Slashdot Mirror
US to Pay to go to ISS
forgotten_my_nick writes "According to BBC News, Russia has announced that it will no longer ferry US astronauts to space for free (It has been doing so for two years). From 2006 the US will be expected to pay."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Did they already repay us for the huge amount of money we spent to pay for their parts of the station? IIRC, they claimed a few times they couldn't finish their pieces because of lack of funding, so we footed the bill...
I had a sucky sig.
They aren't trying to profit they are trying to break even. If Russia had the budget NASA has I would be willing to bet they could create a reusable shuttle. How the hell does Bush think we can get to Mars when we need to borrow Russia's space fleet to get to ISS? What a joke.
According to the article at first the US will pay in work already done on the ISS that the Russians didn't do.
In the beginning, the ISS was supposed to be a great international effort to promote science in orbit, among other things.
We all know the 'great' and 'international' part got scrapped (well, not entirely, but still)... what about the science? With a crew of 2 members and troubles with reapprovisionment, is there any (real) science getting done on the ISS? Or is it only kept up because we already invested too much in it?
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
As a US citizen, I'm curious if this is fallout from our wonderful public relations. Half the known world is pissed off at us, and it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't much more than Russia saying "You want to bum a ride? How much ya got for gas money? The price of rocket fuel isn't going down, ya know."
Hint to the current and future US Presidents: you may be the elected leader of a technological powerhouse, but you can't go it alone.
(it'll also pay for them to keep an eye out on Japan's technology, that the EU is becoming a collected economic force to bruise egos, and China's locomative-esque economy with about a third of the world's population, too, but who knows if they pay any attention)
Now they want to charge for something that should be bridging for international good will.
It appears to be a case of charge for it, or do not do it at all. The Russian Space Agency is facing financial difficulties and needs all the extra funds it can get.
Chris
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
Personally, I am not surprised by this revelation. I doubt that they would have done this if the shuttle fleet wasn't grounded. Right now, they see themselves as the only current way to get our astronauts into space, so they're going to take advantage of that. Besides, $20 million to the Russian space agency is a fraction of the cost of somehow getting a new shuttle out (if that's even possible anymore). I'm somewhat surprised that this wasnt thought of earlier.
They pretty much have us by the jubbles and they know it. You vant an astronaut in space, comrade? Ve're your only real solution right now. Ve're going to take advantage of that. Can't say that I blame them. Ah, the capitalist spirit hits the Russian space program!
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Russia, the west isn't your enemy.
The conspiracy theorists have always thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a sham to get the west (Regan, Thatcher, JPII, et. al) off their backs and cut their economic losses. The recent business with Yukos makes it seem more likely. After all, a KGB man is running the country.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They lessened democracy right after the terrorist attack of their school.
The US lessened democracy right after 9/11 - VISITUS + PATRIOT Act anyone?
They regarded the Ukraine as problematic, and instead went to have military operations with China.
The US regarded Iraq as problematic and went into military operations with total disregard to international conventions and treatires.
Russia, the west isn't your enemy.
USA - The world is NOT your enemy!
I'm sure most the money will go to finance their space program, which is keeping the ISS alive while the shuttles are stranded. Given this fact, it seems only fair that NASA shares part of their budget... just my 2 cents...
Just claim it as their own. What's the US going to do? Kick 'em out?
It'd make an awesome weapon platform. They could event rent it out to the Chinese to use as a stop-over on their way to the moon. Maybe even a step toward a Russian-Chinese joint-venture on an eventual moonbase.
The US no longer has any power in space, and Russia, true to its nature, is taking advantage of this.
Not surprising.
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
You were paying to keep missile specialists and other assorted weapons designers from going to work for dubious nations. That actually pretty much describes the entire purpose of Russian involvement: the US wanted to keep rocket scientists from going to Iran after the fall of the USSR, so it paid them to make space junk.
Do the astronauts get frequent flyer miles for this trip?
Money cannot buy happiness, but can buy something soo darn close, that you can't really tell the difference
on the pickup trucks with the gun racks:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass, Nobody Rides for Free!"
Ok Troll, I'll bite
#1 the computer you're using now -- space exploration pushed the microelectoronics revolution
#2 that fancy koolatron cooler that you bought last summer to keep your beer cold, again thank space exploration
#3 teflon, plastics, most modern alloys, etc.
ok, I'm done feeding the trolls, next!
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
Here are some examples from the list
Air Quality Monitor
Virtual Reality
Municiple Water prurification (So your tap water doesn't kill you.)
Solar Energy
Fire resistant material
Digital Imagry Breast Biopsy
Voice controlled wheel chair
And here are a bunch from the above link that were easy to cut and paste:
Advanced keyboards, Customer Service Software, Database Management System, Laser Surveying, Aircraft controls, Lightweight Compact Disc, Expert System Software, Microcomputers, and Design Graphics. Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment. Whale identification method, environmental analysis, noise abatement, pollution measuring devices, pollution control devices, smokestack monitor, radioactive leak detector, earthquake prediction system, sewage treatment, energy saving air conditioning, and air purification. Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools. Gasoline vapor recovery, self-locking fasteners, machine tool software, laser wire stripper, lubricant coating process, wireless communications, engine coatings, and engine design. Storm warning services (Doppler radar), firefighters' radios, lead poison detection, fire detector, flame detector, corrosion protection coating, protective clothing, and robotic hands. So yeah, I'd say mankind has gained something from going to space. And to think all of this would have been developed in the timeframe without NASA and its goals is laughable.
Addendum information class, 44535i
Topic: Manouver to effectivly gain ridership from an unknown source.
Step 1: Extend arm.
Step 2: Make fist, then extend thumb to full open position.
Step 3: Bend elbow to move hand from starting position to the side of the head. Count to two, return hand to starting position, count to two, and repeat.
Step 4: Optional step for female austronauts - pull up right leg covering to expose skin.
With any luck, you will attract the attention of passing space craft who will give you a ride to your destination of choice, preferably the International Space Station.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
US space scientists are better paid in private industry these days.
Actually they DID create a reusable shuttle - the Buran. It only flew to orbit once, but did so perfectly, did a few earth orbits and landed perfectly without losing a single tile - all unmanned.
Then the ran out of money, so they scrapped the program!
"how excally does 'mankind' benifit from by going into space?"
Well, according to TV, most of the stuff I bought was a direct result of space travel.
"Derp de derp."
No, no shuttles please. Paying the Russians would still no doubt be cheaper than shuttle missions.
For starters, the Russian boosters don't have to drag multi-ton wings into space. Wings that are useless in space.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
I don't understand how especialy the american can be reacting so egoistic and selfcetered about the INTRENATIONAL spacestation.
Like they own the world, Actulay they own nothing they have big debts which only grow.
I wonder how long it will take before the rest of the world start realizing this sceme.
I am hoping i will see that day.
And americans become again sane people.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
The U.S. space program today is a shadow of its past. It's primarily a holdover from a pissing match between the budding USA and the USSR.
The USSR has ceased to be a "superpower", and the USA has established clear, military dominance. What's the point of NASA today?
What's really interesting is the kickoff of the private/commercial space age begun with SpaceShipOne. The Ansari X-Prize wasn't the goal - it was the starting line.
Within the next 1-2 decades, we'll see the old-style national space agencies dwarfed as pure economics brings scale to the space industry.
Space today is basically a high-dollar, cottage industry. Everything is hand/custom made at high expense, and in painfully small volumes.
It'll start with the obvious - people paying $25,000/seat to fly into space for an hour. Technology will be refined, prices will drop, and by the time I'm an old guy (I'm 32 now) I expect to be able to spend a week in space at a price I could actually afford.
But that's not so big, as the reality that new uses for the reduced-cost space travel will be discovered - uses we have no way of predicting.
Just like Edison could never have predicted micro-electronics, the future holds possibilities we can only begin to imagine!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Perhaps we should rename the space station then. How does everyone like the acronym for American Space Station? Hmmm... Maybe not such a good idea.
1 seat on the Russian taxi sells commercially for $25 M US dollars, however that included several weeks of training, as the story goes.
I believe that the Soyuz is a 3-seater. Assuming all passengers are capable astronauts, It isn't unreasonable to still expect the astronauts can travel for the same price as a civilian tourist.
At that price, let's round up and say the seven-person Space Shuttle ride equivalent is $200 M US dollars. I believe that the cargo volume in the Soyuz is much smaller, so tack on $50-100 M US dollars for an additional supply-only launch.
It sure seems to me like no matter how you jiggle the numbers, there really isn't much fiscal sense to fire up the Space Shuttle, for routine, non-assembly missions. A billion-dollar Shuttle launch means 1/3rd to 1/4th the investment value.
The bottom line is that Russians need money to sustain their skill levels in space technology by retaining the old and training the new engineers and scientists. Or else these talents may end up in the darker side of the think-tank market.
I am in favor of paying them off for the lift. Heck, I'm surprised that we hadn't been so far.
...companies around the world are choosing to charge for services that they have determined would otherwise be a significant burden to continue to give for free.
Things are often offered with the understanding that they will only be lightly used. Once they become more heavily used, a different arrangement must be worked out. There is no clear division between the two, so the decision of transition is somewhat arbitrary.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If every decision involving other countries is interpreted as having a hidden meaning, how can countries ever get along?
While Mr. Yanukovich accused his pro-Western opponent of being an American stooge, he himself is quite blatantly a Russian stooge.
As for the impending bankruptcy of the US, you obviously don't understand how the trade deficit, the budget deficit, and the exchange rate work. Things won't be pretty, though it'll take longer than ten years for the situation to come to a head, but the US won't declare bankruptcy like Russia did in '98. Read this for a current analysis.
Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
As a society that favors athletes and entertainers over people that contribute to society in real ways (other than mental masterbation) we deserve to have to pay a formerly communist country to condescend to take us to space. We have a country full of universties where teaching is for foriegners by foreigners, where we've dumbed down the curiculum so that anyone can go and keep going for as long as possible to enrich the university rather than the student. We encourage immoral, unproductive behavior and arograntly promote this attitude to the rest of the world. We worship money above all. We now sow what we've reaped.
Shame on us all........
While I know I should never respond to anonymous trolls, the United States of America _cannot and will not_ be going bankrupt within the next decade. Indeed, this is the most idiotic idea I've seen on Slashdot within the past week or so. That's saying quite a lot.
You know how you go bankrupt when you're in lots of debt? That's because you can't find the money to pay it off. You know what the difference between you and a state is? Taxes.
If the US is finding itself having difficulty paying off its debts, it can raise taxes. Seeing as the US government can raises taxes as high as it wants, the chances of going bankrupt are just nil. US treasury bonds are the benchmark for risk-free returns on investment. That's saying a lot, and as far as I know, it hasn't changed in the past year.
If the US government ever goes bankrupt, I'd recommend you go find your old Y2K shelter, because the global economy would collapse instantly. It's obvious that you have no idea whatsoever how much the rest of the world relies on US Treasuries to hedge risk. This is not to mention the _catastrophic_ consquences on the US economy.
Even Congress is not so stupid. I guess Anonymous Cowards are.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
...for the shuttle. We hear today that the shuttle's fuel tanks are now safer, but that it may cost a bit more.
Now the pressure will start for resuming shuttle flights. At the same time the Russians say they'll charge money to ferry the astronauts.
Hmmm. I wonder when that phone call took place?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Just look at those sources you are suggesting...
Hit #1: 25 April 2002
Hit #2: January 25, 2000
Hit #3: September 27, 2002
Hit #4: November 24, 2003
I'm not even going to go further... Last time I checked, it was Deceber 2004...
As a matter of fact, the Europeans are expecting the US to hold up its end of the bargain. They spent millions of dollars on the ESA lab module for the ISS, and due to the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, it is on the ground gathering cobwebs. What is really angering the ESA is NASA toying with the idea of breaking their contract by permanently grounding the Shuttle fleet and never lofting the lab.
Without the Russian's heavy lift capacity for re-supply, the ISS would have to be abandoned, which entails a large risk that the station would undergo a catastrophic failure. NASA would actually like to pay the Russians and have the funds to do so. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle in the form of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000.
"Tell me, how does kevlar help starving children?"
I wonder how many people involved with law enforcement are frowning at that example.
Helping people live longer: Benefit to mankind.
Advancing medicine and the technology that is used to advance medicine: Benefit to mankind.
Making it possible to leave this planet in search of more resources: Benefit to mankind.
Turning off your imagination to discredit the space programs: No benefit to mankind.
"Derp de derp."
Here is a picture of which countries were supposed to supply what though many pieces on this picture will probably never make it in to space. Most of the important Russians parts did.
... gasp ... risking anyone's left on space exploration. He clearly should have been booted years ago. Fact is space exploration is dangerous, do your best to make it less so but don't give up just because you can't make it 100% safe. Astronauts aren't astronauts if they can't accept the risk they might get killed.
I assure you the Russians built the heart of the station that is there now, the Zarya Control Module and the Zvezda crew quarters. Zarya is called a U.S. component only because the U.S. paid for it through Boeing but it was built in Russia.
The U.S. was supposed to build the Crew Return Vehicle which would have allowed it to be fully manned but that was long ago cancelled. When it was the U.S. killed any prospect of the seven man crew which pretty much killed the ISS as ever being useful. The current crew can barely maintain it and don't do much research, not like its any good for any zero G research anyway.
The U.S. is building a lot of solar panels many of which are probably never going to fly and aren't the most challenging part of the station.
Russia had a full functional space station for like a decade called Mir. Most of their expertise is at the heart of the current ISS core. Not sure NASA could have successfully flown anything without them. If you recall during the years Russia was in Mir, NASA and Boeing was churning out one failed ISS design after another, none of which flew and all of which just filled Boeing's pork filled belly.
I imagine Russia is regretting they deorbited Mir as a condition of joining ISS. It was past its prime and on its last legs but at least it was all theirs. ISS is all shiny and new and flush with squandered U.S. tax dollars but its probably going to end being pathetic and doing anything useful. Russia was getting a whole lot more done with a whole lot less with Mir. I think the modules now forming the core of ISS would have gone in to Mir2 if they could have scraped together the cash for it. I imagine they have been a lot happier and got more done if they weren't bogged down in the political morasse that is ISS.
Maybe the shuttle will fly again and the ISS will get kind of on track again but I really doubt it. Its probably never going to get much beyond where it is today, and Russia will most probably have to keep it alive while NASA's manned space program finishes cratering. Maybe thing will improve at NASA with O'Keefe gone but I doubt it. Its pretty obvious his head was completely bent by the Columbia disaster and he was totally paralyzed at the prospect of
@de_machina
The entire Apollo program cost approximately as much as Queen Isabella spent to send Christopher Columbus to the new world.
In percentages, it's about 0.12% of our GDP at its peak.
Although I can't find substantiation online, I know that Robert Heinlein asserted that the DoD spends NASA's YEARLY budget every single day of the year.
All that money. *snort*
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
One shuttle flight - $300M
One Russian flight - $20M
If the shuttle fleet weren't grounded, each US flight would cost as much as, what, 60 Russian launches. Forgive me if I got the numbers wrong; they should be in the ballpark, at least. It's way more cost effective for NASA to pay the Russians for the lift. Russian space tech is crappier than NASA's, but it's also way cheaper than it's crappier:-). Of course, it would be even cheaper to pay these guys, or even these guys, but they are not quite up to the task yet.
these guys
The US Government cannot pay money to Russia for launch services due to an Act of Congress. This was passed to prevent any monies going to Russia (or the Soviet Union) after they supplied weapons to Iran.
This announcement by the RSA is nothing more than a rehash of an old argument - and one that will not be solved any time soon as it would require an Act of Congress.
The only way it can be resolved realistically is through a barter arrangement (which is what RSA is suggesting in some reports). Hence, not a lot of immediate use to the "cash-strapped Russian space program".
The comments so far seem to be a flamefest on Russia. Personally, I think that Russia is justified on asking for money to pay to send US astronauts into space. So what that the US is building most of the ISS personally? The Russians could care less, the US' money isn't going torwards them, but to the building. All the Russians see is that they're lugging an extra American and equipment into space at their expense. It should be common courtesy to pay back a bit for their services. You'd be pissed if that guy in the carpool who lives half an hour out of town didn't even say "Thanks" for picking him up every morning. The US should realize that they can't rely on other countries to be their taxis forever while they stall on the next generation of US spaceflight.
Money to send to Iraq? Iraq was the biggest waste of man-hours and money this country has ever done. If invading Iraq was such a good thing, why are our soldiers still being killed even after their "Dictator" was taken out or power??? Far fewer people have been killed (worldwide) in space travel than soldiers (on both sides) in this stupid Iraqi war.
Exactly. We _built_ almost the whole thing. Russia is allowed to say, well if you want _our_ resources, you need to pay for them. While we (USA) have to foot the bill for the majority of the project.
I say we tell the Russians to go screw off and not let them use the 90%+ of the space station that we funded. See, we can be just as childish. Thats, right. Any nation that wants to get "technical" about what they have given to the ISS, we can just remind them of _our_ contributions of the majority of the ISS. Just as they want to charge or take away from their "contributions", we should charge or take away from our contributions.
I think you're taking this the wrong way. You have to consider that the Russian space program is damn near broke. They aren't doing this out of spite, they seriously need to find some new sources of funding to keep their program afloat.
Likewise, we do need their services. It's in our interests to ensure they don't go bankrupt. Especially when you consider that Russians can get a Soyez to the ISS for a fraction of the cost we can get a shuttle there. Even being charged for the service, we're still getting a bargain.
Under the circumstances, I can't say I blame the Russians. What would you do if you were in their situation?
Astronauts aren't astronauts if they can't accept the risk they might get killed.
I'm scared of transporters also... but that won't stop me. Coz Ive got faith of the heart. Im going where my heart will take me. Ive got faith to believe. I can do anything. Yes siree.
To my knowledge, Russia now has another space port, Plesetsk, and is actively developing it. Perhaps this is to minimise dependency on Kazakhstan and "their" Baikonur.
This is one of the reasons I think that we should really look at recycling up there. Power and heat, can be had at a relativly cheap level. Waste can be recycled, if as nothing more than additional shielding.
Why spend money taking wings up there? Why waste weight to make something "reusable"? Either make it so that it's useful up there, leave it up there for the solar smelter, or if it's necessary for the trip down for the astronaughts. Albative shielding is relativly cheap and easy to replace. It's also cheaper than the shuttle. Why have heavy wings and reusable engines? If the engines are worth recovering, could we get by putting a parachute system to recover the engines (using a light booster for the last stage) and not even haul them the whole way?
I know, alot of questions, but I think that they need to be examined.
I don't read AC A human right
Hell, if they're that broke, let's buy some of theirs.
How did we end up with such an expensive system, and how did Communists build such a cheap one? Wasn't their society supposed to be extremely wasteful, and ours the efficient one? What the hell happened?
I something think James P. Hogan was right in 'Leapfrog'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How did we end up with such an expensive system, and how did Communists build such a cheap one?
They couldn't afford an expensive system. They tried, too, but had to stop for lack of funds. Then they had no choice but to keep updating their old Soyuz system. In the meanwhile we abandoned ours, because we had the shuttle.
The whole story shows that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, even if you have a lot of eggs, which is a well known fact outside of the context of space programs:-).
Besides, the shuttle is a much bigger ship than Soyuz, and it can do a lot more than just take people in and out of orbit, so they are not really comparable. Just try to imagine a Soyuz-based mission to fix the Hubble.
Russian space tech is so crappy that even Boeing and Lockheed uses russian engines, specifically the Energomash RD120 (marketed by Pratt&Whitney - http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rd12 0_sum.shtml ), used in the Boeing SeaLaunch, and the Energomash RD180 (http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rd1 80_sum.shtml) used in the Lockheed Atlas III and Atlas V vehicle (on which the US AirForce is going to launch its latest spy satellite (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0412/22atlas5 nro/ ). Also worth checking: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs /atlasv.htmn ergomash. htmld e/lvfa m/energia.htm
and some spefications and history
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/09/01/npo-e
http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwa
i'm sure that if you google you'll find tables of comparision between western engines and russian engines, the specific impulse values of the russian engines are brutal, and as someone said in a earlier post, for what? 300 million USd for a shuttle launch, and 20 million USd for a soviet vehicle launch?
Altough western and russian design philosophies are quite different, the tight budget of the russians only forces them to be innovative (and sometimes to take unnecessary risks).
I still don't know where people got this idea of crappy russian space tech, they have closed cycle engines since their (canceled) lunar program, and the Mir lasted twice as much as it was designed to.
One shuttle flight - $300M
One Russian flight - $20M
If the shuttle fleet weren't grounded, each US flight would cost as much as, what, 60 Russian launches.
PLEASE tell me you don't work at NASA. 300 / 20 = 15... or maybe you're using metric?
"Something slime,"
some sort of bioship, I take it.
"easy to manuever,"
that is small and complex
"and doesn't blow up in space."
and magic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Right. Social welfare programmes like the ones we've spent trillions on in the US -- and yet, we've got tons of poor folks at home and abroad.
Right. Agricultural development. Because crop yields would be so much higher without infrared imaging to spot diseased areas (or brush fires) in nearby areas, GPS to send him (or firefighters) out there to fix it, weather satellites to tell him whether or not it's going to rain this week, or other monitoring stations so that he can prepare a year or two in advance for an El Nino or La Nina event.
The reason you have a higher standard of living than Louis XIV could have dreamed of is because people decided to invest in technology rather than bandaid fixes to immediate problems.
At the turn of the century, people were worried that New York City was growing at a rate that would result in the streets being literally knee-deep in horseshit by the 50s.
There was even one chap who printed out handbills at a printing shop called Ink-blot Dot Org, saying "If they'd have taken all that money that people spent on Henry Ford's silly contraption, and put it into hiring the poor as street sweepers, New Yorkers would have been better off!"
Sigh.
As usual we get the slew of high moderated posts about how the americans built everything, and how the russians are now gouging them.
Some people blame the americans, others the russians. All didn't read the article.
Fact: The russians are currently ferrying everything to the station.
Fact: NASA is grounded.
Fact: The russians are very low on funds, and can't afford to keep doing this.
They've stated that they'll wait to see if NASA meets its May deadline to get their shuttles going again.
They've stated that they want to negotiate something to ease the burden (such as bartering for the man hours they currently owe for other work).
America's response hasn't been made clear yet.
Is this gouging? No. They haven't even entered negotiations yet.
Should they gouge? Some of you "capitalist or die" affictionados may think so, but that kind of thinking is what drives the CEOs who only look to the next quarter's earnings, and what they can get out of it before the thing collapses.
This doesn't work in world politics, as can be seen from the fallout of Iraq.
This story?
Fictional stories are cool, but I prefer mine with wizards and dragons, or atleast a guy collecting 2 of an impossibly large amount of species all on a small arc.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Nothing in the ISS project is done for free. Russia was taking US astronauts to the station seemengly "for free" as a payment for certain debt it owed to the US side of the project (the full details are openly available on the Net). This debt is about to get repaid in full accordance with pervious mutual agreements between Russian and US sides of the project. There's nothing new in this announcement. That's how it was planned to be from the very beggining. And now american "journalists" are trying to represent it as if Russia suddenly made a cunning surprise decision about charging US for giving its astronauts a ride to ISS. Talk about primitive demagogy. The truth is that Russia didn't make any concrete decisions and/or announcements about future terms of collabortion with US that will take effect once US uses up all its "free rides". It's just that someone high in the chain of command on the US side needed a new cooked sensation (most likely - to divert public attention from something elese, as usual) and paid someone else some very good money to push it into mainstream mass media in the US. Your tax dollars at work, so to say. Typical Slashdot's morons, as always, swallowed the bait very quickly.
> NASA has knows it needs to be changes.
> NASA tries to change it.
> Talk to congress.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
How the hell you would rename it? You got no vehicle to get there and paint new name on the board?
Next time we fly Soyuz there, we would get some red paint with us and paint big letters MIR-2 there
Just because something is labeled "space age" doesn't make it actually related to space research. (But then, space research has given us the Space Age Ant Habitat for our desktops, of course.)
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
- BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation.
- The article states clearly that the 2005 'freebies' were paying off the man-hour debt for the work on the station.
- The original interview, which states clearly: "Starting from 2006, we shall bring American astronauts to the ISS on a commercial basis" comes from Itar Tas - also not a US organisation.
Quit your pathetic whining about the evils of US journalism and learn to read the article before complaining about what you'd like to think it might say.++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Just try to imagine a Soyuz-based mission to fix the Hubble.
I don't see any problems here at all. What specifically makes you say it can't be done? The Soyuz can be brought to the same orbital plane as Hubble. The Soyuz can maneuver in space - and if you think it doesn't have enough fuel, just send a Progress ship to dock with Soyuz. The Soyuz has airlock. The Soyuz can fly with two people onboard, and extra cargo, needed for repairs, can be taken along.
Best of all, all of that was already successfully tried. Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5 have docked in space in 1969. Progress was used to boost the orbit of another ship, ISS in this case. The Soyuz' airlock is the orbital module. Soyuz have flown with two people on board. Soyuz was actually used to repair a station in space, when all the control was lost.
If you'd like to nitpick modules, the current ISS is:
Name (Built-Funded)
Zarya (R-U)
Unity (U-U)
Zvezda (R-R)
Z1 Truss (U-U)
PMA1 (U-U)
PMA2 (U-U)
PMA3 (U-U)
Destiny (U-U)
Pirs (Russian Docking Compartment) (R-R)
S0 Truss (U-U) (includes Mobile Transporter)
S1 Truss (U-U)
Canadarm2 (C-C)
Mobile Base System (C-C)
P1 Truss (U-U)
P6 Truss (U-U)
Quest (U-U)
Node 1 (U-U)
My count gives me: 3 Russian-built, one of which was American funded, and 12 American built, all of which were American funded. And unlike the Euro-built Nodes, which are being built in exchange for NASA launching Columbus, FGB was bought by the Americans because the Russians couldn't.
By the way, Wikipedia isn't authoritative on this; I'd trust NASA's assembly drawings, which are publicly available at spaceflight.nasa.gov, quite a bit more.
Pirs is a docking module. The trusses, in addition to providing support structure, include photovoltaics to provide power and radiators to provide thermal control. Russian experience is certainly why they get away with relatively small amounts of contribution, but the truth is - they lied about what they could do, financially, and as a result have received significant loans and leeway. Between paying for Zarya and having to purchase a backup for Zvezda because the Russians couldn't/wouldn't, significant financial resources have been expended by the Americans to cover the Russians' asses.
Russia has the utilization rights to 100% of the Russian portion of the station, and no rights to the rest of the station (the NASA/NASDA/ESA/CSA section). Right now, that amounts to roughly zero, since there is zero experimental capability on the Russian side. Any resources they have are in exchange for the Russian crewmembers time.
I'm pretty correct on this; the funding is mainly American, and the distribution of resources reflects that. If and when Russia ever gets around to launching RRM and SPP, I'll be wrong, but it doesn't look like that's ever going to happen. Russia has as much up there are they're likely to ever have, while there's quite a bit of American, European, and Canadian segments still to be launched.
It isn't the American station; it is, however, a station funded mainly by the US.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
>> In the beginning, the ISS was supposed to be a great international effort to promote science in orbit, among other things.
;-)
> Actually, in the beginning it was supposed to be an American space station.
Perhaps they didn't want to do it themselves after they figured out the acronymn for 'American Space Station'?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
All I know, is that this seems like an act of terrorism. This is an obvious attempt by "the enemy" to slow the adoption of democracy the world over. Alright, Bush time to deploy troops to MIR.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
the artificial satellites.
This technology enables: storm tracking and weather prediction, remote sensing and satellite photography for land use management and environmental monitoring, GPS for naviation and surveying, and global telecommunications.
There is little doubt in my mind that the economic values of these applications easily justify the entire effort mankind has put into space exploration.
There is also to my mind a difference in perspective in being able to see the Earth for what it is: a big blue ball, not a patchwork of countries painted different colors. The future impact of this is hard quantify however.
In any case other technologies relationship to space exploration is somewhat more tenuous. It is possible they would have been developed anyways as part of a different effort. However, the relationship between space exploration and satellite technology is completely unambiguous.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
NASA is re-naming the science module the American Space Station High Observation Laboratory Environment after its management team.
1. It's a drop in the ocean. As people have said all over this discussion, its $20million per launch versus $1 billion for the shuttle. It'd make more sense to scrap the shuttle completely, give up on it, and codevelop/comanufacture Soyuez with the Russians.
2. It's realistic. The Russian space program is extremely strapped for cash, yet we are RELYING on it to keep the ISS in space. Yes, the U.S. has probably paid more in this venture. At the same time, the U.S. has a great deal more funding avaliable. Not even the U.S. government at large, but NASA it self. NASA's budget is many, many times the size of the Russia space program.
Instead of thinking of Russia as some kind of nebulous partner, think about it this way: For launches, we are 'contracting' out to the Russian space program.
Doesn't sound so bad in that context, eh? Who would you rather pay? American contractors, to work on the shuttle, literally spending BILLIONS of dollars, 70% of which is pork? Or the Russian space program, which incidentially helps (slightly) our relationship with Russia, and who can do the job better, faster, and cheaper.
Screw the shuttle. They do it better, and we should learn from them. We American's need to pull our head's out of our collective anuses.
The Russians attempted to build a space shuttle in the 70s, and failed because of the cost (not techincal reasons). We should learn from that. It's just TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE.
3. There's no way around it. Russia doesn't have the money any more. That's a combination of our fault and their fault, by the way. Yes, communism was failing, because it was rotten. Their new economic system, shock-therapy capitalism, has so far been a disaster, as well. We planned it for them, eh? We set Russia up for this economic nightmare. They are, however, a competent people, with immense natural resources, so they will recover. At some point. But right now, there simply is no money in the Russian Space Agencies coffers.
For all you idiotic nae-sayers: THEY AREN'T TRYING TO GOUGE US! WHAT THEY ASK FOR IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT BOEING WOULD ASK FOR! WE NEED THEM TO KEEP LAUNCHING SOYUEZ UNITS! THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT FINANCIAL HELP!
Btw: I believe the number of Soyuez missions has stepped up because us, the U.S., can't get to space!
In comparison to our domestic contractors, or the ESA (European), or the JSA (Japanese), the Russians do a fine, cheap job.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
One thing that always got me... if the powers that be had the same mentality now back a few hundred or thousand years ago, where would we be? America would not have been discovered (not to get into the "pros and cons of that / who discovered it first" type conversation) if we waited until it was safe until like the 1900s.
In fact, it seems pretty obvious to me that if you want to be on the frontier, you had better be willing to accept risks or to get out of the way for those that are. I have a lot more faith in corporations that are willing to think outside the box or countries with less lawyers then the US making it happen...
If anyone can ever make manned space travel more then a place for doing expensive research, I think you'd see a potential shift in the world powers
Actually you could easily argue that capitalism is inherently inefficient and wasteful.
Capitalism only functions when people buy products and consume them. The more people buy, the healthier the economy is, therefore most products are made to not last very long. (Don't believe me? Think of what would happen to the automobile industry if every family had a vehicle that lasted forever?).
Since products are essentially made to be disposable, this is by definition wasteful.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.