Slashdot Mirror
Chemical Leak on ISS
Random Utinni writes "It looks like the Russian Elektron system on the ISS may be causing problems again. Today the crew discovered potassium hydroxide leaking into the space station. This comes right after delivery of new ISS components and right before the arrival of a new crew and first female space tourist."
one has to admire their quiet selfless heroism.
If falling perpetually at 17000 miles per hour is so easy, lets see you do it!
I already am - far faster in fact. So are you. That is the Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun.
Consider these. Supply missions and such have to achieve this velocity, too.
Yes, but that is their problem, not the space station's. Now it has this velocity, it is relatively stable.
There is a lot of manmade debris, not to mention natural hazards.
Yes, but not much physical stress.
Orbiting the Earth is not a simple groove in which the ISS slides by day in and day out.
Actually, that is precisely what it is! It requires very little energy to maintain.
Orbit is a carefully calculated and obsessively maintained state of teetering on escape from gravity and orbital collapse into the atmosphere; thus, the orbit is a stressful, chaotic, dangerous and relatively unpredictable state for a floating flophouse.
No, it isn't. It is very predictable indeed; so predictable it can be used for some of the finest measurements. Orbits are not a fine balance. Once in orbit, it is very hard to remove something from it. Put lots of energy in an you simply change the dimensions of the orbit - it certainly is nothing like 'teetering on escape from gravity' - that would require phenomenal energy input, as would a quick collapse of orbit. The only problem is a slow decay of orbit due to friction from the remnants of atmosphere at the altitude of the ISS.
Care to belittle the program a little more, doctor? Go ahead and make another comparison between standing on the earth and venturing into space.
I am not belittling the space program - I am a very enthusiastic supporter, and seem to be one of the few left who still think the ISS is a good idea.
What I object to is bad reporting of science.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
$20M is still substantially less than it costs to send a person to space and get them back alive. A space shuttle launch costs over $1B (and has 7 seats) and the ISS has an amortized cost of over $10B a year.
What is needed is basic research into propulsion systems - something that can get us into low earth orbit for less than $1,000/kg and with fuel consumption more in line with a jumbo jet.
If private enterprise wants to offer space trips, that's fine with me (my belief is that it's still too early for it to be profitable, but I'm waiting to be proved wrong), but I hate seeing valuable government assets that could be used for research being sold (or rented) for pennies on the dollar.
"But it we do not have a flawless system in orbit (where we can come back easily), then how are we going to survive on the moon or mars?"
Well, as the other poster pointed out, the ISS isn't much help as far as a Lunar/Martian mission goes.
He missed the huge hole in your argument though - we don't need to put people on the Moon or Mars. There are no useful resources that we do not have plentifully on Earth*. There is no scientifically conceivable catastrophe where a Mars base is more useful to the survival of the species than a bunch of mile-deep bunkers on Earth. There are no scientific studies that cannot be performed by robots.
Manned missions to other planets may be the delight of those who feel humanity needs a new frontier, and are being used by politicians as a distraction from problems at home, but looking at them with a cool head there is no value to them.
*He 3 is not useful... perhaps one day it will be. But by then we might well be able to robotically mine it anyway.