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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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......
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)
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
In related news, the Russians are considering 'demanning' Lance Bass
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Could be worse,
Imagine if M$ bought Mir.
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?
Now, we're bringing home everyone from orbit.
Give it another few years, and we'll be crawling back into the oceans.
" ... 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?
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.
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...
Right. Some would also argue that manned missions to the Moon were a total boondoggle. After all, what did we get for it? A bunch of rocks. All that money should have been invested in the War on Poverty instead. Think what a nice society we'd have today. No microcomputers or internet, but at least there'd be a bunch of public housing projects and a whole lot of social workers to keep their inhabitants docile.
I think the U.S. has dropped the ball on space exploration. Without such a national mission, we are reduced to such worthwhile causes as "providing affordable housing", prescription drug insurance and other European style goals that do nothing but drain the treasury.
The U.S. will sink back into the '70s morass if it drops the space ball. It's primarily through great national projects that the great technological achievements occur. I say, pour money into the ISS and damn the naysayers. Send a manned mission to Mars within 10 years. Build a permanent station on the Moon. The tech exists; all it needs now is political will.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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
"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.
"...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.
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?
Very little science is being done because it is currently a 3 man crew. Up until just recently NASA has had the 6 man crew pretty much in limbo because of cost over runs. Before a larger crew can be used Node 3 and the US HAB module need to be launched and attached. After that the Japaneese Experiment Module (JEM) will be launched and attached. It's not until JEM is opeations that any resemblence of real science can occur
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!
Space station considers "demanning" NASA
"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.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
NASA is cheap. Today NASA costs a fraction of what it did in terms of GDP vs the 60's-early 70's. Even then NASA wasn't so expensive. In fact it terms of percentage of wealth the trip to the moon was a bit cheaper then Christopher Columbus's trip to the new world. Exploration of new boundries has always costs about the same percentage of a nations wealth since the time of the Romans. If we can not foot the bill for even NASA of it's current size what does that say about us as a nation-state? Commercial interests are not always the best ones to partake in dangerous endevors with unforseen profits. Indeed capatalism is by nature risk averse, capatalists put in the bare minimum to get the maximum return. Billionare playboys are not the way to fund a program as their fortunes come and go as does their proclivities. Besides even Bill Gates couldn't have funded the ISS, he doesn't have enough of his wealth in liqued funds to pay for it and it would have been too high a percentage of his wealth if he did. NASA is the way to go but the need to change their current very expensive manned program to be more inline with what they did with the probes, cheaper faster better.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
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?