Slashdot Mirror
Space Station Crew Lands Safely In Kazakhstan
loid_void writes "It's being reported on CNN that a space capsule carrying a U.S.-Russian-Italian crew has landed safely in northern Kazakhstan, following a mission aboard the international space station.
Search-and-rescue helicopters spotted the capsule as it floated toward its designated arrival site and made a soft landing, upright. It had undocked with the orbiting station less than 3 hours earlier.
Mission Control said the crew reported feeling fine.
Remaining behind on the space station are Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and American astronaut John Phillips."
...is that this was an actual news event.
.\ is kind of unnerving to me.
Seriously. Before Columbia, the 'successful' missions were always tucked away in some 'World Update' column on page 10 inside the paper, or never got a second glance by most readers. The fact that this is both on CNN and
How long will it take before we can clear the aura of fear surrounding space missions?
That's why privatizing space missions is clearly the answer. Our government has dropped the ball and it's time for some enterprising corporation(s) to pick it up and run with it. I look forward to seeing what more open-minded people can come up with (if they can get past all the red tape).
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
It's definetly not the answer. The answer involves everyone, not just the private industry.
More open-minded people are good, but theres always a balance that needs to be taken when making decisions that cost billions and billions of dollars.
I fail to see the link between astronauts landing in Kazakhstan and a gun battle in Falluja. Would it be funny if there was a tornado in Regina while SpaceShipOne landed in Nevada?
It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't just grab a P4 chip and throw it on a satellite or the shuttle. There are 2 immediate problems.
... aprox 30 MIPS at 20 MHz. You are not going to run Doom or Quake on this stuff.
First: technology readiness level (TRL). In order for a P4 chip to be put into space, it would need to go through about 1000x more testing than Intel currently puts it through. The last thing you want is the guidance chip on a satellite to produce a single error during a trajectory manuever and have the thing come crashing down to Earth or fly out on some highly elliptical orbit. TRL rates from 0 (concept/prototype) to 10 (repeatedly flight-proven hardware). A P4 chip would be somewhere around 2 - production capable, but no flight testing or flight experience. The space shuttle uses stuff in the 6 or 7 and above range.
Second: operating environment (included in the above TRL, but of particular concern due to the nasty conditions of space). Intense radiation from the Sun and space, inability to easily radiate heat away, etc. RAD-hard components are needed for anything going into space.
For current space-ready equipment, we're talking on the order of 6 MFLOPS
Is that NASA is not afforded the opportunity or direction to involve the hearts and minds of the average American in their missions. They are forced to rely on outside help for that (e.b. KSC Visitors Complex) The truly appealing quality of the early missons were that it was NOT safe and was far from routine. That's what brings out the crowds.. thats why Nascar is the fastest growing sport in the U.S. Yet, the primary focus of the NASA mission is Safety!
Safety is no different than security, there is a point where it is a limiting factor. It has to be balanced reasonably to achieve the primary objectives, otherwise it's value is lost.
Return to flight will draw a good portion of Americans back into the program. For that mission everyone will waive their flags and cheer upon success. Shortly thereafter shuttle launches will again be routine and Americans will not involve themselves as much as would please me. But then what government program can't you say that about?
Just because private shipbuilders can do fine cranking out cargo barges, cruiseliners, and yachts doesn't mean there's no use for battleships, icebreakers, and submarines.
While a strong private presence in space will certainly increase the level of traffic, the fact remains that when it comes down to building the largest ships, those designed for the longest hauls, and those with arcane research purposes, only "national interest" and "national security" can drum up the funding even on the Earth's oceans.
That said, what's an "arcane research purpose" can change drastically with time... Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty, that's today a routine cruise or cargo shipment. As human presence beyond the Earth increases, clear, safe profits will open up, and businesses will go for them.
It's just that any man landing on the moon today will be there to plant a flag. His sucessor will be there to build a home. And then, after that, comes room for the enterpreneur offering the comforts of Earth shipped up and cheap vacation fares back.
At least they don't have too many of their space crews going KABOOM on takeoff or landing ;-)
When I would have to choose between takeoff/landing in an american or in a russian vehicle, I'd gladly trade some of the comfort for a better chance of returning in one piece.
Gotta love their safety record when it comes to manned space travel...
The problem with this is a lot of important programs will be underfunded.
Perfectly healthy people could end up not caring about disability, and that leaves disabled people without enough money for their healthcare. Rich people wont care about Social Security (they fund a significant amount of it currently) because they'll never need it, so your mom won't have that money to fall back upon when she retires if a few years.
Little, yet important programs that you never think about get no money because no one will think they're worthy (music in schools, homeless iniatives, public libraries, could be anything).
Not to mention the extra work of having to read a thousand+ page book every tax period that explains all the programs you'll be voting on, I'm sure after you've done all your taxes and deductions, (adding line C to line E, subtract section 12) you wont be wanting to have to read about and pick from thousands of programs so you can choose which deserves your money.
It's simply not the answer.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Or put it another way
"Gotta love hot those Russians have worked out that the cheapest thing to do is build a big parachute and some retro rockets, not invest billions in something they just don't need"
The Russians have done engineering, while NASA has done politics.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty
That's an interesting example. The difference between Columbus' voyage an NASA's work is that the Spanish royal family was interested in making money. In fact, I can't think of one of the early exploration voyages to the Americas that was motivated primarily by research or national security. Magellen, Cortez, Hudson, Drake, they were all motivated to find a way to India, or to take riches from the new world. Some of that exploration may have been funded by the governments, but much of it was private, and nearly all of it was motivated by money.
Find coupons in Greeley