Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist

christchurch writes "Russia unmanned cargo ship Progress M-54, carrying food and supplies, docked at the International Space Station safely yesterday. A two-man replacement crew is scheduled to head to the station on 1st of October, along with an American scientist-businessman, Gregory Olsen, who is paying the Russian space agency $20 million for a weeklong visit."

Comments

So...

[Cruithne]

The food and supplies arrive just in time for the current crew to leave in a few weeks...

If I were them, I'd eat all the space ice-cream before I had to leave :D

Re:So...

[scolby]

If I were them, I'd eat all the space ice-cream before I had to leave :D

But it would be so much funnier if they stole all the space toilet paper instead.

Re:So...

[Rolo Tomasi]

I don't know. Especially with the weakened muscles these astronauts have after prolonged exposure to microgravity, space diarrhea could get quite messy.

Re:So...

[unother]

Oh God, that is so not cool to paint a picture for us visualizers...

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine ... you're being awakened by a loud burbling noise. Suddenly you hear someone scream "Oh God, Boris, I can't hold it anymore!", followed by what sounds like an extremely loud and wet fart. You open your eyes and see a cloud of shit droplets floating towards you at high speed ...

Re:So...

[martyn s]

Yes you are very special. You are among a very elite few who is able to visualize that scene. Congratulations are you unmatched intelligence.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could kick their space-weakened asses and send them all back in the shuttle. Then you would have your own spaceship to, uh, orbit in!

Re:So...

[Shakrai]

Imagine ... you're being awakened by a loud burbling noise. Suddenly you hear someone scream "Oh God, Boris, I can't hold it anymore!", followed by what sounds like an extremely loud and wet fart. You open your eyes and see a cloud of shit droplets floating towards you at high speed ...

I know you were probably aiming for humor, but something like this actually happened on Apollo 8. Frank Borman became ill (later believed to be space sickness) and had a bout of vomiting and diarrhea. The spacecraft filled with small pieces of floating vomit and feces that were impossible to completely clean up.

Space flight isn't all glorious.

Re:So...

[unother]

Erm, okay... I don't believe I was trying to say I was "special", but feel free to resent random strangers for what they may not be saying.

Re:So...

[martyn s]

Then what did you mean by "us visualizers"??

2 Mil!?

[Anonymous Coward]

For 2 million dollars I could buy a 100 floating Russian nuclear powerplants!

Re:2 Mil!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er 20 Mil, at least I got the math right.

Re:2 Mil!?

[Cruithne]

no, you could buy 10 at the typo'd price of $200,000 - it apparently was in reality $120 mil. Also, the ticket to space is $20 mil, not $2 :)

So, every number in your post is wrong, including the 2, Funny.

Re:2 Mil!?

[Anonymous Coward]

*whoosh*

Went a bit over your head, didn't it?

Re:2 Mil!?

[kutuz_off]

In Soviet Russia, a floating nuclear powerplant buys you!

20 million for a week?

[PierceLabs]

I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later. Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?

Re:20 million for a week?

[Cruithne]

I'm fairly certain the answer is yes - I believe one of the reasons for implementing the program was to offset some of the cost of missions.

Re:20 million for a week?

[tabacco]

Well, once he's up there they spring the "Oh, you want a RETURN trip? That's going to be $50 million." trick on him :)

Re:20 million for a week?

[e1618978]

I'm sure that he planned this well in advance of Katrina.

If you extend your argument to its logical conclusion, everything good will dissapear from the world in order to partially offset the misery of the poor. If nobody buys aston martin cars, the craftsmen that build them will be out of a job, and a rich history and skill set will be lost to the world. 50 years from now, collectors will not have anything but Hyundais to look at, and life will be shit. (Note, that if you don't like aston martins, just subsititute something you like - the last time I made this argument some horse's ass went off on how much aston marton sucks).

For example, I just ordered some very nice cheese for $40 a lb, should I have sent that money to Katrina instead? If I nobody buys the cheese, some very happy farmers and grass fed cows will all be out of a job.

Re:20 million for a week?

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, you're posting this from a computer in a public library, because you sold yours on eBay last week and donated the proceeds.

Right?

News flash, asshat: just by being an American with a PC, you're probably in the 99th percentile of global wealth. Where do you get off directing all that sanctimony to people with a few more 9s to the right of the decimal point?

Re:20 million for a week?

[Tango42]

I'd rather stay... $50 mil for a week, $20 mil for ever...

Re:20 million for a week?

[DerekLyons]

I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later.

Nobody outside of Russia knows, and it's often suspected that the Russians don't know either. (There's actually about 5 agencies/companies/enterprises involved, all tangled in a gordian knot.)

Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?

That's highly unlikely considering the prices they have offered for the Soyuz (booster, not capsule) in the past - which range from 30 to 50 million US Dollars.

Re:20 million for a week?

[6th time lucky]

Well, a decent profit-returning tourism business or not, it is still $20 million dollars they didnt have before...

The demand is there for $20 million dollars. It probably isnt for the actual costs... And they are launching at capacity (1 or 2 a year scheduled, 1 every other year actual...)

Re:20 million for a week?

[RollingThunder]

But at the same time, it's not like he's the only reason the Soyuz is going up. He's just tagging along for the ride, resulting in slightly less cargo capacity and increased resource consumption for a week.

When you look at it that way, it's almost all profit - or at least, loss reduction.

Now, if you started launching only for taking tourists up, that's a different proposition.

UNMANNED?

[s388]

the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

and one just docked successfully with the ISS?

do i live under a rock?

i think i'm impressed.

i suppose umannedness eliminates all logistical problems of life support on a craft bound for the ISS, but still i'm impressed.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Cruithne]

Not to slight Russia, but with all of their economic troubles, its troubling that their space program is comparable to ours in many ways... and in some cases, like this one, actually ahead.

I wish the American public had some national pride and a desire to explore :(

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

and one just docked successfully with the ISS?

do i live under a rock?

Yes you do :)

The first Progress (which is a modified Soyuz) was launched in 1978. While it was operational, Progress was used for bringing supplies to Mir, as it does now to the ISS.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Trurl's Machine]

the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft? and one just docked successfully with the ISS? do i live under a rock?

Either you do - or you are trying to be sarcastic. Progress, Soviet space freighter is in use since late 1970's. Basically it's just a stripped-down version of the manned Soyuz. Both Soyuz and Progress fly to the ISS few times a year (you can check the timetable here). Unlike the US-made space shuttles, Soyuz and Progress are not reusable. Soviet shuttle project was not exactly succesful, but as it sometimes happens with stop-gap solutions, Soyuz and Progress proved to be a quite reliable workhorse for their orbital stations. And it looks like it's the best solution right now for the whole planet Earth.

Re:UNMANNED?

[FuturePastNow]

The Russians have been doing this for years (recall that about eight years ago, a Progress unsuccessfully docked with the Mir space station).

Without the Progress, the ISS would have been abandoned and lost long ago.

Re:UNMANNED?

[damiangerous]

the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

Since the first Progress in 1978.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Propagandhi]

Pfft, what are you talking about? Every day millions of Americans demonstrate their desire to explore by searching their couch cushions for the remote!

Re:UNMANNED?

[Waffle Iron]

They've had unmanned Progress supply ships for decades. They're derived from the Soyuz manned vehicles.

It's really not that much of a stretch since the Soviet philosophy was always focused on control of the mission from the ground and automatic systems on the spacecraft, not from the cosmonauts. Just leave out the passengers and pack in more cargo, and you get an unmanned craft.

Re:UNMANNED?

[bogaboga]

Like I contributed some time ago, "never trust the Russians." These guys are technologically gifted. They achieve so much with very little, and with no fanfare at all. If it were we the Americans, all major networks would be carrying this story as if we have no troubles of our own.

There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS. I will never forget the day I came up-close to an Antonov-124. I have never seen a bigger aircraft.

Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected. This was proven when one of our fighters was downed in the Balkan's war. The air-force attributed the downing to a technical fault. Of course this was not correct.

There is also this piece: When time came to retire the MIR, we put a spin on where its fragments would fall - mostly negative. But not only did MIR's fragments land in the correct spot, they landed with an accuracy we as Americans can only dream of for an un-manned craft. There is so much these guys can do. I wish we could emulate some of their achievements.

Re:UNMANNED?

[lionheart1327]

I know, me too.

That's one thing that the Russians have over the Americans. True national pride.

(Although its not actually "national" pride, since 99% of the people there hate and have always hated the goverment. It's more like pride in Mother Russia no matter what stupid goverment happens to be running it at the time.)

Over there, space exploration is a matter of pride and so nobody even thinks to suggest stopping it no matter how much money is being spent on it.

Plus, there's more of a sense of adventure and risk-taking. An accident? A few cosmonauts died? It's tragic, but they knew the risks. Lets celebrate their glorious memory, and send some more people up there.

Plus, people there are more careful not to allow accidence since being at fault for something comparable to the disaster we had in the US is liable to get you quietly imprisoned for life or even executed.

Except for the executing part, I wish our space program was more like theirs.

Re:UNMANNED?

[tftp]

Actually, the "economic troubles" occurred about 10 years ago, and are long forgotten (in Russia, but apparently not on /.) The end of troubles, however, does not mean that the government has some infinite cash to burn.

With regard to the "national pride and a desire to explore", I doubt very much that russian people, on average, have any more of that than american people, also on average. But the important distinction here is that the leaders of Russia want to explore, while the leaders of USA are far more interested in something else. The opinion of general public, in any country, rarely matters, especially on such a complex subject.

Re:UNMANNED?

[istartedi]

I don't know why you think this is so special. It would be silly for any decent space program not to have an unmanned vehicle that could dock with the sta... oh... nevermind.

Re:UNMANNED?

[s388]

part of the real feat is the full auto-pilot that's talented enough now to dock with the ISS without any manual over-ride at all. (apparently, unlike earlier i recall.)

i wasn't exclaiming just about the fact that it's a craft with no people inside.

the guy down below makes the hilarious/informative point: any decent program would have a [...]. the thrust of that joke is related to my surprise at RTFA. i'm used to the ameri-spaceprogram.

Re:UNMANNED?

[TheRaven64]

Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected.

I never really understood the point of the stealth fighter. There are four major ways of detecting an aircraft; optical, sonic, IR and RADAR. The stealth fighter is invisible on one of these, and has a huge profile on two of them. Coincidentally, the one it is invisible to is the one it costs the most to build sensors for.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect. The F-117 also incorporates technology (I believe it's called the Platypus tail) to diffuse its IR signature. Sound is countered by flying at subsonic speeds. And as for visual, the black paint scheme works well at night, though not so well during the day. That's why they use careful mission planning.

And as for the parent, talking about the 117 shot down during the Balkan war, that's likely because the weapon hatch was open for a while, and there is no RAM (radar absorbing material) in there from my knowledge, so the radar was able to get a good return signal. Anyway, drunk at work so I'm gonna go now. :P

Re:UNMANNED?

[Mesaeus]

IIRC the stealth fighter that was downed in Serbia was hit by random AA fire (according to my news sources at the time anyway). The Serbians just started shooting wildly in the air during raids and it got them lucky once in the entire campaign, no more, no less.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic problems yes but things are moving forward
and oil price of 60$ does not hurt.
(60$ a barrel, 10 M barrels a day, you can do the math)

Re:UNMANNED?

[tftp]

I can think of least one very simple way to find a stealth aircraft with a radar-guided warhead. It was described in many sci-fi (or fantasy) books. Program the rocket to climb high, point its antenna down and then see where the reflections from the ground disappear. Since the rocket and the target both move, the ground reflections average out quickly, giving you a smooth "white" background and a moving "black" spot. Even though the ground reflections are not uniform (forest / lake / city) these irregularities move with rocket's own vector, and can be easily cancelled out.

But there are many other ways. You know, for example, that there is a radio relay technology that sends microwave signals over the horizon by scattering them off of just atmospheric irregularities? It's only a matter of power.

To do better than that you need to make the airplane transparent to whatever frequency you are using.

Re:UNMANNED?

[khellendros1984]

In fact, it's ludicrous not to be able to expect both manned and un-manned space veh....I think I'll shut up now....

Re:UNMANNED?

[PPGMD]

Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected. This was proven when one of our fighters was downed in the Balkan's war. The air-force attributed the downing to a technical fault. Of course this was not correct.

*sigh* This is what the second time that I have corrected this myth on Slashdot. The F-117 and B-2 are not invincible, they are designed for low observability. They use multiple attack route, surprise, the vastly lower detectability to achieve their mission.

With that being said what allowed the F-117 to be shot down was simple human stupidity. On normal missions the F-117 fly at over 10,000 ft AGL because that is the limit of ground based IR guided missiles, and AAA. It also doesn't normally fly below the clouds because it would stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that it never flies the same route twice.

During the war in Bosnia they violated all three of those rules, thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets (GPS guided JDAMs were not in use then, they were using the laser guided Paveway III's which are not useable through most cloud layers). That forced them below 10,000 ft into the range of AAA. They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down, guided by the Mark I eyeball.

The technology isn't at fault, when you fly outside it's envelope of protection. It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.

Re:UNMANNED?

[ciroknight]

What the FUCK are you talking about?

The US air force KNEW that their stealth fighter fleet needed to be invisible, so they engineered it with ALL the aspects of stealth in mind.

The F-117 is RADAR invisible, virtually indetecable in the night sky, flies too slow to make a audible detection (no sonic boom), and produces a very low heat signature by using a dove-tail section on the rear with protective tiles that absorb heat and disappate it just like the space shuttle tiles.

The F/A-22 was engineered to be RADAR stealthy, but it's engines still produce a considerable amount of heat, and isn't coated with the same kind of RAM; but the F/A-22 was designed to be a true air-to-air combat fighter. The F-117, though called a fighter, is truely a light, stragetic bomber.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP, his analysis is pretty much spot on.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this some sort of a joke? Do you have any idea about range of AA cannons and altitude on which planes are flying?

Most probably, F-117 was tracked with an old long-wavelength (1.5-2m) radar, on which it is visible. Additionally, its radar signature increased when it was launching its weapons so it could be detected by shorter wavelength radars. It was shot by an SA-6 Kub system.

Either way, at least three F-117s were shot during the war.

Re:UNMANNED?

[dieseldo]

I don't remember,was it before or after the US FAKE
  Moon Shot?

Re:UNMANNED?

[ciroknight]

The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.

Only this time, one hit the air craft. The F-117 isn't invincible; it's just very hard to see with any kind of technology. As much of the plane was still intact when found, it's very likely that the aircraft was only clipped in one of the wings by a SAM or artillary fire. The pilot had time to make it out alive (ejected).

Re:UNMANNED?

[Liam Slider]

That's one thing that the Russians have over the Americans. True national pride. (Although its not actually "national" pride, since 99% of the people there hate and have always hated the goverment. It's more like pride in Mother Russia no matter what stupid goverment happens to be running it at the time.)

I don't know how different that is than American pride. A lot of people love America, the ideal, the cultures, the general way we do things in the American civilization....but don't really like the government running things, regardless of which party is in charge.

Re:UNMANNED?

[adavidw]

There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS.

There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS, what?

Re:UNMANNED?

[JourneyExpertApe]

There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS.

You left off part of that sentence. It should read, "... then we wouldn't have rich assholes up there performing pretend experiments and advertising their companies on government property that cost billions to build."

Re:UNMANNED?

[tftp]

it's very likely that the aircraft was only clipped in one of the wings by a SAM or artillary fire.

SAM warheads don't hit the target "head on". Instead they explode near the target, and then the schrapnel downs the airplane. This approach was used as early as World War II. The F-117 could be mostly intact, with the only exception of one little hole where it mattered.

Re:UNMANNED?

[flyingsquid]

They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down.

That's the same reason them Russkies managed to down the U-2. They flew the same route twice, and the second time around, the Russians were ready for them with their big SAMs.

Re:UNMANNED?

[demachina]

"There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS, what?"

If the Russian had not participated in the ISS it probably would have never flown, and if it had flown it would have been abandoned when the Columbia broke up.

The Russians Soyuz and Progress flights are the only thing thats kept it manned and supplied for the last 2 1/2 going on 3+ years, while the Shuttle has been grounded since the U.S. has no backup. Russia has been doing this at their own expense since the Congress prohibited NASA from paying Russia for its services over Russia's support for Iran's nuclear program. NASA has been freeloading off Russia for the duration of the Shuttle grounding. I thought the Russian's had said enough is enough and was going to refuse to fly any more missions with NASA astronauts or supplies though it appears they are throwing NASA a bone with continued missions now that the Shuttle is indefinitely grounded again.

The Russians built the two key modules in the ISS, Zarya and Zvezda, using designs that were basically planned to be Mir-2. For a litany of reasons the U.S. squandered billions of dollars and more than a decade, creating nothing but artists conceptions. Its open to debate if NASA could have built a long duration space station that would have worked since the only experience they had was the relatively short duration Skylab missions 30 years ago. The Russians by comparison had decades of practical experience and proved working designs from Mir and Salyuts.

Re:UNMANNED?

[alan_dershowitz]

It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.

It's logo is a penguin, so I just assumed...

Re:UNMANNED?

[lionheart1327]

That's true, but probably not to the same extent.

The concept of America here is tied into the government because it is the only one that has existed here.

In Russia though, only 15 years ago there was a different government. Hell, the old grandparents can even remember living in Czarist times.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a small correction - this wasn't during the Bosnian war, The Invisible was taken down during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (now Serbia & Montenegro) for the war in Kosovo & Metohija.

Re:UNMANNED?

[tftp]

There is no need to talk to grandparents because too many classical russian books are set in Czarist times, 18th or 19th century. For example, the "War and Peace" is set around 1812. Those books are a required reading for students.

Re:UNMANNED?

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

They have been doing fully automated dockings for a long time. Even the manned flights default to automatic docking. However, it isn't flawless. The previous Progress had to be docked by remote control, due to some failure of the automated system. Automatic docking isn't conceptually a hard problem (simple newtonian physics), but a lot of hardware does have to work right.

The collision with Mir mentioned by another poster was the result of a failed manual docking, FWIW.

Re:UNMANNED?

[casemon]

Quote: Not to slight Russia, but with all of their economic troubles

you mean "troubles" like this,& this?

now, i'm the last person to support the IMF, to say nothing of Russia's choice to pay "them" off rather than focus such monies into social needs, but paying off early a 7 billion USD debt seems like there's some to go around. i agree it is tragic Russia doesn't use the money to take care of its inherit social problems, but perhaps they're modeling themselves after some other big country's spending habits

Quote: its troubling that their space program is comparable to ours in many ways...

yes, god forbid another country do something better than Americans. oh wait... most of the world does many things better than Americans. Unless you count Greed, we are better than everyone at that.

I hate to see more of this tired "we" are good and "they" are not rhetoric. As an American, I have to ask when will the propoganda inflated "red threat" die like racism is supposed to have in our "great" country? Hmm, it sounds like someone else has been sleeping under a rock? =)

Re:UNMANNED?

[Cruithne]

Our economy is almost an order of magnitude larger than theirs according to the CIA world factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ rs.html

I said nothing about anyone being better than anyone, its just the math that bothers me. Countries with GDP differences of that size should have have comparable space programs. But thanks for turning this into another anti-america post on slashdot - and thanks for proving my point about pride in our country.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

then we wouldn't have rich assholes up there

or anybody else for that matter.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Liam Slider]

The concept of America here is tied into the government because it is the only one that has existed here.

Not true, not true at all. You must be ignorant of history.

During the Revolution, when the ideas of "American" and "United States of America" were first taking shape, we were governed by the old Colonial governments...and the Continental Congress. A rather weak provisional government.

After the Revolution, we established the Articles of Confederation. This government also called itself the United States of America. It had a Congress, and a President (one very few remember). Unfortunately due to the bad design of the government and it's constitution, the government couldn't hold itself together...

At this point we decided to get rid of that government entirely, scrapped the Articles of Confederation, and started new, with the Constitution of the United States. This United States, far different in government than the previous versions of the United States. We tend to count Presidents only from this one...starting with Washington, because this is when the United States as we know it came into existance.

Since we came up with the concept of "American" we have had 3 different governments, all of which were named United States of America. Not one, 3. But in every case we were Americans. We may (unlikely, but we might) very well, eventually, toss out our existing governmental form and create another...we will still be Americans.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

then we wouldn't have rich assholes up there performing pretend experiments

Jealous?

Re:UNMANNED?

[Bad to the Ben]

What the fuck are YOU talking about?

The F-117 is NOT invisibile to radar. Notice how the USAF calls it a "stealth" bomber and not an "invisible" bomber? If an F-117 or a B-2 gets close enough to a radar, eventually a solid return WILL come back and it will be detected. Sure, the stealth technology drastically decreases the range at which this will happen, but it is still possible.

Furthermore, the wake turbulence of the F-117 can still be detected, by a radar such as the Jindalee OTH Radar. So the Russian's point of being able to detect anything moving through the air is still valid.

Re:UNMANNED?

[DerekLyons]

Plus, there's more of a sense of adventure and risk-taking. An accident? A few cosmonauts died? It's tragic, but they knew the risks. Lets celebrate their glorious memory, and send some more people up there.

A nice soundbite - but the reality is both fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) resulted in lengthy stand downs before they tried again. I.E. pretty the same thing as the US does.

Equally, when three of three Zond lunar flights failed to some degree - they didn't send Cosmonauts on the fourth, the program was cancelled instead.

Plus, people there are more careful not to allow accidence since being at fault for something comparable to the disaster we had in the US is liable to get you quietly imprisoned for life or even executed.

Four N-1 failures, two Soyuz fatal accidents, three Zond failures - not one single person known to have been imprisoned or executed.

One suspects you've read too many Clancy novels.

Re:UNMANNED?

[lionheart1327]

Okay, true. I know that, you know that. We even know that George Washington wasn't really the first president.

Does anybody else here know that. I would bet that 99.99% don't.

Compare that to Russia where 99.99% do know about the previous governments.

That's my point.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

>thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets

So if a certain weapon fails in some weather conditions, it's the weathers fault?

Oh yeah, forgot that this was an American weapon we where talking about. Most other nations armed forces would blaim the constructors of the weapon.

Re:UNMANNED?

[6th time lucky]

From what I've read, the Russians did almost everthing automated and robotic. Cosmonauts were often just ballast or a cheap sophisticated computer to get the mission done. Now, no disrespect to those people, but that is how the systems were built. That is, to be mostly idiot proof. When they work, they work (Progress, Soyez).

Even the Russian shuttle, Burian, launched, orbited, and landed without onboard people controling it (was it fully automatic or remote controlled anyone?)

A lot of people say that the reliance on getting everything automated was what caused the Russians to fall behind in the space race. Whereas US asutronauts were often pilots, working with computer assistance. This insistance on control by people helped get things in the air/space fast, but in the long run may have hurt safety.

disclaimer: this is probably a little generalised, so take with some salt, lime and tequila...

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, these people flew to space and landed safely a copy of the space shuttle (the Buran) in the eighties, UNMANNED.
Why do you think that this is such a miracle ?

Re:UNMANNED?

[rsynnott]

That's because, erm, there isn't a bigger aircraft, at least not one that can fly. That said, there IS only one A-124, if I remember rightly.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now it's the European weather's fault ?

Re:UNMANNED?

[aliensporebomb]

I've actually seen an Antonov AN-124 Condor landing from about 300 feet away and it was an incredible, jaw droppingly impressive sight.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124

It was landing at the Minneapolis / St. Paul international airport and I was taking an MTC
bus to work and the route the bus took was right
past one of the main approach vectors for the
runway which was directly on the east side of
the highway.

The plane approached from the West, flew over
the highway at a height of about 150 feet (!)
and promptly landed on the runway to our right.

Surprising that an aircraft could make a C-5
Galaxy seem small.

I later heard that the Antonov was there to
pick up a group of locomotives a local railroad
had sold to another railroad.

I suppose when you can't ship by rail, ship by
the biggest damn airplane you can think of.

Still, there's a larger bird they make called
the Mriya which was originally designed to haul around their Buran Space Shuttle derivative.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

I understand there's a handful of the 124 but only
one 225. The 225 is a beautiful bird with an
unusual tail structure. And now I hear a second
of the larger 225s is nearing completion.

Can you imagine what it would be like to fly one
of them?

Postscript: the Antonovs have a very distinctive
audio signature and last summer I heard it flying
overhead and ran out of the house just as a friend
called me and said he'd seen the AN-124 flying to
the southeast and sure enough there it was.

Re:UNMANNED?

[rsynnott]

Oops, yep, I was thinking of the 225

Re:UNMANNED?

[dunkelfalke]

as far as i know the f-117 was downed by a mig-21 which has neared the f-117 without being seen.

Re:UNMANNED?

[bobcat7677]

Don't forget the Russian shuttle. It's now destroyed as the building it was being stored in collapsed in a snow storm a few years ago. But on it's one maiden voyage it launched, orbited the earth and returned to a safe landing within a couple inches of it's mark on the runway in heavy crosswinds...all unmanned. That's impressive engineering. Now only if they could have engineered that hanger it was being stored in as well:P

Re:UNMANNED?

[ecloud]

They were already using unmanned Progress craft to re-supply their Mir space station for a really long time. I doubt the technology has changed much since then.

Re:UNMANNED?

[ciroknight]

Okay sure, the F-117 has the radar cross section equivalent to that of a small bird (quoting the US DOD on the subject). This means it's virtually invisible until you are sitting on top of it.

Secondly, Stealth is a strategic technology: nobody's gonna fly a stealth aircraft right through the middle of a fire fight or an area lit up with radar 8 ways from Sunday. It's dumb.

Lastly, I'm not disputing the Russkies. I'm pretty sure they actually can detect these aircraft, but the question is when, how often, and to what accuracy. Hell, we have airforce bases here that pick up the Stealth Bombers when they leave from Missouri, but they say the signature's either always artifically augmented (a radar beacon), or they only get a flash of something that doesn't fit as an ordinary aircraft.

Re:UNMANNED?

[Liam Slider]

So....even though Americans usually love their land, people, culture....yet don't always like their government (just like Russians), and even though America has had multiple governments in it's history (just like Russia has had multiple governments, but further back in our history), and even though Americans generally will continue to love America regardless of government...somehow Americans just don't love America as much as Russians love Russia? This is your point?

Maybe you could try explaining your view to your crack dealer...maybe he'll understand how this works.

Re:UNMANNED?

[casemon]

Fair enough, but since when do countries spend on an internationally relative scale? For example, the US spends more on military and weapons than any other country in the world by several orders of "magnitude" (talking % not actual $).

It isn't an anti-american post (I myself am american) only to express that I tire of this automatic snuffing out of Russia's position & contributions with no eye to our own failings; largely due to the propoganda dispersed to your parents that you grew up on. Look in the thread, it is rife with anti-Russian sentiment ("don't trust them"). These people (and perhaps you) could benefit from doing your homework and looking outside of the US for US "facts". People in glass houses...

FWIW, I doubt one can trust a single source for such figures, much less the CIA world factbook. Despite that, the figures you refer to seem to only focus on certain numbers out of the many. For example, look at US public debt at 65% where as Russia's is 28% (both 2004 estimates). What does this say about our country?

Having pride in our country without knowing how we got to where we are isn't patriotism, it's baseless jingoism; an expression founded in something shall we say "less" than the healthy competitive spirit. Thanks for turning a blind eye to facts, despite the opportunity you've been given.

Re:UNMANNED?

[trurl7]

I'd like to make a small point here:

The Soviet shuttle project was *very* successful. As an earlier poster pointed out, it launched, orbited, and landed, on fully automatic control (not remote). (Actually, a portion of the design committee disagreed with the fully automatic controls, saying they were not safe - the automatic design team won the argument and proved themselves right). The Buran shuttle made the landing in weather conditions considered "unflyable" by NASA.

And then yes - politics happened and the program got killed. There was a tiny matter of a change of government and crashed economy. But, to be fair, I believe the Russian's aren't the only ones whose funding difficulties led to unfortunate consequences for their space programs. I won't name names :-)

mnb Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. Especially with the weakened muscles these astronauts have after prolonged exposure to microgravity, space diarrhea could get quite messy.

I think space constipation would prove a greater challange with weakened muscles.

The other governments must be peeved

[confusion]

Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel. Why not let Hilton or someone pop for a hotel module and start funding some of the space program, since there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space. Maybe then we could fix the hubble or some other meaningful science.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[rtaylor]

Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel.

Provided the Russians continue to send up people capable of doing the job, why do you care about the employee selection process? These people are fully trained and capable of doing the work necessary during their stay.

NASA has also sent up plenty of people to political reasons, but since they performed the assigned tasks while there I don't think we can complain too much.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[tftp]

It's a free market - someone offers a service, someone offers the money - deal. What's wrong with that? Russia definitely can control who boards its spacecraft, and it owns a good deal of ISS share(s), and besides, none of that is done over standing objections of other partners.

I'm sure NASA is welcome to send a tourist or two on one of its shuttles... not that any are expected now, not any time soon at least, from what I read these days. It might even be that the Shuttles will never fly again. The STS program depends on thousands of highly skilled people to prepare the vehicles, and if those people are not working on a Shuttle they eventually forget how the job is to be done, drawings are lost, work instructions misunderstood, people die, retire or just quit. It's hard for anyone to wait a whole year for one launch, but that's what the current schedule looks like. And without those technicians the Shuttle can't take off. We are witnessing a rapid decay of the whole STS program, with recent flight not just failing to stop the process but actually accelerating it.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[biraneto2]

I know russia was the soviet russia and so it is evil and all the stuff like that... but this is only space tourism, has the approval of all partners (ESA and NASA), and is being carried by russians instead of NASA since it's cheapper for the tourist to afford. NASA would probably accept a space tourist since it's being year after year harder to get a good budget.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not let Hilton or someone...

Hmmm. Hilton...Zero gee...I could work with that.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love nothing more than give that spoiled bitch a one-way trip into space...

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[moosesocks]

I think that the over governments are sympathetic to the fact that Russia's space program has virtually no budget.

If this is what they have to do to raise the funds necessary to operate, then so be it.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[QuantumG]

Fuck Science. It's this unhealthy obsession with "science" that is dragging the space program down. The goal for going into space should be commercial. We should be mining the moon for rare (on earth) metals. Astronauts should be fixing billion dollar satellites, not pressing buttons on automated space experiments.

Re:The other governments must be peeved

[rinkjustice]

...there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space..

I think you're right on the money (pun reluctantly intended) regarding the privatization of space projects, but no shortage of millionaires wanting to go into space? That's a bit of a stretch. For many with the moola, it's just a fleeing fancy. With the exorbitant price tag, exhaustive briefings and physical conditioning required even before they step onto a rocket, speak nothing of the safety risks, it's little wonder anyone would bother.

astro/cosmonauts

[42Penguins]

Is the crew welcoming their new $20 million carrying overlords properly?

We Look Like Ants

[Doc Ruby]

Am I glad that my US tax dollars have paid for the Russian space agency to privatize space tourism to the ISS. I can't wait to spend even more money on Russian space tours for myself, knowing that we've all pitched in so the richest people on Earth can finally literally look down on "all the little people" who made this possible.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -2
    100% Troll

TrollMods just keep blasting away. Why not post a counterargument? Because doing so would reveal my original post is no Troll, but rather a cogent criticism, composed of facts and logic? And that TrollMods have no argument for that? I thought so.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[IgnoramusMaximus]

TrollMods just keep blasting away. Why not post a counterargument? Because doing so would reveal my original post is no Troll, but rather a cogent criticism, composed of facts and logic? And that TrollMods have no argument for that? I thought so.

I'll bite. I am in a charitable mood today.

The most probable reason is that they considered your "contribution" to be so far out as to not warrant a reply. While there are wacky moderators here, trolls are far more numerous. And then there is the particular species of American-centric troll who believes that the whole world (and possibly the Universe itself) is/was/is-to-be saved from doom at US taxpayers expense, had divine US knowledge granted to them (and thus all their pitiful attempts at technology or science are "stolen" or "derrivative"), and generally mooched off the oh-so-benevolent US taxpayer tit, followed by being belligerently ungrateful snakes who refuse to acknowledge the Divine Light bestowed upon them by the inhabitants of the Chosen Land of the US of A. Or something along these lines.

Point in case: the US taxpayer was not funding the Russian space program to any significant degree. There was contract work done on many things, like long-term zero-g habitiation components of ISS with which NASA had next to zero experience. Russia is involved in many commercial ventures, some of them funded indirectly by the US government but that is because ... they are the best bang for the buck. US taxpayers are actually saving money on those deals (like for example the various payload agreements and lauch facilities use deals). The total amount spent on all of that stuff is about 4-5 shuttle launches worth over the last decade.

Russians are actually at this point sustaining the NASA's ISS activity by ferrying US astronauts to and from the station at no charge, way past their original obligation, ever since the Shuttle is effectively kaput.

There, perheaps this should clarify a thing or two.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[Doc Ruby]

I always prefer an explicit disagreement to an anonymous suppression - because I get a chance to learn something.

I have not seen new numbers on any possible reversal of ISS expenses between US & Russian budgets since the Shuttle was grounded a few years ago. Until that time, the US had heavily subsidized the Russian efforts, paying not only for US work on the ISS, but also paying a great deal into Russian budgets. Which produced work that missed specs and schedules, bottlenecking the entire project. I'd like to see that the Russians have now taken the lead, while circumstances favor their positions. Some citations.

However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride. I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense. I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.

So hopefully that clarifies my (nontroll :) position. I appreciate your actually engaging in a disagreement. If you can convince me of your statement, that we're getting a fair deal from our Russian "partners" (not just a good offshore investment deal that cheats our ROI), I stand a chance to finally learn something new about the ISS operation.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Some citations.

For example, here. But you should really google yourself. Russian space agency budget is mere $130 million in total per year. That is why $20 million for a paying customer is a big deal. Note that a single Shuttle launch costs around $400-500 million. Presently the Russians are not receiving even the contract work they used to due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 as the US law forbids it.

However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride.

What I was pointing out is that the total amount is miniscule by comparison to the NASA budget.

I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense.

It all depends by what do you mean at your "expense". The zero-g Russian experience from two decades of operating orbital facilities would be very expensive to obtain otherwise. Or are you suggesting that the US should have not built the ISS with the rest of the world and made a new Skylab (NASA's last orbital habitat experience was 30 years old)?

I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.

As I said, you are making an issue from some spare change on the fringes of the American space activities.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[Doc Ruby]

The issue is not so much the money, it's who's getting what it buys. And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.

What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not. The expense I complained about is not the $20M from the passenger - he's a private individual, and can subsidize whatever he wants. It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in. While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran. Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.

In short, the issue is not the price, it's what it buys, from whom, at whose expense. I don't like the deal.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The issue is not so much the money, it's who's getting what it buys

The US got the 20 years worth of Russian orbital habitat experience on the cheap. I still do not understand your point.

And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.

You gotta be kidding. NASA budget in 2005 alone is around $16 billion. The $20 mil may be "substantial" to the Russians with their laughable (and yet sufficient to compete with NASA) $130 million yearly budget. But not to the US.

What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not.

"Launching civlians" is the easiest part of that deal. You get one, get him simplified training and stick his ass into the Soyuz. There is no "experience" to be gained from this, other then how many barf bags to bring along.

It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in.

As I keep explaining, the major motivation was to purchase the Russian experience, which NASA did not posses.

While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran.

Actually, no. You see, as I keep pointing out, the Russians had already acquired all that experience in the Soviet days, at the expense of the ole USSR. NASA was merely purchasing it. The missile experience was there already, and will remain there for an indefinite future. As to Iran, we are talking about 60 year old missile and nuclear tech and I think the US is completely bonkers to believe that Iran will not get the stuff sooner or later, from somewhere. Pakistan, that industrial and scientific "giant", got it. North Korea, who cannot manage to feed its people and keep their apartament complexes lit and heated, still managed to get (or get near to) nukes on its own. Etc, and so on.

Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.

That view is not very convincing. You seem to be in the camp which believes that any foreign expenditure is counter-productive as some of the money will always, inevietably, meander its way somewhere where you would not like. As to Iran threatening the US with nukes, I would like to point out to you that Iran's nuclear ambitions did not gain frantic, panic steam until the oh-so-diplomatic "axis of evil" musings of a certain high-placed individual, followed by some adventures in Iraqi sand. And that is remarkable since Israel has been menacing the whole region with both nukes and missiles to carry them for many decades now. Your view is completely one-sided and unreastically US-centric as I charged originally.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[Doc Ruby]

You are not getting it, because you are not thinking about my points, only your own.

Again, the $20M isn't to be compared with the US $20B expenses. I never complained about the US "losing $20M to the Russians" or anything like that. I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately. Which underwrites this mission of theirs, from which they get all the benefit. Including treatment of space tourists. Let me tell you, British Airways does a lot more than hand out barf bags, which is why their experience keeps them competitive in a global market.

NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought. In fact, we have paid the Russians to increase their experience, while leaving our own atrophied. Which is the opposite of investing in our own, which is the actual purpose of our government space program.

Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.

The example of Iran, which you raised, is very clear. Russia can't get US money directly because it's trading with Iran, which is proliferating nuclear weapons. So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate. Russia's $150M budget is operational in part due to the US subsidy of their program, including the ISS. So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US. This is not some "inevitable meander", this is a very direct enabling/causality of a specific threat. Like the Reagan/Bush investment of $5M in "agricultural loans" in the 1980s that Saddam used to develop "the world's biggest gun", which would have been pointed at US troops in 1991, not to mention Iraq's neighbors upon whose stability we depend (to our severe disadvantage).

As for how we get to those investments, you're guessing wrong about my viewpoint again. You'd be hardpressed to find a more vocal opponent of Bush and his criminal adventures in Iraq, Israel, Iran and elsewhere. Bush's whole government is built on Iran/Contra, which has been supplying Iranian missile and military developers since their Revolution. I'm not going to get into the whole "Israeli nuclear missile menace", mostly because it's pretty far from the scope of US subsidies of Russian space development that aids our enemies. But I mention it because it reveals your own political agenda, which I believe is obscuring your ability to focus on even just the disagreements we actually have, rather than other issues you've introduced that I haven't claimed, and which are irrelevant.

For example, are you American, a US taxpayer? And do you know that the nukes you talked about, Pakistani, North Korean and Iranian, were all the work of a specific Pakistani, AQ Khan, whose espionage could not have enabled all those nuclear threats without (unwilling) US subsidy? Do you realize that all Iran has to do to strike "the US" with a nuclear missile now is to launch one at a US desert outpost in Iraq? Do you realize that running our space program the way we are is increasing the nuclear threats from these unstable countries, with little to lose, which make public threats to nuke people? Do you work for the Russian space agency? Because your arguments on this are completely consistent with their interests, and at odds with the interests of the scientific, economic and security welfare of the US. Which of course is bad not just for the US, but for the entire international community within which the US operates.

Re:We Look Like Ants

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Let me tell you, British Airways does a lot more than hand out barf bags, which is why their experience keeps them competitive in a global market.

Except that the Russians are not in any tourist "business", they are doing it as a stop-gap desperation funding shortage measure. The "space tourism" idea is universally hated at all levels of the Russian space agency and will be promptly abandoned as soon as the monetary need is no longer there. We are really talking about the barf bag level of effort here. They are doing nothing whatsoever to make it easier on the "tourist", unlike British Airways who does not (last time I heard) require you to pay for your own pressure suit and sit around with an oxygen mask on while the plane performs high-g rapid manouvers to make it easier for the airline to fullfill other, more important, prorities.

I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately.

I understand what you are saying, and right here is your hangup: the Russians did not "benefit disproportionately" in any of this. They already had the experience, the tech and the people. The US had no orbital habitat experience to speak of. Enter a cash transaction, the Russians get coin, the US the experience to peruse, at 1/100th of the real price.

NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought.

That is not true. The major part of the deal was for NASA to have complete access to the manufacturing processes, engineers, documentation and a whole other range of that Soviet experience. What NASA will do with that, is another discussion.

Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.

Actually no, the "strawman" appearance originates from the fact that you are self-contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that international cooperation and funding of foreign research is a good thing and on the other that it is counter-productive and gets the US taxpayer nothing. While I keep pointing out that the particular ISS deal was actually a downright thrifty purchase for NASA.

So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate ... So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US.

There you go. "Helping Iran to proliferate". Never you mind that so far the Russians did nothing to actually help Iran build nukes, only to get their civilian program working, to which Iran is entitled under the non-proliferation treaties. Never you mind that the tech is already there from the days of Uncle Stalin. Never you mind that ISS or other space budgets have absolutely nothing to do with any of that Iranian activity. What do you really mean is to put Iran in the dog-house, where the US wants it, and thus for the Russians to be extorted into losing a major customer, who will then get his civilian stuff from somewhere else, regardless? Irrespective of which Iran will get their defense program going one way or another. A rather legitimate defense stuff to begin with. Look, the world does not revolve around US's ass. Iran is not getting nukes to level New York pre-emptively, they are getting them because they are scared shitless of US nuking Teheran pre-emptively, for that mad policy of pre-emption is now empirically evident for all to see in, say, Iraq and there are US senators on the record with ideas like "nuking Mecca" in response to any "terrorist att

Pron powered

[LIQID]

Well p0rn helped power the internet's expansive growth and lead to great advances in online payment processing methods so maybe turism will help power the space race and resulting fields. We can all benefit from the technology that will come from these missions. And if they become frequent enough enough maybe some lasting benefit to land lovers will result. Heck I wouldn't mind going into space. Beats Hawaii. When money is spent in an innovative sector it always helps all the underlying affiliations. If rap stars were sent into space I bet there would be more money spent on space technology. I don't know why they couldn't get backing to send that pop star in space. I think the space agencies should have helped this venture along. Once the masses are interested so comes eyes and traffic and then so comes capital.

Re:Pron powered

[RandomPrecision]

Space race? You aren't one of the Fox-inspired non-believers, are you?

Re:Pron powered

[codemachine]

You know I've always thought that a "100 mile high club" a great way to do profitable space tourism. You just know there would be people who would pay to join that club.

Stupid Russians...

[erroneus]

...if only they had realized sooner than later that they could have subsidized their failing economy with space tourism like this. From what I understand, the Soyuz capsules are the same ones they've used for more than what? 10 to 15 years? And there have always been bored American millionaires who would have taken the risk either way. Who knows if the USSR would still be around today if they had.

Re:Stupid Russians...

[68k geek]

the USSR did not fell because of a lack of money(think of corruption first and revival of national movments of some of the now formerly soviet republics), and even if it would have - $20 mil. per flight is not that significat to a country the size of the former Soviet Union

Re:Stupid Russians...

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

Moreover the $20 million per flight may not even cover the whole cost of the mission (it's very difficult to get hard numbers, but a Soyuz booster launch alone sells for more than that, never mind the spacecraft)

It is very likely only 'profitable' in the sense that they are getting $20 million toward a mission they were going to fly anyway. Note that the ESA astronauts who fly on these flights are also paying customers. Americans currently ride free due to barter agreements, but that is set to end this year.

There are also persistent rumors that none of the current tourists have actually paid the full price. $20 million is the opening bid.

Re:Stupid Russians...

[rsynnott]

Er, 1967, actually. It has undergone some modifications since, but it was still a cheapish 3-person craft back then.

The Vodka...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

that's what I would hit first! Then again, after drinking it, I would be using the toilet paper to clean up the puke - oh, well.

Re: UNMANNED

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

There is so much these guys can do. I wish we could emulate some of their achievements.

Maybe as time goes on, and our relations improve, we will. Hopefully, ideologies won't get in the way again and I wish the same for other parts of the world and other cultures.

Kumbayha, my lord, Kumbayha ... sorry, I was getting kind of sappy there.

Rather competitive pricing actually

[l0ungeb0y]

As any Tourist at DisneyWorld could tell you $33.06 per second "seems" about average these days.

Re:Rather competitive pricing actually

[chawly]

And I thought I was the only one with this thought - or even this kind of thinking. Are you Scottish too ?

Re:Who is Gregory Olsen?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> He plans to conduct experiments in remote sensing and astronomy while aboard the space station, he said."

He is going to take a bunch of pretty pictures of earth, use software to stitch the pictures together, get it printed out on a million dollar inkjet, and put it up on his wall.

Damn it's good to be king.

And ?

[gaanagaa]

And they say Russians are cheap? These guys are the live-wire for ISS. U.S, who claim the most of ISS are reluctant to launch a shuttle after Katrina. I dont see reason. Russians whose economy is much on the brink are doing the save-the-day-job for the ISS. I think U.S never thanked Russia for their support in the project-ISS and the fact that Russians are feeding those abandoned astronauts in the ISS.

Re:And ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You.

In Soviet Russia...

[Pneuma ROCKS]

... cargo spacecraft docks on you!

Cheaper or safer

[daveb]

cheaper?

I suspect that if you can afford the ticket a few extra million isn't the issue. How often do you hear of russia failing to get their "cargo" back to earth in one piece

Re:Cheaper or safer

[silas_moeckel]

I think the Russians figgured out KISS while NASA figured out pork. Sometime we might get ourselved out of LEO and maybe some of those working Nuke rockets till then the Russians seem to have the best working technology lets use it and get things done.

Just came back from Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spent 2 weeks in St Petersburg, a gorgeous European city of incredible architecture and style. Unlike what most people and media thinks in the US, Russia's economy is thriving, real estate is booming, restaurants of various cuisines are abundant and inexpensive: Russian, French, Japanese, European, Chinese, Indian etc. Investing in the US market looks like a joke to me now. In St Petersburg, Russia, malls and boutiques are opening every day and mostly look like nice glossy European malls. Mobile and cell phones are no comparison (far better) than the US, due to GSM service and halthy competition (forget Verizon CDMA monopoly): I got a "JEANS" SIM card from a local MTS carrier, replaced my T-Mobile SIM card and had my phone working in no time, even at the depth of 100 meters (300 ft) of one of the deepest subways in the world, it works! Russians in most cases are dressed very stylishly, more Guess style, at least my age group, I really felt like I'm back in a village upon my return to the US :-) In St Petersburg alone, Toyota's investing in 2 car plants, and Daimler Crysler is quick to follow up for Mercedes Benz assembly lines. My Russian friends' family just bought a new gated community apartment on Vassilievsky Island , pretty average but renovated... Over the time I've been there, dollar fell from 28.60 to 28.20 and kept falling (I've been in Russia 5 years ago and the dollar was 30 rubles/dollar, apparently Russia is trying to keep ruble artificially below dollar to keep local goods competetive). Otherwise, the economy looks very healthy and investment is very interesting.

Yeah, but

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . did it stink of stale cigarette smoke and vomit?

mnb Re:UNMANNED?

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - The F-117's flew low to increase accuracy, well below the SA-6's 14km celing.
2 - There is ample evidence to support the claims that it was a lucky hit, and little reason to believe that any radar guided AA systems were operational at the time of the downing.
3 - Did you see the downed aircraft? Have you seen what a 59kg warhead can do to an aircraft? (even on an indirect hit) Did that look like a SAM hit?
No.

First condoms also arrived

[cz_eye]

Ahead the first wave of space sex tourism.

The version I've heard...

[PaulBu]

The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.

It was not _pure_ luck, from what I've heard -- US pilots and mission planners were so SURE that it is "invisible" that it ran the same route day after day. And, of course, given enough time even very small signals can be detected over averaged-out noise... They knew when and where it was coming and were shooting for it.

Of course it does not beat using $100 microwave ovens with broken door block to lure $1,000,000 anti radar station missiles...

Why, yes, I WAS trained as a Soviet air-defence officer! ;-)

Paul B.

Re:The version I've heard...

[6th time lucky]

Of course it does not beat using $100 microwave ovens with broken door block to lure $1,000,000 anti radar station missiles...

Kind of obvious in hindsight, but still that is bloody funny!

"Sergi, now is not the time during an airstrike to be making coffee in the microwa..."

Hmm, paint it in two colors? ;-)

[PaulBu]

I guess even during WWI aircraft had blueish belly and greeninsh top...

Just make it stealth only on the bottom and your attack can be prevented!

Paul B.

Re:Hmm, paint it in two colors? ;-)

[tftp]

It will be visible to the warhead above regardless of whether it absorbs RF or not. Any ground pattern that does not autocorrelate using a given pair of offsets must be the target. The same software will work both cases.

Re:Hmm, paint it in two colors? ;-)

[Carewolf]

You mean make the plane radar visible to defeat anti-stealth technology?

That would just make it in even easier to spot.

TV Show??

[earl_j_white]

I feel a reality TV show coming on. Space Station makeover or vote an astronaut out? - Earl

Re:TV Show??

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what about an Ep of Iron Chef?? - Zero Gravity Challenge!

Re:TV Show??

[SDMX]

"I'm sorry, James, but your crewmembers have spoken. You've been voted out of the airlock."

Hell, I'd watch it...

I know, I know...

[PaulBu]

Thought of it as well -- but the software would have to be more evolved (2D autocorreleation) rather than performing simple accumulation/averaging and shooting for "white" instead of "black".

Paul B.

Re:I know, I know...

[tftp]

but the software would have to be more evolved

Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it.

shooting for "white" instead of "black"

The abs() function might be of use :-)

Re:I know, I know...

[PaulBu]

Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it.

Sure they do! And they do, just not on MIL-spec FPGA hardware... ;-)

The abs() function might be of use :-)

Assuming that for some strange reason you decide to use signed arithmetics! Hmm, maybe your radar reflection is taken with +1 weigth, while background EM waves are taken with -100 weight...
How else would you get signed values?

Paul B.

Duckhunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo probably holds the patent for it anyway.

Re:Donate money to Katrina relief

[MikeWasHere05]

Why doesn't he sell his Ferrari, donate the money to Katrina and just go to the dealership to live his dream. Why doesn't he sell his malibu beachhouse, donate the money to Katrina and just live as a bum on the beach. It's his money and it's not your position to criticize what he does with the money he spent long hours of hard work earning.

Re:Donate money to Katrina relief

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every time there is a disaster, idiots crawl out to tell OTHER people how they should spend their money? I assume you have given every cent you have to the relief efforts.

Wish I had 20 million

[unlabeledchick]

I wish I had $20 million! I've always wanted to go into space. I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid (as if there is such a thing as too much Star Trek) and now I'm also hooked on Star Gate (SG1 and Atlantis. McKay rocks!). Irrelevant, yes. Anyway, I can think of a lot of things to do in a zero-gravity environment!

Re:Wish I had 20 million

[Anonymous Coward]

$40 million, if you wanted to bring along your SO.

Oops, I forgot, this is slashdot.

Re:Wish I had 20 million

[ShoobieRat]

"Anyway, I can think of a lot of things to do in a zero-gravity environment! "

Sorry...sex has already been done in space.

Re:Wish I had 20 million

[unlabeledchick]

Oh haha. Actually, you insensitive clod, I dont have an SO right now. No guys I know can tell their KDE from their GNOME, which is kinda a minimum pre-requisite for going out with me.

Re:Wish I had 20 million

[unlabeledchick]

Argh I don't have anyone to do it with anyway. I wonder if I can clone Commander Riker from the TV? Or maybe that cute Vulcan from engineering in Voyager?

Toliet Paper? hmm.

[infonography]

ZERO GRAVITY TOILET
PASSENGERS ARE ADVISED TO
READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE

1
The toilet is of the standard zero-gravity type. Depending on requirements, System A and / or System B can be used; details of which are clearly marked in the toilet compartment. When operating System A, depress lever and a plastic dalkron eliminator will be dispensed through the slot immediately underneath. When you have fastened the adhesive lip, attach connection marked by the large "X" outlet hose. Twist the silver coloured ring one inch below the connection point until you feel it lock.
2
The toilet is now ready for use. The Sonovac cleanser is activated by the small switch on the lip. When securing, twist the ring back to its initial condition, so that the two orange lines meet. Disconnect. Place the dalkron eliminator in the vacuum receptacle to the rear. Activate by pressing the blue button.
3
The controls for System B are located on the opposite wall. The red release switch places the uroliminator into position; it can be adjusted manually up or down by pressing the blue manual release button. The opening is self adjusting. To secure after use, press the green button which simultaneously activates the evaporator and returns the uroliminator to its storage position.
4
You may leave the lavatory if the green exit light is on over the door. If the red light is illuminated, one of the lavatory facilities is not properly secured. Press the "Stewardess" call button to the right of the door. She will secure all facilities from her control panel outside. When green exit light goes on you may open the door and leave. Please close the door behind you.
5
To use the Sonoshower, first undress and place all your clothes in the clothes rack. Put on the velcro slippers located in the cabinet immediately below. Enter the shower. On the control panel to your upper right upon entering you will see a "Shower seal" button. Press to activate. A green light will then be illuminated immediately below. On the intensity knob select the desired setting. Now depress the Sonovac activation lever. Bathe normally.
6
The Sonovac will automatically go off after three minutes, unless you activate the "Manual off" over-ride switch by flipping it up. When you are ready to leave, press the blue "Shower seal" release button. The door will open and you may leave. Please remove the velcro slippers and place them in their container.
7
If the red light above this panel is on, the toilet is in use. When the green light is illuminated you may enter. However, you must carefully follow all instructions when using the facilities during coasting (Zero G) flight. Inside, there are three facilities: (1) the Sonowasher, (2) the Sonoshower, (3) the toilet. All three are designed to be used under weightless conditions. Please observe the sequence of operations for each individual facility.
8
Two modes for Sonowashing your face and hands are available, the "moist-towel" mode and the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaner mode. You may select either mode by moving the appropriate lever to the "Activate" position.

If you choose the "moist-towel" mode, depress the indicated yellow button and withdraw item. When you have finished, discard the towel in the vacuum dispenser, holding the indicated lever in an "active" position until the green light goes on...showing that the rollers have passed the towel completely into the dispenser. If you desire an additional towel, press the yellow button and repeat the cycle.

9
If you prefer the "Sonovac" ultrasonic cleaning mode, press the indicated blue button. When the twin panels open, pull forward by rings

Re:Who is Gregory Olsen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't mod up people who put spam in their post. I don't want to see his spam. I have sigs disabled and he is intentionally working around it because he gets a kickback.

Ask Slashdot...

[benjamindees]

As the developed world collectively wets themselves pondering the future effects of peak oil, continuing overpopulation, and the ineveitable fall of modern living standards, I'm wondering why is it that the International "Space Station" seems to have been designed to fall apart at the seams without regular re-supply missions?

More importantly, if the goal of ISS is not to help establish a *permanent*, self-sustaining presence in space, and to benefit mankind with the technological improvements that such an endeavour would produce, what the hell is it good for?

Re:Ask Slashdot...

[ShoobieRat]

Seeing as you're so wise in the ways of building space stations and making them permanant, I suggest you stop wasting your time with mindless chatter in this tech forum and go knock on NASA's door. I'm sure that they, being oh-so-stupid and ignorant of the obvious, hampered by nothing other than themselves, will graciously let you in and make you president of the organization, so that you can put right all the wrong.

We're so glad you've graced us with your un-ending knowledge of the simple and retardedly-obviously solutions to this problem. Pray, do not waste your time with us heathens. Please, go make these changes now, so that we might shine in the shining glory that bleeds forth from yer ass.

Re:Who is Gregory Olsen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, spammer.

Bosnia?

[Meho Krljic]

Just a small correction if anyone cares: it wasn't the war in Bosnia. That one ended in 1995 and this one was the conflict between Serbia (Yugoslavia at the time) and NATO in 1999.

For only 20-million dollars...

[ShoobieRat]

...you can be the first person to have the shit beat out of you by the crew of the ISS for getting to space without having had to work yer ass off to do it.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[chawly]

Sorry...sex has already been done in space. It has ? By whom ? Proof of concept ? You'd need 40 million - or maybe by pre-selling the video ...

Re:Donate money to Katrina relief

[chawly]

Weren't we talking about orbital sex then ? Must be different in a weightless environment.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[ShoobieRat]

I don't need proof. It's a given. There have been numerous coed missions in space, and given that all the astronauts have to be physically fit, and that human curiosity towards sex is strong, I have no doubt that at least one nasty has been performed in space already. It's probably an off-camera regular occurance.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[chawly]

Quite see your point. Given the facility and the oppertunity, its fun so its going to happen. The facility (or do I mean feasibility) is a given with the "coed" missions. The opertunity must be a given also, since the whole living space can hardly be under video surveillance (or can it ? for they maybe just don't show us the film). It is the weightless, gravityless aspect that I can't quite see. I must admit to a certain curiosity though.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[ShoobieRat]

I'm sure they'd have figured it out. (I would have, ^..^).

But still, they could just secure themselves down or use handholds I suppose. People sleep and play in space, so sex is not that far off from possible.

Maybe they have the "Armstrong" position?

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[chawly]

Oh I'm sure that they've figured it out, too. I certainly would have tried. Your idea is good - secure themselves down - but no handholds; hands being otherwise occupied. I see a kind of sleeping-bag with six to eight fixation points, rather like a tent. At one end you'd need to fix a kind of adjustable pillow so that the heads could be firmly but comfortably restrained. At the other end you'd need just a small but very firmly fixed step. And there you'd have it "Just one small step for man ...." - the Armstrong position. Yep, that would work I think. Experiment needs finance, though. Cheers

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[ShoobieRat]

Just a note, they already have sleeping-bag things for astronauts in space. Aside from the sleeping "cubicles" they use, some of them actually sleep in cloth "bags" that they attach to a place and crawl inside.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[chawly]

Thanks for your note - but is there room for 2 inside those bags ? How firmly are they attached ? Are they attached all the way round the circumference, like a tent ? Are they fitted with "a small step for man" ? I think that some design improvements may be required.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[ShoobieRat]

If you can get 2 people in a 1-person camping sleepingbag, you can get 2 people in a sleep sack on the shuttle.

Re:Wish I had 20 million or maybe 40 million

[chawly]

Logical, I must admit. In practice and with European sleeping-bags, I have discovered that you need to zip 2 1-person sleeping bags together just to get two average size people inside. Once inside, there isn't quite enough room to roll around. Is there enough room in an American 1-person model? If so, how do you keep warm if you're by yourself? If this works, where can I get one - I'd rather carry one than two. Cheers