie program folds, (which I don't like, I rather like some healthy competition to become co-operation) I saw that the US Program give Lance Bass a free ride to see the station.
Once he's up there, I say we de-man the station, and breach the hull.
- Me, Bitter? Jones : )
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
US Space Station would be USSS. On the USSS they could have a BBBQ. The extra B is for BYOBB.
More like BYOO2.
Eek. Maybe I've watched too much Alien or played too much StarCraft, but you couldn't pay me enough money to be the first person back on a space station that's been abandoned for a year or more.
You know how weird your house feels after being away for two weeks on vacation? Now imagine "two weeks" is actually "a year" and "your house" is actually "your house that's been drifting aimlessly in the cold blackness of space".
--
Nope. The maintenance requirements of the completed station won't be much greater than they are now. It might take 3-3.5 people out of seven to operate it, compared to the 2.5/3 now. That's not a bad ratio of productive time! (I'm a graduate student who would love to have a couple of people dedicated to doing all of the menial chores necessary to keeping my lab running.)
You, sire, do not seem to have any comprehension of the level of planning that has gone into this station. You have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about.
space tourists?
is there anything they can/could do on the ISS ... that couldn't/hasn't been done on any one of the NASA/Russian orbital missions?
Yes there is. The platform required for a specific microgravity research objective is largely determined by the duration of the experiment. Ground based drop towers can provide a microgravity environment for up to 10 seconds. Aircraft flying parabolic trajectories typically provide 25 seconds. Sounding rockets can provide several minutes. The space shuttles provide a maximum of 17 days. Anything longer is usually done on the ISS. Qualitative differences between the platforms and differing requirements for crew interaction also influence the choice of platform.
"The Russian space program is doddering on the edge of financial collapse after several recent setbacks, including the failure of Lance Bass to pay up"
Yet one more reason to hate 'Nsync.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Hey, we built the Canadarm, why not have us build some Soyuz class space shuttles, in order to get the yanks back and forth?
Bah, why can't we just hurry up and get us some Star Trek technology...then we can just beam our lazy asses up there for cheap!
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
The ISS is in this much trouble because *NASA* cancelled the Crew Return Vehicle, forcing them to rely on russian tech instead while at the same time downgrading crew capacity from 7 to 3.
It is therefore also NASA that doesn't live up to its promises to its international partners (which is, that for their investment they would get access to a *manned* space station).
Kill ISS and the Shuttle and you have destroyed the manned spaceflight program at NASA. It would save a lot of money. It would also throw away a large amount of individual expertise and institutional knowledge, making it more difficult and expensive for NASA to ever put people in space again.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I setup a paypal account for space station funding, and someone broke in and stole it all. Rats!
I think it was widely known the ISS would never come to scientific fruition in the bowels of appropriation committee meetings and planning commissions. The ISS has become and I think was intended to be-politically-a means to grab taxpayer dollars and stick them in the pockets of Congress people and their wealthy constituants.
A pork barrel is a project that puts federal dollars in the hands of Congress people in charge of the projects or appropriation committees for said projects. The best pork barrels are projects you can trick a lot of people into thinking are useful for the greater good so they don't ask any probing questions. An example would be a Represenative from a district in Vermont appropriating money for a project in that district some friends of his run a business in. For making them rich they cut said Congressman in on the fat of the "pork" for buying midgets to do battle or whatever it is rich people do. Sometimes pork barrels can be good for the people at large, a project could bring a bunch of jobs to a job poor district and then those people can eat and the country at large benefits from said federal project.
The ISS is starting to look more and more like this every day. The billions of dollars spent on the thing are going somewhere. It isn't like the solid rocket boosters of the Shuttle are lined with five dollar bills, not literally anyways. Before we had our ever impotent "War on Terror" to provide a means for getting public money into private hands the ISS was a perfect project to pork. It had a tenuous scientific basis, it would do JUST enough hard science for data to trickle in so it didn't look like a waste. As an added bonus the EU, Russia, and Japan could get in on the act and make it look to everyone like it was a giant shiny peace symbol in the sky. It's also a project that certain states *cough*California, Texas, and Floria*cough* would have a major hand in both developing and manufacturing. Billions of dollars means lots of cushy raises for government contractors. A pie in the sky science project that may or may not actually work as intended provides sweet CYA material for hearings later on.
You may or may not ask why was the ISS funded when we coulds have gotten more hard science out of smaller space projects and still bilked money out of them in particular Congressional districts. The answer is publicity. You can't go outside and take fricken pictures of the Mars Rover with a high powered zoom lens. You can take a picture of that megabright collection of aluminum cans flying around the planet. Also unlike probes launched from disposable rockets the ISS is something that needs to be maintained. Ron Popiel doesn't have a MagicStation where you set it and forget it. The ISS is a pork barrel that could have lasted for a decade or more had it been viable to do so. That's more than ten years of government contractors selling a $500 space toilet to NASA for $500,000.
Whatever dreams the ISS was supposed to fill for geeks and engineers don't matter to politicians, only the beaucoup cash that comes from those dreams matters. The ISS/Freedom/Alpha may have started as a cool science mission with attainable and useful goals but once it got into the grubby hands of Congress it turned into one giant government contract after another. As I said, now that we've got a "war" against nobody and maybe even a real war with remote control bombs and lasers on 747s the ISS isn't much needed anymore by the government. Why milk NASA's measly 14 billion when you can milk the DOD's uberbillions?
The ISS's failure is the fault of Congress and the people looking to make megabucks off taxpayer dollars, not Lance Bass. You can still despise him resoundly and wish he we eaten by wild battling midgets or whatever you want done to him but his inability to generate investor interest is not dooming the ISS.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The ISS is a waste of money, if you ask me. Give that $100 billion to private companies and watch them conquer LEO and the moon. Give me $100 billion and I could take the solar system.
Mike
Access to Progress supply ships.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I think that simply being out there and trying to get somewhere is vastly important to expanding ourr reaches. While we may be going nowhere quick, we are still going. I think that our first goal should be to put a station on the moon simply for the shere idea of having one there. While it would provide vast scientific research opportunities it would also be that first big step towards branching our from earth. Any effort is needed if we are going to get anywhere. It's like the lottery, if you at least try then you have some small chance of hitting it big, if you don't chance the risk, then you have absolutely no chance.
I realize the monetary problem in this whole issue, but I still think it is vital to the moral and unification of the world. It worked for Star Trek!! Let's just forget about the whole WWIII though.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Hemos is an idiot.
It was a compromise like almost everything else to do with space station. It split the difference between Shuttles ability and Soyuz ability... probably more skewed towards Soyuz since Shuttle has a bit more freedom in its ability in achiving and recovering from various orbits.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Well, the reason it sits so high with respect to the ecliptic once again traces back to the Russians, who need to be able to launch Soyuz and Proton missions from Baikonur way up in the frosty northlands. Florida is just a smidge closer to the Equator than Kazakhstan. Of course, ideally, the ISS would maintain a spot on the ecliptic, and everyone would launch their rockets/shuttles from Kourou in French Guiana. Unfortunately, that seems wildly impractical given the 5 decades of infrastructure sunk into the American and Russian programs.
Personally, I'd rather see the ISS boosted up to geostationary orbit (a herculean task, I realize) and used as a staging area for construction of a space elevator. That way some good might come of that orbiting albatross.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Folks it is time to de-man that thing and use it to start staging for a mars mission. Start sending up fuel and supplies for the mission and storing it on the station.
Got Code?
What SF writer could have imagined that humanity's dream of exploring space would be brought to the edge of extinction by the financial irresponsibility of a pop music star?
William Gibson.
I agree.. wish the bad boy could be tossed into geo stationary but like shuttle I would imagine there would be some serious thermal issues with regards to handling 12+ hours or so of sunlight a day. The thermal systems are designed with the understanding that they will be in shade several times a day... ISS already has some issues in this regard with its high inclination and the times of the year that generate high beta angles where it spends more time in sunlight than in the shade of the earths shadow.
Probably be more likely that we could operate it in orbit around the moon than in geosync... and the Delta V issues wouldn't be a heck of alot different, at least not in consideration of what it took to get the thing in LEO in the first place... getting to LEO is about 90% of the work of getting anywhere in the solar system.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Some rich, eccentric Billionaire should buy the whole friggin' Russian space program and run it as a private industry. The whole Russian space budget is just a small fraction of NASA's budget, so I guess this would be very affordable. Just imagine how much value you'd get for your money
--- Eat my sig.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
First off, no one likes him. No one. Nada. Not a single person. When his name is mentioned our heads start to hurt. So why would he even CONSIDER asking people to pay for him.
Second, if you announce that you want to go, and go through all these tests, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR IT YOURSELF YOU WORTHLESS POS. Why bother? Why waste everyones time and hopes?
The expression "god die" is so much of an understatement it isn't funny.
Ow, my head hurts.
It'd also mean that every space station crew must have at least one member who's undergone all the training necessary to pilot the shuttle back to Florida or California, or if anything goes wrong during the descent, to one of the designated emergency landing runways elsewhere. While the shuttle may have a lot of automation and remote-controllability on board, capable of doing most of the de-orbit and descent.... the actual landing itself is still done by the pilot and this craft needs special piloting skills that are only obtainable by lots of training in the modified T-38 shuttle simulator, and the pilot must stay current and not get rusty on the peculiar handling characteristics of the craft. After being inside a tin can in orbit for 6 months or longer, a pilot would not be current enough to safely land the shuttle.
The reason NASA keeps trying to sell the ISS as a research platform is because they -- and Congress -- lack the imagination and courage to lay out an honest plan to build a capability to travel in space. And, by "travel", I don't mean going around in circles in Earth orbit.
The science hook, in any case, invariably fails because, short of finding giant Clarkeian monoliths floating in space, the research that is done is yawningly invisible to everyone but the participants.
Science will happen in space, just as science happened when the aircraft industry built a global capability in the 30's and 40's. Remember, this, though, PanAm didn't start flying paying passengers across oceans for research purposes.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Call me idealistic or whatever, but the real question is: What SF writer could have imagined that humanity's dream of exploring space would be brought to the edge of extinction by our own greed? Money is a sad invention. Unfortunately, it's a necessary one, as there are too many people who would sit on their arse doing nothing if there weren't any financial incentive. Heck, many people sit on their arse even with money just because they're lazy. Too bad we don't live in a Star Trek universe were people work to better themselves and the human race.
I'd like to explore more of our planets, maybe start a moonbase or two. But I really don't think any manned expedition will be anywhere near self-sufficent. Better robots that can do some real work (not just dial home and tell about it) to that end would be great. For one thing, I really really wish they would put a radio telescope on the far side of the moon. Then we could listen for E.T. and don't have any interferance with anything except maybe a few Voyager probes. Not like SETI which really has a problem with this.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"What about that extra B?"
We are not ready for the Stars.
As long as this move just delays the Space Station rather than destroys it, then it is not
such a bad thing.
I am glad we don't have Star Ships.
The last thing the Universe needs is humanity
at it's present low state polluting it.
Face it folks, its still early days.
The stars are not for this generation.
What's all this "in Soviet Russia" crap?
n/t
that's no boondoogle... it's a space station
my livejournal is interesting and worth reading - I swear. I know everyone thinks their blog is interesting. mine is.
I think that rather than having the station sit empty out there, we should send up harmless monkeys up there to conduct experiments. We could even give them funny names from the movie "Gladiator", like Maximus, Lucius and Cornelius.
You mean you haven't been checking out all them hot Russian brides for sale... I mean to marry and cherish online?!!!? I mean... some nice legs and other parts in there!!!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Thats a typo.
----
Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
Well, let's see what some of the practical requirements are (for example) for a manned mission to Mars:
(1) A solid understanding of the effect of long-duration (3+ years) exposure to space in closed habitation.
(2) Development of self-sustaining ecologies for said closed habitation.
(3) Psychological and health studies to maintain crew safety and performance during said mission.
(4) Development of technologies to allow us to construct large structures on-orbit (since no Mars-bound vessel will be small enough to fit on the end of an Energia booster).
(5) Development of long-term logisitics support for these types of mission.
(6) Development of practical management techniques to effectively manage large, long-duration, multi-national space programs (dont underestimate the importance of managment science... Apollo was as much about figuring out how to MANAGE a moon mission as it was about actually getting to the moon).
Now, how, exactly, could we learn ANY of these things without having a space station?
Granted, the current ISS has been poorly managed, but dont go calling it 'useless' since we need to learn quite a bit before we can move on to interplanetary manned missions.
You know its easy to say the space station is a boondoggle and not worth throwing any more money at, after all its a big target that has very little success to shield it from criticisim. I hear many people not to much against bringing the crew home and letting it stay un manned for a while....
So how much money does that save ? The current cost expenditure of space station is not the station crew. The cost of the crew itself is negligible. The majority of the costs are tied up in LAUNCH costs, a small additional cost (realtively speaking) would be the manned operations centers for station ops and hardware production.
However, if station is to ever continue and or be used intermitently these centers and personel are not going anywhere as they will be needed or they will have to be re-trained if they are let go.
Shuttle cunstruction missions would still be going up so no money saved there on the launches OR the hardware. In addition shuttle missions become more complex and less productive because in addition to any construction needs a great deal of time is going to be soaked up in housekeeping chores. The ultimate ability of the shuttle crew to even perform its construction tasks would be placed in serious jepordy if even some very basic difficulites arise in bringing the station back online after being shut down. So not only are shuttle launch costs not decreased they are quite possibly increased and are deffiantly more at risk of being unable to be completed succesfully thus necessitating another launch. Don;t forget almost all of the construction missions are of a sequntial nature and CANNOT be done out of turn thus a construction mission failure would push back all subsequent shuttle launches. God forbid what if it happend twice ?
So about all you really cut are the progess and soyuz launch costs which are very small in comparison to shuttle launches. So the cost savings overall are small and the risk of completly trashing the station are greatly increased without a crew on board to deal with failiing equipment as it occurs. In particular the savings to NASA are NILL NOTHING NADDA ZIP ZERO... the savings only really effect the Russian space agency and its not really even savings since if you take them at their word this isn't a matter of not spending money they have but one of not spending money they do not have. Thats avoidence of debt not saving money.
This is a classic example to me of penny wise and pound foolish. Folks we are past halfway, past the point of no return where station is concerned. The service life of station is listed at 15 years and the clock started ticking in 2000. Extending the service life is HIGHLY linked to keeping up with any possible issues that arise WHEN they happen and that is mostly an ability only a 24/7/365 crew can provide. If you think station is useless and start talking about going to mars instead I point to you the fact that station has barely been in orbit long enough to have even made it to mars and back and it has certainly not survive on its own ( and could not ) without periodic resupply which YOU WILL NOT HAVE ON A MARS MISSION.
Station is a non sexy reality of living in space.. its like the farmers that came after columbus, they made the trip but they got no glory.. just a hard as hell life making it on a frontier. Station probably can't even function as a stand alone outpost. It is reliant on hundreds of ground controlers for its day to day operations, something that simply will not be practical with a mars mission due to comminication delays of 20-30 minutes or more. If station never presents a scientific discovery worth putting it up there for it will still be worthwhile in the aerospace technology of long term survival in space.
As for the science in particular... people are acting like its a surprise that to date ISS has largely been a bust as a science platform. People core complete is not scheduled untill 2006 which is the earliest a 6 man crew was EVER slated to be on station... and it was always stated that science would largely be secondary until such time as there was a sufficient crew on board and the construction phase was complete. Right now running science up there is like running it in a lab before its done being built where the scientists have to do the damn building. So at least don't judge it as compared to a fisnished and established lab here on earth. Perhaps it will never proove to be as important a place of reasearch as say MIT, or CALTECH or the SERBONNE but so far it is the only place where microgravity experiments can take place for durations exceeding a couple of weeks.
Take a long hard REALISTIC look at station. It has its faults, thats given. But bailing on it now would be far worse than biting the bullet and forging ahead. The costs incurred to date will have to be incurred again if we let it go to waste, perhaps it is a limited and unworthy construction but it beats nothing and thats what we have if we let it deteriorate into a useless hunk of junk.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Personally, I'd rather see the ISS boosted up to geostationary orbit (a herculean task, I realize) and used as a staging area for construction of a space elevator. That way some good might come of that orbiting albatross.
Great idea. I wonder how much more quickly a space elevator could be manufactured with that additional weight in orbit.
Could they modify some/most of the area in the ISS to produce the carbon nanotubes necissary for the cable?
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
...why they built the ISS. It's to experiment how humans live in space. If we're going to go anywhere far away, we need to know how to keep our travelers healthy. The ISS helps us understand the effects of weightlesness on the human body and lets us prepare our travelers better.
Nor does this put hurdles in place that require development of new technology. Sending people to Mars, maybe - but not just jumping on the old Shuttle for a quick bus ride to earth orbit.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Good point, however, the question would then be, is the "longer than 17 days" problem worth keeping the ISS operational as a scientific research station (with all of the appropriate overhead for such an experiment), or is this something which could be done on a specifically-built, standalone unit (or, less realistically, an experiment which could be passed from shuttle mission to shuttle mission)?
I guess this brings up questions like: how 'long-term' is a long-term microgravity experiment? What is the practical aim of the 'long-term'ness (meaning, let's make sure it's within a reasonably short/long amount of time without either being either unsafe or ridiculously academic). Also, what is the general weight (pun!) of microgravity in the list of considerations surrounding space travel?
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
LOL. Further proof that slashdot is run by incompetant buffoons( and to think that there are people out there paying to subscribe to this bullshit).
IMHO, carefully allocated government support of the aerospace industry is a good investment since being a leader in any industry is good for the United States' ability to compete in a global economy. The shuttle, the hypersonic "space plane" (abandoned), other launch systems, and remote planetary exploration are examples of truly challenging projects. "We choose to go to the moon... and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
ISS does not seems to capture the same sense of challenge.
The US seems to be losing its "edge" in the development of space related technologies that it worked so hard to acquire during the 60's. This has allowed Russia, ESA, and now even China, India, and Japan to gain significant ground. Similar things are happening to the US semiconductor, supercomputer, and aircraft industries. That is not good for "our" future economy.
Personally, I am very disappointed by NASA's decision to mostly abandon research on the air-breathing hypersonic "space plane" since it would have led to significant advances in materials, fluid dynamics, computational physics, aerospace engineering, and would ultimately lead to lowered launch costs. (It clearly had a significant utility for military purposes as well.)
ISS keeps many people employed, but a lot of those bright folks could find work on other projects.
What is the feeling about it inside NASA?
Then the terrorists have already won.
And if you think I'm being flippant, consider two things.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Not to suggest that throwing money at poverty will necessarily eliminate it, but I thought I'd point out that you and I are both likely from the world's elite in terms of wealth. To go on about not having the internet, well... if you were spending what short life you and your family had in starvation, I wonder how much money you'd think the space program/internet/microcomputer revolution was really worth. We may never totally eliminate poverty, but considering that vast majority of the world's population lives in that state, let's keep an eye on where we fit into the global scheme of things while we mentally evaluate our dollar's worth.
I hope China's space program takes off, that way hopefully it'll kick NASA in the butt a little and give them some competition. Although that would also give them better ICBM technology which would be bad.
We could throw together a capsule pretty quickly, but it would still cost a bit and take a couple of years. (Just testing the thing would take a while.)
:)
I think that the X-38 CRV is a damned good starting point for the "capsule." We shouldn't have bagged it. I think we should have viewed it as the initial iteration of an eventual general crew-transfer vehicle. (It's not too late for them to do this, either. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that Congress will ask them to take a similar path in the Spring. We'll see.)
Good luck, and keep up the good fight.
A proposed alternative analogy-- you want to cross the ocean. The proposed technology involves making longer and longer piers, with "crew habitation" shacks at the end. A 2 mile long pier exposes the crew to some pretty harsh ocean conditions, and may even teach something about the ocean. It is not, however, a meaningful step on the path to crossing the ocean. Similarly, extended stays in LOE may expose you to some pretty harsh space environments, and you may even be able to do some serious science while you're there. It is not, however, a meaningful step on the path to Mars, the stars, or just about anywhere else.
subject line says it all.... and I think they set it up for about $30 million---with no booster rocket required.
Space technology is our only answer against all extraterrestrial threats, from comet impact to solar flares to asteroids
While the above is a good point, an aggressive space exploration program will take care of protecting the human race from much more than solar flares and the like. In these "Post September 11" days that it seems we all like to talk about, where would you rather be living when a smallpox, or some other pathogenic outbreak occurs, Baltimore Maryland, or the Moon?
I'll take the moon, thank you
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather
because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
As outlined here, they've spent $42 billion and just brought back 42 soybena seed pods. YOu do the math.
1. Chemical rockets are primitive. If were ever going to get serious, we need ion/high energy drive technology. This technology exists and it was used to power the deep space 1 probe. (currently it's the fastest space craft ever flown by NASA) However, it needs to grow up by about 10 generations. Also, with each generation (or two) it needs to be tested in space for a long duration. Now, if were currently at generation #5 and were doing long duration testing, research shouldn't come to a halt until the testing is complete! I think that the ISS should be a test bed for the first space dock so we could build bigger, modular ships that aren't intended for any type of terrestian use.
Currently, chemical rockets are the only way to get off the surface, but once in space, they should be dispenced with immediately.
2. Radiation. Studies have already shown that if we tried to go to mars, half the crew would be dead from radiation by the time they got there. We need a material that's lightweight and will stop radiation. There was an article a couple weeks ago on slashdot about a fabric that had these properties. This is critical research, that needs to have money dumped into it like an old house. Without some way of stopping radiation (or then generating a magnetic field like the earth has) we'll never explore the stars.
3. Better, lighter space suits. Imagine your in space for 6 months, you land on mars and now you've got to put on a 100+ pound space suit. Now granted the gravity's a bit less on mars, but your still going to hurting. Not to mention, these space suits needs to be durable and easily repairable. Now I know that sounds like a tall order, but I think some creative research into new fabrics + better battery/fuel cell technology could bridge the gap.
4. The shuttle is at best a reliable lifter, but it's expensive and requires alot of maintaince. Money and research needs to be done upfront on an improved lifting vechile that's in the same class as the shuttle. It should have the following design critera:
a. reuseable. From touch down, it should with a minimum of effort to be relaunchable in 1-2 months, if not less.
b. afforable. The whole system should cost in the range of a 747. This would allow for a fleet of lifting vechiles.
c. unlimited lifespan. The shuttle was only supposed to be a stepping stone to something better. Hence it wasn't designed for 20 years of maintance. This new "shuttle2" should be designed so that there would be an unlimited maintance window. The design should be modular enough that systems can be replaced without having retrofit the whole thing.
d. long term orbit. The shuttle2 should be capable of being prepped for long term docking with space stations and orbital construction facilites. Part of it's modualr design should be that it would be capable of supplying and or using power/telemetry/vitals with any systems that it is docked with.
5. Fusion power. Now, I think fusion is possible. It's a way's off, but I think that it's capable of being accomplished. Once we have a reliable way of creating fusion, work should be done to make it suitable for use in space. Concievebly, it itially should be designed as a power block that could be used in place of solar power, where huge amounts of power needed.
I'm sure people can think of a lot more, but in terms of space research, these are what I think are important...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
of course he probably didn't pay up because his taxes were so high because of all the space program funding.
1. Just because NASA is making plans for something doesn't mean it is going to do that. Believe me - they make a lot of plans.
2. The Space Shuttle is very inefficient. Basically a rock thrown into space. We need a better rock. That's a given. But who can do the cutting? That's the question.
Me.
(Have I ever told you about the time the Russian's poked a hole in the MIR with a drill? They used chewing gum to seal it (along with a clipboard) until special silicon sealant could be sent up on board the US Space Shuttle. The Russian's flew one of their jets (forget which one) over to Florida. One of the few times they've ever done that.)
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Sorry for the duplication. I need a little more time with the /. search engine.
The Russian space program is doddering on the edge of financial collapse after several recent setbacks, including the failure of Lance Bass to pay up.
:-)
That's it, I can't stand it any longer. Stop the piracy of music, the race for the stars must continue!
I can't believe that he didn't have to pay upfront. Or was it an "If I don't reach the ISS(*), I don't have to pay?" (*) for whatever reason
bash$
If it wasn't for money, we'd still be in a barter economy. No one has come up with a better system of measuring what things are worth for comparison purposes - create a common scale, and value everything against it - voila! Money. Of course, once people can compare the values of their goods, and communications allow almost instant transmission of these values, then we can start making complex objects, knowing that the parts involved will require us to have an equivalent amount of goods in the form of "wealth" ... money. Don't cheapen money (ignore the pun) just because some people came up with ways of tricking it out of people who created (earned) it. There will always be shysters, thieves, and taxmen.
All real money is backed by work done by someone (natural resources are worthless unless mined, goods have value added through manufacturing). So people work to add value to themselves and their society. This work is measured indirectly in money terms, since it's the commonly accepted scale for value. If the star trek universe has no money, why do people have holodeck "privileges". They've earned something, and it has value to both them, and others. And why do they keep refering to gold pressed latinum all the time. If there is no money, the federation must be a totalitarian state.
Put the space station in one of the LaGrange points where it will stay for a long time, without requiring millions to keep it from burning up. Spend the money on cheapening the cost of launches with newer technology shuttle replacements, that have a bit more range. Lets aim for what we really want - giant space stations where colonies can live, and moon cities! Factories on the moon, and in space producing space goods. By the time they are ready, we'll probably have built the space elavator.
Yes, this and many other amusing Mir incidents are available in "Dragonfly", by Bryan Burrough.
One of the big redesign expenses (besides idiot micro-management from congress) was resolving stability issues in the station's structure. It's very large size and near-earth orbit tended to result in the structure "bucking". The practical prototyping of space structures--such as inflatables, tension systems, and structural components manufactured "on site", could greatly reduce the cost of future missions and provide a much higher confidence level during the design phase of projects.
If we really want to move into space then these are the sorts of activities we need to persue. Once your structures get much larger than the Space Station the current methods of design and construction are inadequate, too costly, and too risky--arguably that is already true.
I believe former Vice President J. Danforth Quayle wanted to name it the American Space Station.
The KGB was OK at aquiring funds from all kinds of sources. With a little sodium pentathol I'm sure they could get Lance Bass to cough up some dough. No really. Exploring space is important. Spinning around the globe burning money is not furthering space exploration yet. Maybe they have learned how not to manage resources. Probes. Probes are good. Make more probes, find life. That is the ultimate goal here, to explore space like James Kirk and find out if we are spinning around the universe completely alone, or if there are hundreds of alien civilizations that just happen to speak English. Reusable ascent and re-entry vehicles, safe and clean energy sources, warp drives, etc... these are the things we should working on.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Half of the things that need to be figured out for manned interplanetary missions need to be figured out in the weightlessness of space. The biosphere gives some great implications as to what might be needed for self-sufficiency and psychology of isolation, but most of what's gained can not be directly transferred to life in space because of the extremely different environment of weightlessness and compactness necessary.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Man, and how hard is it for them just to sign a cheque for $100m and give it to russia, they can do 10x more results than nasa can.
I think its a scam just to 'get the russians out' just in case iraq turns into WW3 and relations sour.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The only thing out there is a bunch of ROCKS!
There! I said it! Give me your worst you lonely geologists!
Why not research something which is actually interesting, like the oceans? We don't know SQUAT about them!
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Is anyone else disgusted by NASA's complete lack of any sort of enthusiasm or conviction towards any goals at all?
When I was a kid, I would read the sci-fi novels that spurned my interest in the space program, watch the movies and shows that showed great battleships and starfleets and such, and I wanted to go up. Badly. I loved space.
When I found out about NASA, came to realize what they had done in the past (moon) and what they were planning for the future, I was excited as hell. I was enthused, I wanted to be a part of it.
Now, after time and time again of NASA screwing up missions, calling off projects, backing out of research opportunities, doing a half a million things all at once, none of them with any decent research behind it, I find myself slipping more and more back into the book world of the sci-fi, because I can't get my fix from realistic space exploration anymore.
Isn't that sad? That the dreams of a young boy once matched by a space administration of a country that used to care are now only allowed to run free in the confines of someone else's creation. Instead of seeing potential all I see is a huge cloud of red tape, policies, and unmotivated people who have forgotten to dream.
Quit, NASA. You've lost the edge, if you ever had it at all. Humankind didn't advance because we sat back and made policy that it should. We dared to dream the impossible. Give the idea of space back to those of us who give a crap and take your hateful dream-killers with you.
Blog,Twitter
The chineese could say, goodie a free station and just walk inside, and say, "hey, deserted ship, land of the ocean says its free"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The greatest question of all time is: "Are we alone?"
...and yes I know the dark side of the moon isn't always dark, but we'd want to cut down on earthshine too probably... ...and imagine a beo [smack
That's really the other ultimate goal of space exploration, isn't it? (The first goal is to find us a new place to live after the earth is used up).
But there is such a simple way to answer the question: Take all the cash we are using on rediculous stuff like the ISS and:
BUILD A GIANT TELESCOPE IN SPACE OR ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
And I mean BIG.
One so Hugeomegagigantic that it can actually SEE the surface of extra solar earth sized planets in detail to pick out cities, roads, and lights.
And then, if we saw with our own eyes that there was another civilization -- imagine the space program we'd start to have then.
From memory J.A. Wheeler made some calculations some time ago that show that it is possible for species to continue to live forever in a universe that also cools and expands forever. The key is to hibernate at regular interval (that keep getting longer) and accumulate energy while doing so.
Recently though some people seem to have observed the universe's expansion to accelerate. If this is indeed the case and not an illusion, it might put a spanner in Wheeler's work, depending on the rate of acceleration.
Anyway, we're talking about billions of billions of years from now. The Sun will be history before this is an issue and the original poster is right. If humanity's descendants want to live forever at some point they'll have to move out.
We don't have to solve that problem right away, though.
They will buy it in the next few years as part of their plan to colonize the moon.
"The only way to catch tiger cubs is to go into the tiger's den."
The earth has finite resources and all six billion of us are beginning to put a strain on those resources, the only way out is up. It is DNA's desire to go forth and multiply, we have evolved the ability to let DNA fill the universe with its lovelyness warts an all.
Merry Christmas everybody.
Peter.
Ps. BTW, things cost work, not money
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
You're assuming that if the ISS was canned, all of the money would be redirected to other NASA projects. That's not necessarily the case. Tax cuts and new weapons systems (when the US's military superiority over the rest of the world is already so overwhelming to be almost ridiculous) seem to be the Republican priorities. Not to say anything would be better under the Democrats - they'd throw the money at subsidising drugs for old people.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Joe Blow: "Why, look at that there NASA! It do take up all those vauuuuable dollurs that could be used ta fight terrorists and blow up them there Irakis! Yessir, I don't want none of my money payin' for them eggheads!"
I kind of think Kennedy's legacy of spending money on science and work that will benefit mankind in the long run is dead. Instead, we've got traditional Bush warhawking. Yahoo!
May we never see th
NASA Considers Abandoning ISS
Posted by michael on Thursday November 28, @12:13AM
from the okay-who-took-my-parachute dept. mbstone writes "MSNBC is reporting that NASA is threatening to mothball the International Space Station unless Russia coughs up its share of the money for maintenance and support missions. NASA is now making "contingency plans" to leave the station unoccupied for as long as a year. What I want to know is, why a contingency plan? Didn't NASA already have a plan in place? Are U.S. taxpayers going to pay millions extra to develop new mothballing equipment and procedures that could have been designed-in at far less cost?? Also, I would be glad to house-sit, I use very little oxygen."
Is the submitter trying to say that the $20 million Lance Bass would have paid, would have saved the Russian Space Programm? I'm not keen on the totals to run the program or what it costs to send Progress ships to the ISS, but it seems to me that $20 million wouldn't be enough. Maybe a stop gap for 2 months but not enough. And if the Russians want to go that route, why aren't more people lining up to go? Certainly not all billionaires are happy with terrestial fun and games?
IN SOVIET RUSSIA world superpower screws over you.
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
In the 1950s and 1960s, NASA took big risks. Their missions were run at the risk of total and complete failure AND loss of life. No such ballsy ambition exists in today's bean-counter administrations. Now everyone lives in total overwhelming fear of everything- their food, the gun in their closet, pollution, global warming, impotence, male-pattern baldness and premature ejaculation. America has lost its balls. No longer a country of constructive malcontents, it's a country of emasculated whiners. They sue instead of kicking the shit out of the bad guy. They complain to their therapists that they were picked on in middle school. John Wayne would kick our collective asses if he could see what we've become. So would I if I wasn't such a pencilnecked pantywaisted crybaby.
Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan -- which has been sort of adopted by NASA -- lets you do most of these things without first having a space station. The basic idea is to send a robot propellant factory/return vehicle to Mars ahead of the astronauts.
A solid understanding of the effect of long-duration (3+ years) exposure to space in closed habitation.
Zubrin argues that the psychological effects of close proximity for the length of the trip can be easily studied on Antarctica, or at sea. The plan calls for tethering the Earth-to-Mars spacecraft to a spent booster and spinning it for (faux) gravity, which should take care of zero-g health problems. The only outstanding issues then are radiation (for which he suggests basic shielding plus a shelter for solar flares) and medical emergencies (for which he suggests cross-training and luck).
Development of self-sustaining ecologies for said closed habitation.
Since the crew travel in a different craft each way, the Mars Direct plan simply replaces the mass fuel for a round trip with the equivalent mass of life support. He does the math in a 'The Case for Mars'.
Psychological and health studies to maintain crew safety and performance during said mission.
Can be done on the ground -- see above.
Development of technologies to allow us to construct large structures on-orbit (since no Mars-bound vessel will be small enough to fit on the end of an Energia booster).
Mars Direct is designed for Saturn Vs, but Zubrin has a variation using Energia in his book.
Your points five and six (about logistics and management) I'm not too sure about. Mars Direct is a lot closer to a Apollo mission than an ISS mission, but it's still novel territory that will require/spawn new techniques.
In his book Zubrin talks about objections to Mars missions because of the perception that a moon base (or in this case an ISS) is a pre-requisite. He fears that the space program will use up its tenuous goodwill with congress (and hence its funding) by screwing around in orbit when we could be getting started on Mars right now...
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
There is no space station. Mir was a giant hoax perpetuated by the Russians to win the space-station race, and the ISS is just an elaborate scheme to foster goodwill between the Ruskies and the Yanks at the end of the Cold War.
The conspiracy must be true, I have seen it on a number of websites, and I hear NASA will soon be issuing a booklet in response.
Don't worry about the money, about the loss of technology or the ability to explore space. I am concerned about the number of people who believe in the ISS.
Nearly as concerning as the number of people who believe what I am writing!.
And consider the other countries getting caught in the crossfire: the Canadians contributed a cool robot arm, the ESA is putting up a whole module . The really sucky part is other countries that took part in good faith are gonna lose their research time because the station won't be operating at peak performance.
-AD
Anything you wanna send to space has to be lifted into orbit; the 'gravity well'. That means anything that has mass, like $100/tonne structural steel, needs to be lifted at an outrageous cost ($1000's per kg).
How to mitigate? Well, one way might be to build space structures without structures by planting them on top of something. What kind of something? How about an asteroid; send a robot solar sail to the Asteroid belt to fetch a small one (250m is good enough) then jockey it into orbit from above. Then you can just lift stuff like solar panels and radio transmitters from Earth and spread them out over the rock. Less structural bits == more electronic bits with flashing lights.
-AD
Start to do meditation and yoga. Travel to the star in yourself. Discover who you really are and what you can do!
Worldly objects are only a seed of sorrow. When you don't have it, you desire it. And when you have it, you're afraid of losing it.
if nasa needs someone to be a care taker, i submit myself. what do custodial staff make an hour at nasa?
of course there's always USING the space statioin for what it was designed for...
Or..
In Soviet Russia, Space Programme cancels ISS!
ok, so it's lame and tired gag already. Nobody else posted this exact one, so I had to.
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
Well, the reason it sits so high with respect to the ecliptic once again traces back to the Russians, who need to be able to launch Soyuz and Proton missions from Baikonur way up in the frosty northlands. That's the party line, probably delivered because the questioner was 12 years old.
However, it's also trivial to look up earlier shuttle missions like STS-9 and see that NASA launched at high inclination orbits. Spacelab-1, 57 degree inclination. Oddly enough, you can see all of the planet from 57N to 57S latitude this way.
Not very good for science at all.
For running the space station's operations, there should be robots of some kind. They don't need to be capable of any intelligence - 'astronauts' on the ground could control them. 250 miles is pretty close for light.
You still need some humans occasionally to study zero-G physiology, but why do you need humans to move lab gear around every morning?
Yes, there would be some engineering to do, but this is the good kind of stuff to trickle down to society.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Idealism does not push change. Its nessesity that pushes change. (screw spelling, btw)