Slashdot Mirror


Space Station Partners Bicker Over Closure Date

jcdick1 writes "The current partners in the ISS are in discussion regarding the closure date of the space station, even though it still has not been fully assembled. 'The United States insists it will pull out of the station at the end of 2015 while Russia wants its life prolonged, said European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain at an astronautics congress in Hyderabad, southern India. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has told space station partners that the US agency has no plans for "utilization and exploitation" of the science research lab for more than five years after it is completed, Dordain said.'"

222 comments

  1. I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When the US withdraw, the Russians can lower it back down to earth using a rope.

    1. Re:I have an idea by butterflysrage · · Score: 4, Funny

      there's an "In Soviet Russia..." joke in here somewhere....

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    2. Re:I have an idea by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In soviet russia our space stations lasted 5 years beyond their firm end date....

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    3. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Space Stations abandon you!

    4. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia a Space Station finishes you in five years.

    5. Re:I have an idea by masdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, Space Station fires you!!!

    6. Re:I have an idea by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      In soviet Russia, ISS funds you!

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    7. Re:I have an idea by blazematrix · · Score: 0

      No need for it after 5 years from completion? That's right! The US will not need it anymore due to the end of the US by that time. 2010 united north America then 2012 under UN control system. That's right! The US will no longer need it.

      BM

    8. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia the phenomenon of a "firm end date" doesn't exist, if you know what I mean...

    9. Re:I have an idea by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Actually, only one Soviet/Russian station lived five years past it's firm end date. But only because the Shuttle hauled up several modules and tons of spares and supplies.

    10. Re:I have an idea by Magnifique · · Score: 1

      More like 25. And to fix it one used a wrench and superglue, unlike the multi-gazzilion dollar missions required everytime a fuse pops on the ISS.

    11. Re:I have an idea by matushorvath · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, that was not "only because", those modules and spares could have just as easily been hauled up by Russian spacecraft. You could say that the ISS still exists only because the Russians hauled up and down stuff when shuttle operations were shut down. That would be true. And no, I am not Russian, you could say that I am an unbiased third party :).

    12. Re:I have an idea by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Sure, they could 'just have easily' been hauled up by a Russian spacecraft - if the Russians could had the cash to buy them (which they didn't) and the cash to finish the modules (which they didn't). Insofar as the ISS goes that would be a false statement, because the Russian flights were already scheduled. You may be 'unbiased', but you are also 'unclued'.

    13. Re:I have an idea by mdekato · · Score: 1

      Let's just use Viagra to keep it up longer.

  2. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Russians and the Europeans want NASA to keep paying for the high costs of maintenance of the ISS.

    1. Re:Summary by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Heh, first i thought the ISS is cool, but now it seems more like wasted money.
      It has only 5 years of useful lifetime?

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    2. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and who does all the supply runs when the american shuttles are grounded? Cause you know, thats been pretty damn often.

    3. Re:Summary by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of its components are rated for 20-30 years. Now, of course, some of its components have already been orbiting for a good while, but even still, judging from the Mars Rovers... ;)

      It's idiotic. Basically, the US made a committment to build it, then decided most of the way through that it had new toys it wanted to make. Rather than back out with it almost built and a large fortune spent on it, they're going to spend a small fortune to finish it so they're not breaking any committments, and then when it gets to the relatively cheap phase (maintenance), they're going to ditch it. It's the equivalent of me spending all my time and money building a house, and when it finally gets livable, burning it down so I can use the lot to make a tennis court. Idiotic.

      As though we wouldn't do the exact same process with a moon base. It's like the ISS, only... on the moon! We have dirt to play with, plus 1/6th gravity, and for that benefit, it costs ten times more to get people and supplies there and back. Does anyone really think that we won't likewise get almost done with a moonbase and then decide that it's another "boondoggle" and abandon our efforts there, too? People make careers and make the history books by succeeding in their projects, not the projects of the generation before them. So we flap and wave like a flag in the wind.

      Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs. Building it and letting it burn is a mockery of responsible planning. It also should be a wakeup call that we need new budgetary planning procedures in congress that lets all of the funding for a project be allocated in advance and placed in a trust, with congress and administrators only able to pull out of it if pre-specified milestones fail to be met. I.e., ISS would likely have been cancelled long ago when it failed to meet financial and time milestones, but if it had made it this long, the maintenence funding would already be in place.

      --
      Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
    4. Re:Summary by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs.

      Not by a long shot. Exactly what earth-shattering research are they goning to do? More high school science experiments?

    5. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not even close. The ISS is useless for anything besides mundane experiments. The two experiment modules that really mattered got canceled. The station can't even be used as "base station" if you will for exploration of other planets/the moon because of its crappy orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Criticism

    6. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians are Europeans. You know, like how Chinese are Asians?

    7. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, those damned other countries wasting money on useless research when us AMERICANS could spend that money killing brown people in the middle east.

      The fucking cost to run the ISS is a drop in the FUCKING bucket compared to the money spent on the pink elephant GW bush and the idiots in congress are chasing all over the Middle East.

      you can take all the NASA funding you want the second you can get the rest of the government to stop wasting money faster than burning it in an open pit can.

      Complaining about the costs of real science and real things advancing humanity when rampant bullshit is spending it far faster than a NASA engineer's wet dream could.

    8. Re:Summary by BuR4N · · Score: 1

      "Not by a long shot. Exactly what earth-shattering research are they goning to do? More high school science experiments?"

      I agree that not all science done up there might be worth the cost.

      But one thing that almost all posters forget is the experience all involved partners get from this, both in cooperating with each other (Which is a good thing considering a mission to a red planet will probably involve several partners, not just one country) and assembling something advance like this in LEO. It has been done before by the Russians and the Americans, but not on this scale.

      I'm pretty sure that the station will continue to orbit after 2015, this is just negotiating tactics.

      --
      http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
    9. Re:Summary by Rei · · Score: 1

      Spoken truly like a person who's never looked at the experiment manifests.

      --
      Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
    10. Re:Summary by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Oh, very well then, enlighten me. What earth-shattering experiments have my tax dollars paid for? Ones that couldn't be done on the ground. We'll even keep the ones that could have been done more cheaply with disposable rockets for the time being. The top, say, five. In your opinion.

  3. Somebody will buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There has to be somebody out there with money enough to buy this thing.

    ISS hotel... Nice...

    1. Re:Somebody will buy it by zentinal · · Score: 1

      I've long wondered this. Boost it into a higher orbit, though. Strip out what's no longer needed. Install a bar or two.

    2. Re:Somebody will buy it by Rei · · Score: 1

      Higher orbit is not necessarily better. There's a balance here. The lower the orbit, the more drag it gets, and the more reboost it needs. The higher the orbit, the more expensive it is to deliver payloads to and from it.

      --
      Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
  4. don't leave! by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States insists it will pull out of the station at the end of 2015

    You know, by setting a firm timetable like that, you're only emboldening the Russians.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:don't leave! by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1, Funny

      This isn't about the Russians. It's about bringing democracy to Mars.

    2. Re:don't leave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, by setting a firm timetable like that, you're only emboldening the Russians.

      Ohnoes, the Russians are going to threaten us...they'll claim victory once the US has pulled out of the ISS!

      In Soviet Russia, space station closes YOU!

    3. Re:don't leave! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once we bring Democracy to the Moon we'll go after the Martians who were sending weapons to the Moonanites!

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    4. Re:don't leave! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      But first, we have to win the hearts and minds of the Sunnis...

      Fly me to the moon
      Let me play among the stars
      Let me see what spring is like
      On jupiter and mars...

      --
      What?
  5. Stay the Course! by tjstork · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heck, if we can stay the course in Iraq, why can't we stay the course in low earth orbit?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Stay the Course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is no oil in low earth orbit.

    2. Re:Stay the Course! by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      'Cause there aren't any LEO caves from which Al Qaeda can jump out and scare us.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    3. Re:Stay the Course! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Heck, if we can stay the course in Iraq, why can't we stay the course in low earth orbit? Find some oil up there and I'll show you how to stay the course.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Stay the Course! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      We need the money to pay for social programs and a national prescription drug program.

  6. Let me get this straight by christurkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, it'll take until 2010 to finish the station then NASA will use it only for five years before pulling out. With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by MROD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, at the rate things are going they'll have to finish it after it's been shut down.

      I'm sure the other partners in the ISS will have something to say as well, especially as their bits haven't arrived yet and the time allowed to do research has been curtailed due to the cancelling of the "lifeboat" crew return vehicle about 7 years ago, meaning that you can't have a full compliment of crew on the station.

      --

      Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
    2. Re:Let me get this straight by pudknocker · · Score: 1

      Answer:
      Yes

      I vote for giving the NASA budget to Burt Rutan and see what he could do with a couple billion dollars.

      <Insert clever sig here>

    3. Re:Let me get this straight by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      It was never meant to be a permanent station, let alone a long lived one. One of the primary reasons it has been around so long is because Shuttle accidents prevented it from getting built sooner.

      Why are people so surprised at this?

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    4. Re:Let me get this straight by MollyB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think of the ISS and the Space Shuttle Orbiter as one entity, in that one exists solely to justify the other. When the Shuttles stop running, there's not much for suppliers to sell. If looked at as "throwing good money after bad" perhaps humanity doesn't need this expensive trinket sailing by. I'd be surprised if the contribution to basic science has increased compared to the enormous sums spent in support of keeping humans, (frail sacks of molecules that we are) in space. Maybe we'd advance our understanding by projecting our sensors and probes, designed with problem-solving algorithms and flexible reprogramming instead of shipping meat?

    5. Re:Let me get this straight by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Answer: Yes I vote for giving the NASA budget to Burt Rutan and see what he could do with a couple billion dollars.

      I vote they put up a few billion in the form of prizes rather than giving a select few a huge amount of funding. let them fight over it and you'll get a lot of innovation, give it to them and you get NASA style stagnation.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:Let me get this straight by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the entire purpose of the space station from NASA's perspective was to find something for the Shuttle to do, this is entirely expected. Not to mention, the reason Russia wants to keep it operating is so they can send more space tourists up there (which, I would say, is a much better endeavor than NASA's pointless "what if we do X in space" experiments/busywork).

    7. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're fucking the people who paid for it - that'd be us.

    8. Re:Let me get this straight by NeoSkink · · Score: 1

      In NASA's defense, the ISS is horribly expensive ($50-100 Billion for NASA depending on how you add up costs), and very little science is going to come out of it. Spending more money to keep it up longer is probably not the best use of funds from a purely 'science gained' viewpoint.

    9. Re:Let me get this straight by andreyw · · Score: 1

      ...when the Shuttles stop running for good, the world will just continue to do what it did while the Shuttles were grounded.... use Progress and Soyuz vehicles.

    10. Re:Let me get this straight by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

      You're making the assumption that the ISS should have been built in the first place. Allow me to reassure you, it should not have. The original plan for Space Station Freedom was as a LEO rendezvous point for lunar-bound astronauts. The shuttle was the first stage, the station was the second stage, and a lunar-transfer vehicle would have been the third stage. (Actually, the shuttle was originally only supposed to be transportation. The heavy lifting was supposed to be done by the Saturn V. Instead, Nixon demanded that the Shuttle do both. But I digress.)

      When Congress saw the price tag, however, they balked. They told NASA that they needed additional international funding if they the support of congress. So NASA talked with a few other countries (including the now democratic Russia) about getting the funding they needed. Russia told NASA that they would only get money and support if the station was located in an orbit that was easier for Russian spacecraft to reach. Of course, that same orbit made the station worthless (fuel-wise) as a lunar-staging point.

      There's more to the story after that, but suffice it to say that the station shouldn't exist. It was a political boondoggle that never truly met anyone's needs. It mostly just hangs there showing the flag. Once the space shuttle is retired, there will be no way of properly maintaining the ISS. If new vehicles aren't developed to reboost the ISS regularly (e.g. robotic boosters) the ISS will simply fall into the atmosphere and burn up.

      Now before you decide to interject with, "But we've already payed hundreds of millions to built it! It must be useful for something!" allow me to point you to this link:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
    11. Re:Let me get this straight by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      because at 5 years its a complete waste. For a agency trying to justify its budget they have to do MUCH better than that. Even the military, the budget hogs of the US manages to get 30+ years or more out of the things it buys. Just look at the F-117, B-52, C-130, fleet of Aircraft Carriers and support ships etc.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    12. Re:Let me get this straight by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You got the first part right. The design for both was continually downsized until the only purpose of both the shuttle and the station is to exist for each other, like some crazy love story.

      You got the second part wrong. If you put the same managers whom ran the shuttle and station into the ground (literally) in charge of an unmanned probe, they'll "optimize" the probe to save money by removing all the scientific instruments, and launch in the wrong, yet more convenient, orbit, then remove funding to receive the signals if it gets there anyway. In fact the station and shuttle programs should be kept around to attract all the pointy haired bosses away from the useful scientific programs...

      The station is nothing but a list of "could haves". Could have put it in a good orbit to use as a waystation for interplanetary flight, but that cost too much, so we got an awful orbit to appease the USSR. Could have had a large enough habitation module to staff large numbers of problem solvers rather than a tiny handful of robotic procedural astronauts, but that cost too much, so no scientists or engineers can fit onboard. Could have put useful scientific instruments on the station, but that cost too much, so all we got is a stethoscope and not a heck of a lot else. Could have put some fascinating communications stuff up there, but that cost too much, so we got nothing. Could have made it a continuing program of expansion and R&D and evolve the current station into something we currently can't imagine instead of a one shot stunt, but that cost too much. By the time everything that could be cut was cut, there was nothing left but pork contracts for subcontractors.

      We need a "real" station and a "real" launcher program, but the folks currently in charge will not provide it, so don't throw more good money after bad, junk those programs while we're ahead.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:Let me get this straight by pudknocker · · Score: 1

      Your idea is a better one, except.... it would take NASA (or the government) a billion dollars to organize everything, and then lobbyists would be hired by the aerospace conglomerates who would try to get the rules defined so to favor their companies.... and it would end up "business as usual" in Washington.

      Just give the money to Burt. :-)

    14. Re:Let me get this straight by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 2

      Wonder how much it would cost to move the station to a new orbit. Launch up giant rocket in sections, strap it on, and give the thing a boost into a proper orbit. Don't even tell the russians! If they complain tell them they can move it back.

    15. Re:Let me get this straight by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Okay, it'll take until 2010 to finish the station then NASA will use it only for five years before pulling out. With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

      It makes perfect sense. NASA is a vessel used by congress to shuttle federal money back into the states in the form of design and assembly projects. The ISS is only interesting in the sense that it is still being designed/built. Once it is done, there won't be any money to give to the states, so it will have outlived its useful purpose.

      This is why they're already making plans to return to the moon. It's a nice useless project that they can spend decades designing and assembling, which nobody will object to on the grounds that it is good for "prestige".

    16. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be more expensive to move than just building a new station.

    17. Re:Let me get this straight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

      Undoubtedly they are. Anybody with a shred of rationality would have canned this stunted overbudget white elephant well over a decade ago.

    18. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because at 5 years its a complete waste

      Yeah too bad they haven't done anything at all with the space station yet. You'd think they could have been doing some research and stuff in the portions they already had up there without waiting for it to be completed.

    19. Re:Let me get this straight by AJWM · · Score: 1

      In fact the station and shuttle programs should be kept around to attract all the pointy haired bosses away from the useful scientific programs...

      I believe the term you're looking for is "dinosaur farm". And yes, some of us who were advocating for Shuttle alternatives as long as twenty years ago (shortly post-Challenger) were saying that it might still be worth keeping the Shuttle project around just for this purpose.

      What we didn't realize is that even confined to the farm, those damned dinosaurs would eat everyone else's lunch. (See, for example, what happened to DC-X shortly after NASA took over the project from DOD.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    20. Re:Let me get this straight by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Okay, it'll take until 2010 to finish the station then NASA will use it only for five years before pulling out. With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts? It gets worse. The Space Shuttle is going to be retired in 2010 (upon completion of the ISS) and Orion won't start service to the ISS until late 2014. In the meantime they'll depend on the russians for moving people and cargo.

      Yes, I am serious. Look it up yourself. Only governments can come up with these kind of plans.
    21. Re:Let me get this straight by nutshell42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, NASA needed a space station as a destination for the Shuttle (what else would they've done with the Shuttle otherwise) and a Shuttle to supply the ISS (If we retire the Shuttle all those billions for the ISS would've been wasted!).

      Russia needed foreign investment in their space sector after the USSR went belly up and didn't really care what they were paid for.

      And the ESA saw it as a relatively cheap way to establish a kinda-sorta-sometimes manned presence in space with the positive PR effects but without the costs of a man-rated launch system.

      In short, everything went downhill after von Braun retired.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    22. Re:Let me get this straight by codemachine · · Score: 1

      When the shuttle retires, the Soyuz will be the only vehicle that can reach ISS. Boosting ISS to another orbit would mean the Soyuz can't reach it either.

      Of course without the Shuttle's boost, I'm not sure how long the ISS can even maintain its current orbit.

    23. Re:Let me get this straight by zetaprime · · Score: 1

      I don't get it either. They spend 10 years building it and then they only expect it to last 5 years once it's done? That's insane.

    24. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI guru/expert/shaman Peter Norvig claims he tried for years to get NASA to use more and smarter robots and not waste resources on sending humans to mars and beyond. Apparently NASA didn't want to do this because of the PR benefits of sending actual meat computers (humans), which in turn ensures continued funding.

      Source: http://www.singinst.org/summit2007/audio/ss07-peternorvig.mp3

    25. Re:Let me get this straight by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The design for both was continually downsized until the only purpose of both the shuttle and the station is to exist for each other, like some crazy love story.


      Um, the shuttle was operational long before the ISS was planned. In fact, it was operational before the far more ambitious NASA "Space Station Freedom" was planned. So, it simply doesn't make sense to say the design of both the shuttle and station were downsized until their only purposes were to exist for eachother: there weren't any concrete plans for a station to downsize until the shuttle was not only completely designed, but actually flying.

    26. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see his last design???

    27. Re:Let me get this straight by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      give the thing a boost into a proper orbit. Don't even tell the russians!

      But the Russians are the one's with the most likely ability to relocate the ISS to a higher orbit with their space yo-yo. Just because their tether didn't unwind smoothly this time doesn't mean that it won't work in the near future.

      --
      We are all just people.
    28. Re:Let me get this straight by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course without the Shuttle's boost, I'm not sure how long the ISS can even maintain its current orbit.

      Indefinitely. Just keep sending propellant to the station with Protons.
    29. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war of terror permeates everything as it is sucking resources out of everything. Yes, indirectly the war on terror is killing our children by lowering their health care standards.

    30. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to shift the orbit?

    31. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can speculate that an important but unspoken purpose of the ISS was to keep Russian rocket scientists gainfully employed in a peaceful space program, rather than have them find work building military rockets for other countries. Recall this was happening just after the breakup of the USSR.

    32. Re:Let me get this straight by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      Well considering just about everything they have done up there to this point is just a retread of experiments they did on the Shuttle or on Mir... yeah they havent done jack up there they didnt do before.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  7. ...far far away! by j35ter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Makes no sense to own a beachhouse if you dont have a car (and money) to get there. Luckily the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Russians, Europeans, Iranians,... have their own space programs.

    You might have been able to put a man on the moon, but you're not able to finance a constant presence in space...Kennedy must be rotating in his grave!

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    1. Re:...far far away! by SIIHP · · Score: 0

      "but you're not willing to finance a constant presence in space"

      Fixed that for you.

      This has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with desire.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    2. Re:...far far away! by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      good point,

      I think its very important to have a constatnt presence in space. tho i am beginng to think the *real* space race will happen once the private corps get involved and can make money form mining etc. thats when all sorts of crap will come out of the woodworks.....

    3. Re:...far far away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At this point, with the deficit higher than its ever been, the dollar falling like a stone, and massive trade deficits, a HUGE debt, and Corporations and Republicans looting the treasury with gusto... with no end to any of it in sight ... I'd say *can't* is at least as accurate as *won't* in this case.

      If the U.S. does decide to spend money on space, it'll be financed by Saudi Arabia and China, just like the Iraq war is being financed.

      Face it: The U.S. is broke.

  8. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow blame the republicans. I think it is more of an issue of blaming americans. We have gotten to a point where we no longer Quantify things but Mathitize things. Everything needs a solid number next to it, if not then it isn't there. So for Space we see how much it costs but not the benefit because there is little numbers attached to the benefits. The Russians who are in a far more corrupt nation then we are know the value of space travel. But we just don't we are so focused on the here and now and not to the future.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. No Denero. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    With Bush spending it all on the War Of Futility, we're not going to have any money to send anyone to the station anyways. It shouldn't come as a shock that NASA's already trying to find some budget wiggle-room, even before Bush has departed.

    1. Re:No Denero. by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With Bush spending it all on the War Of Futility, we're not going to have any money to send anyone to the station anyways. It shouldn't come as a shock that NASA's already trying to find some budget wiggle-room, even before Bush has departed.

      Is is possible to have a discussion on slashdot without bashing the President? You hate him, I get it. You tout any bad news that you hear and put a negative spin on any good news so that it is bad (the economy is a good example). I did not see Iraq anywhere in the summary, WTF is point of bringing it up. Maybe you should be posting on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost or something where that type of partisanship is acceptable.

      Besides, this has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with NASA making plans beyond the space station. With the budget required to maintain the space station, NASA has little room for other adventures, such as a permanent base on the moon or a manned mission to Mars.

      IMHO, we need to turn the space station into a spaceship assembly plant where parts of space ships can be assembled so we can launch a much larger ship than what we can lift into orbit all at once.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:No Denero. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Right this is about politicians (most of them) setting priorities for NASA without funding them so NASA has to pick and choose what to fund with the budget it gets.

    3. Re:No Denero. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Right this is about politicians (most of them) setting priorities for NASA without funding them so NASA has to pick and choose what to fund with the budget it gets.

      If NASA's annual budget had not increased by over a billion dollars since the war in Iraq started, you'd have a point.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:No Denero. by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      You're spending almost *THREE* fuckin' billion dollars a *DAY* on the war, and yet a mere billion a year for NASA is much money?! Yeah, right! Half of your research is getting done there, imagine with the funding for the war you could have established a permanent base on Mars for less than a year!

    5. Re:No Denero. by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're spending almost *THREE* fuckin' billion dollars a *DAY* on the war, and yet a mere billion a year for NASA is much money?! Yeah, right! Half of your research is getting done there, imagine with the funding for the war you could have established a permanent base on Mars for less than a year!

      And they could be spent on education, or roads, or bridges, or public bathrooms, or whatever. But you know what? They wouldn't be. Saying what you COULD do with the money is meaningless unless you actually plan on doing it. That money stood about as much chance as going to NASA as it did my pocket! Now, if NASA's budget had been cut as a result of the war, then you would have a point. But, as I stated, it wasn't. And even if the war had never happened, NASA's budget would not be any different than it is right now. So when you claim that the reason NASA does not have an unlimited budget is the war in Iraq, you are being completely dishonest. You are trying to turn the debate on NASA's budget into a Bush Bashing session, and I just called you on it.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:No Denero. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I made a similar observation awhile back, and agree that it's rather annoying (even as a strong critic of Bush myself) to see constant off-topic criticisms of Bush. However, this one is actually on-topic--Iraq is Bush's war, Iraq is hideously expensive, and NASA is one of many agencies that could put that money to better use.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:No Denero. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Who wants a base on Mars? Advance the total knowledge of mankind? Increase our long-term survival chances? Do something meaningful? Don't make me laugh; noone wants that shit. What we want is to line the pockets of corrupt assholes and their buddies with money stolen from the common man to 'fund the war and rebuild iraq'. Lol, advancement of mankind indeed. Wash your mouth out.

    8. Re:No Denero. by Hucko · · Score: 1
      It is hard to implement a hard and fast plan on money that has already been spent on projects that don't have an end goal, or method of recovering benefits. So, for your plan:
      1. Stop war.
      2. Stop spending money on new bombs/bullets.
      3. Give unspent money to NASA
      4. Cheer as Space program gets underway.
      5. ???
      6. Profit!
      7. Find out where NASA is blindly dribbling it away.
      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    9. Re:No Denero. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Is is possible to have a discussion on slashdot without bashing the President?

      Yes. Just not this president.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    10. Re:No Denero. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Is is possible to have a discussion on slashdot without bashing the President? Yes. Just not this president. Best post all day!!!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    11. Re:No Denero. by fontkick · · Score: 1

      -However, this one is actually on-topic--Iraq is Bush's war, Iraq is hideously expensive, and NASA is one of many agencies that could put that money to better use.-

      I hate to nitpick, but it's not "that" money, it's *my* money, and I have at least a hundred better uses for it than the needs of the Pentagon or NASA.

      I wish this country would realize that if the government were forced to use money efficiently (by forcing the government to limit spending to a set percentage of the previous year's GDP, and limit the amount of taxes taken from citizens and corporations to 10% of income/wealth per year via a constitutional amendment), then the space station and/or the War in Iraq, as well as [insert big money waster here like the Osprey weapons system], wouldn't even exist today - and yet we would still have good national security and a good space program (payloads in orbit and scientific data collection) due to intelligent people working at NASA and in our defense sector who can get the job done in the most efficient way possible. Efficiency occurs when there is a motive for it - but our budgetary system of "spend it or lose it" in every government agency, combined with district-based re-election spending (i.e. "the bridge to nowhere"), is always going to create total wastes of money.

      Just because NASA is "doing good" doesn't mean they automatically deserve a bigger cut of my paycheck. Especially considering how much of our money they are going to throw away on a mission to permanently inhabit the Moon. We haven't even figured out how to permanently inhabit Detroit. The arguments for going back to the Moon are extremely weak... but we will probably go anyway because it allows the government to take a trillion dollars from the citizens and then convince us that it's perfectly reasonable to do so.

      I think the Founding Fathers would weep if they could see how much money is taken from us and used by the government for its own selfish ends.

    12. Re:No Denero. by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      Now, if NASA's budget had been cut as a result of the war, then you would have a point. But, as I stated, it wasn't. And even if the war had never happened, NASA's budget would not be any different than it is right now. Actually yes, it was cut because of the war. Cut as "less than they need to finish what they want and should do". As were so many other things from your nation's budget. I completely agree if it wasn't for the war the money would still not go to NASA, and even more, the war in Iraq is a sound decision made to shut the people's mouths by using the mantra "terorism" and to prevent the total collapse of your economy caused by the rising oil prices. Nevertheless, things COULD be different and just a day without war would increase the budget for NASA enormously. It is not pointless, I say it to give a little prespective.
      No, I don't need to bash Bush or any of his cronies, for that is your job to do it. Actually, I kind of hate him for what he does in the middle east, but that is not what the discussion is all about.
  10. my 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they are going to pull out what are they going to replace it with? i mean hell. if the next steps are moon and mars, you will *need* a space station in orbit.

    -Nex6

    1. Re:my 2 cents by Tmack · · Score: 1

      ... i mean hell. if the next steps are moon and mars, you will *need* a space station in orbit.

      -Nex6

      No, you dont. Remember, we went to the moon well before we had ANY space station in orbit, several times.

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    2. Re:my 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The ISS is in the wrong inclination as a stepping stone to the Moon or Mars, and it's in that useless inclination because the Soyuz is not powerful enough to reach another orbital plane.

      The ISS is an exercise in futility and useless feel-good space politics. It actually hinders any manned Moon program by drawing away funds. We need to operate the Shuttle fleet instead of retiring them because no Shuttle means no ISS.

      Burn the useless thing.

    3. Re:my 2 cents by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you need to replace it for a moon colony? The moon is only a few days away, having a space station stop over doesn't make sense. And as for Mars? Let's take care of the moon first. If we get there and get a colony cooking for a few years before we ever migrate to Mars it will likely be a whole different ballgame as far as landers and transports go. Trying to build a space station for the needs doesn't make a ton of sense yet. And an earth orbiting station may not make sense for Mars but I don't know how the physics and such would work out for a midpoint station. It's a neat question though.

      If anyone can think of why a space station would make sense for a moon base let me know. I don't want to speak out of turn here but I just don't see the value of a space station to a colony on the moon. But I've been wrong before.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:my 2 cents by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      yes,

      thats true. but *why* build a space station, then throw it away so you can move on to a moon base. then what throw *it* away so you can move on to something else... see a pattern here?

      why not build out, space stations, or space statation[s] then moon base[s] then mars etc?

    5. Re:my 2 cents by Nex6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dont think its *nessessasry* for a stop over or a *requirement* for a moon base. i think its a requirement for a decent space program.

    6. Re:my 2 cents by kiracatgirl · · Score: 1

      In orbit around Earth? Why would you need that? The Moon isn't that far away, after all. If we focused the funding on making a base on the Moon, it would be quite easy to do without any sort of space station. People were going to the Moon long before we had any silly orbiting stations.

      We could just forget the orbiting station, build a base on the Moon, then work towards Mars. We'd probably need some sort of halfway point between the Moon and Mars, but that's totally different from this.

    7. Re:my 2 cents by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      That, *is* a good point, but at this point in time it takes days to get to the moon. any space based research, or quick trips. would all be impacted. with a orbiting station, even a small one you would gain flexiblity. and why cant you have both? why can we build an infrastucture like we do with shipping and airplane travel? the station does not have to be a stop over for the moon, it would/could be its totally own thing.

    8. Re:my 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon is only a few days away, having a space station stop over doesn't make sense.

      I can't fly anyplace without going 500 miles out of the way for layover in someplace like Memphis or Detroit, and you expect to be able to get to the MOON without an unnecessary detour?

    9. Re:my 2 cents by east+coast · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the overhead for a moon colony is going to be much less then that for the space station. Also, you can leave the moon base go unmanned for a longer period of time without either expense or a serious chance that it's going to degrade into unsuitability like a orbital station will.

      Basically, once you pay to get building materials and previsions off of this rock, living on the moon shouldn't be too expensive.

      So would you rather have a so-so moon colony and a space station or a really serious moon base with all kinds of options as far as being the first permanent space port and tons of potential in mining? Imagine if we even had something as simple as the ISS as a moon base today? The possibilities would be fantastic. The costs would be less, people could stay "on-board" for longer durations of time and we would have something we could build off of nearly endlessly.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    10. Re:my 2 cents by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      thats true, when put like that. when be better to have both. but a really cool moon base or a have assed one well i'd choose the cool one.

    11. Re:my 2 cents by czmax · · Score: 1
      I'm suspect this was sarcasm:

      We'd probably need some sort of halfway point between the Moon and Mars, but that's totally different from this.


      Funny how people, even on page, seem to think an orbiting station "halfway between the Earth and Moon" would be useful too. I suspect they won't be useful at all until we have something we really need/want to do in a zero-G environment for long periods of time.

    12. Re:my 2 cents by headinthedoor · · Score: 1

      There is no "half-way point" between the earth and mars for you to stick a space station. Any point you choose would only be in between earth and mars when both earth and mars return to the exact same orbital position around the sun. And how often would that occur? every 20 years? 50 years?

    13. Re:my 2 cents by peragrin · · Score: 1

      a midway space station isn't needed. a last minute refueling and supply station is. You can do a dozen or two launches of supplies up to the space station. and then send up the Mars vehicle. Heck you can send up multiple mars vehicles, in multiple stages. Assemble all of it in orbit and then send it on it's way. It would be far cheaper than trying to build one giant rocket to carry all the supplies needed for a round trip to mars.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:my 2 cents by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can think of a couple, mostly around the idea of a lunar transport, which would dock with the station:

      * A lunar transport ship should never need to re-enter the atmosphere. Why would you want to drag re-entry heat shields all the way out to the moon?

      * A lunar transport ship would save each supply launch the cost of building (and then discarding) another system to soft-land on the moon.

      * Scheduling the docking of a lunar transport with shuttle/progress rocket lifts would be very difficult. If you could, instead, stage the supplies at a station, that would make the scheduling of the lunar transport runs and the supply launches more (not completely) independent.

      * If you eventually end up with more than one destination (L5? Please?), you don't have to have separate launches to supply each, just launch one set of supplies and split them up in orbit for each destination.

    15. Re:my 2 cents by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Thanks for bringing up these points. It gives me something to consider.

      As a side note, why so big on L5 as a destination? Or do you mean this as a good location for a station?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:my 2 cents by gclef · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think L5 is a far better place for a station than the Moon. L5 is gravitationally stable, but with a very shallow well, so getting back off of it takes far less fuel; there's no dust to tear up your machinery (the damage caused by the lunar dust was one of the big surprises of the Apollo missions); you don't have the wide temperature variations as you go into & out of shadow (nor do you have to deal with losing sunlight to your solar panels for 15 days per month); and since it's still basically open space, you don't need to build landers to bring supplies or people.

    17. Re:my 2 cents by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply back and you do bring up some good points but what about the Kordylewski cloud? If it is real, and I see no reason that it wouldn't be, wouldn't this be worse then moon dust? At least moon dust is somewhat stable until disturbed, the dust in L5 would be a constant plague, it seems.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  11. Negotiation tactics? by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to the article, US pay 70% of the running cost of the station. Could this be a tactic to make ESA pay a larger share?

    1. Re:Negotiation tactics? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It is really about our wanting to convert to national lab. ESA/RSA do not like the idea. In particular, we want to allow private enterprise to come in and take over our part. ESA/RSA are not wild about that idea. Of course, if bigelow and others do not step in, then yeah, it would be good for USA to allow ESA/RSA and others to take over. What I can say is that we will destroy it before we allow China use it.

      My guess is that the next president will try to get the CAM in there, and get some real science out of it. In addition, I would guess that we will encourage India and Japan to add to it. Why? Because they gain experience in handling space locally. Useful for starter groups.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Pooooorkkk innnn spaaaace! by kabdib · · Score: 2, Informative

    The sooner the better.

    The shuttle / ISS have done only harm to the space program.

    (Go read _The Hubble Wars_ if you want to see how bad it was in the 80s. And it only got worse from there).

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
  13. So glad we spent all that money on it :/ by RichPowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lowball estimates indicate that NASA will spend $53 billion on the ISS from 1993 to the end of its life. This doesn't include the cost of maintaining the space shuttle or R&D from Space Station Freedom (the canned station from the 1980s). So the US will use the station for 5 years after completion -- and what of serious scientific value will be accomplished during that time?

    The ISS isn't worth the cost. Think of the probes and orbital observatories NASA could've built using the ISS budget. Those things give us far more insight into the universe. Hell, some of the early ISS literature proclaimed the station would pay for through the leasing of "microgravity manufacturing" compartments to various companies...please.

    No one should be surprised about this; the project was a waste before it even started.

    1. Re:So glad we spent all that money on it :/ by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Think of the probes and orbital observatories NASA could've built using the ISS budget.

      We could surely have built a few of these...

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  14. No Oil in Earth Orbit by markg11cdn · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US space agency has projected its own annual bill for the project to reach 2.3 billion dollars by 2010. In comparison, the pentagon is seeking 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdMpMla3A7P7PUbQx-344i6agLbA

    1. Re:No Oil in Earth Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In comparison, the pentagon is seeking 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008
      Funny you should mention that. Continuing to fund the space station indefinitely is fueled by the same sort of sentiments that drive supporters of the war to plead that success is just around the corner, if we just fund it for another six months.

      It's very human, but if you look at it rationally, it costs a lot less to build the space station (honoring pre-existing international agreements), and throwing it away as soon as you can, rather than continuing to pay to maintain it forever. This is all assuming you have something better to spend it on--I'm of the opinion that the Orion project to return to the moon is just such a "something better."

      If you need a facility like the ISS, of course, you're pissing money down the drain if you get rid of it. There doesn't seem to be any use for the ISS on planning timescales, though. And I highly doubt anyone's going to let it fall into the ocean, once it's built--just look at how hard the Russians strived to keep Mir in space. And the Europeans have the money to pay the Russians. It's just not going to have Americans on it.
    2. Re:No Oil in Earth Orbit by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      In comparison, the pentagon is seeking 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008
      In fairness, nobody from the ISS region has ever committed a terrorist act on US soil either.
    3. Re:No Oil in Earth Orbit by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Nor has anyone from Iraq or Afghanistan either.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  15. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But according to TFA (and other sources, such as the current Scientific American) we are focused on the future. We will be building a base on the moon, then sending men to Mars. The ISS does not play a part in these plans, and the money needed to maintain it can be made use of for these plans.

  16. this makes sense, take 10 years to build it by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Then throw it away in 5. I can see the US pulling back from being the majority stake holder, but giving up on the station completely is retarded. Plan for a moon mission, but give up on the only space station, duh. I'd love to see what the Russians would charge if there was issues with a shuttle and the crew had to go to the space station to await a rescue mission. Oh you saved 50B (random number) by not taking part, no problem, we'll let you stay here, and send up a Soviet rocket to pick you up, for only 60B.

    1. Re:this makes sense, take 10 years to build it by seriesrover · · Score: 1

      Firstly its not like the ISS isn't been used in those 10 years so its hardly only 5. Secondly it is a bold move and a decision from someone that understands not to throw good money after bad. If we're not getting our money's worth from it we should scrap at the earliest possible moment.

    2. Re:this makes sense, take 10 years to build it by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Good points. Just thought it is funny that they'd scape it so shortly after completion. Why complete it at all then? Is there some reasoning that says that the scientific value from 2000-2015 is worth the cost, but after that you don't get enough return?

      If you are looking for quantifiable benifit, it is hard to justify any space exploration. How much is studying yeast grow in space worth to your economy? Well if it shows something interesting, and it can be reproduced on earth, or is worth the cost of brewing your beer in space, then it might be "worth it". However, it is much easier to estimate the value of expenditures in reducing hospital wait-times, or sending AIDS medication to Africa or a bunch of other things. The cost of going to space is too prohibitive, you drop 100M on the yeast study simply because of transportation costs, when you could buy 1000 labs a mass spectrometer for that.

      Where am I going with this? Well IMHO if you thought that the expensive pure research was worth getting into, it should be worth maintaining. I heard that the ISS is in a decaying orbit, perhaps a big jump in expenditures would be necessary to push it back in place, past the date, not sure. What we have here is very similar to the Superconducting Super Collider project. One administration commits to a hugely expensive project, the next one changes their mind. You end up with a have used, or even worst, a half completed project.

    3. Re:this makes sense, take 10 years to build it by 2short · · Score: 1


      The simple explanation is that in terms of science, the ISS isn't worth squat, and never has been. As a concept, a space station sounds cool and worthy enough to pay big politically connected contractors oodles of tax money to build the utterly pointless thing. This is uncomfortable to admit, hence the brief lifespan, rather than just dropping it in the ocean immediately upon completion. But with typical delays, that's probably what will happen anyway.

    4. Re:this makes sense, take 10 years to build it by seriesrover · · Score: 1
      And good points also. You're right, there isn't really a quanitfiable monetary return that one can put on space exploration - certainly not at this embryonic stage. To me the ISS was more a political "lets all be friends and feel good" type project rather than something like Apollo or the Mars lander(s) or even Hubble.


      I would rather throw money at specific goals like the Russian tether project that just went belly up or ion drives. I would also like nations not to do projects together but inconjunction with each other. Rather than have each nations Space program have x amount of the pie in each project have each Space program own a complete project. But heck, what do I know.

  17. it's a threat by acidrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Err, my read was the Americans are trying to get Russia and Europe to pick up more of the tab, and using an early withdrawal as a threat. Of course the EUA is already refusing to admit it could scrape together a few more dollars. Regardless the relative financial clout between the partners has changed a lot since the Americans promised to pick up 70% of the tab.

    --
    -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    1. Re:it's a threat by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being that the US doesn't have an efficient way of getting up to the station anymore, it makes sense.
      I doubt that Russia sends up a capsule and has everybody check the outside of it once docked. Kind of counter productive.

      "Hey, those Yanks are coming again. When they get here, stop what you doing and let's inspect their hull."

      I hope that mankind (meaning free as in beer) benefits from all the research done on the station and not the host countries.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    2. Re:it's a threat by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ***Err, my read was the Americans are trying to get Russia and Europe to pick up more of the tab,***

      It's more like having organized the party, invited all its friends, and paid some of the costs, the US -- having finally figured out that the orbiting junk heap is pretty much worthless scientifically -- is strolling off and leaving the party guests to figure out how to pay the band and the caterer. Unless of course they want to call off the party themselves.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re:it's a threat by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ***Err, my read was the Americans are trying to get Russia and Europe to pick up more of the tab,***

      You are all making a major error in considering this in nationalist terms. The space agencies have a common interest in screwing as much money as possible out of as many governments as possible. It is the agencies versus their governments.

      Meanwhile the motives of the governments are pretty murky. Each government has its own pro-ISS and anti-ISS factions. And amongst the pro-ISS factions there are a range of motives: pork for congressional districts, making sure that their country is not embarassed by withdrawing from existing commitments, etc.

      The reason that such projects are international collaborations is not that they need the money so much as they need to create a situation where nobody can withdraw without breaking a commitment.

      So the statement by the US can be seen as a signal that maybe the anti-ISS faction has gained the upper hand and wants to signal to the others 'hey lets snip this thing'. To which the Russian faction might be responding 'hell no we want to stay' or more likely 'how much is it worth to let you out of this'.

      The ISS is an utter waste of time and money. The original purpose of the ISS was to have something for the Shuttle to visit. The purpose of the Shuttle was to build the station. Both are merely staging posts for a manned trip to Mars that is not going to happen. We can do so much more with unmanned probes.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    4. Re:it's a threat by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea Columbus should have just put a message in a bottle and pitched it in the ocean and waited for a message from India to come back.

      Sure there is a lot to learn from unmanned probes there is a lot more to learn from getting people there. It's nice to know what kind of rocks are on Mars, but what use is that information if we are not planning, building and populating some form of human habitat or settlement. Probes are great to satisfy the gee-wiz part of science but to be useful someone has to be able to go there.

      Maybe I'll use your theory and ask my soon to be wife that instead of going on a honey moon somewhere it'd be much cheaper to just look at it through google earth. I really doubt there'll be any probes launched with that one.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:it's a threat by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "I hope that mankind (meaning free as in beer) benefits from all the research done on the station and not the host countries."

      I don't think there is much research going on the ISS. IIRC, they would need a couple more astronauts there to be able to do it and also operate the station and current plans do not allow for them.

      OTOH, there is a ton of research going on on Earth about how to keep the astronauts happy and healthy in the ISS.

      A space station may be one day a nice place to assemble multi-payload vehicles, to repair satellites and to train crews for long duration missions. While I would be sad to see it being mothballed, I can't find a good reason to continue injecting the huge amounts of money it requires. Right now, it's way too expensive to keep. In the future, if we can find cheaper ways to put things in orbit, then it may prove more useful.

      We should be thinking about a permanent presence on the Moon, where we could, to some extent, live off the land (water near the poles, minerals on the surface), not in LEO, where there is no land to live off.

    6. Re:it's a threat by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yea Columbus should have just put a message in a bottle and pitched it in the ocean and waited for a message from India to come back.

      Well, since were strolling down Odd Analogy Lane, if Columbus took the cost of his trip and spent it on bottles instead, he could have sent off thousands of bottles. Sure, it's a long-shot, but so was his trip. He came close to both disaster and giving up. So far, unmanned probes have made better Columbuses.

      Probes are great to satisfy the gee-wiz part of science but to be useful someone has to be able to go there.

      What do you mean by "useful"? Useful for what?

    7. Re:it's a threat by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1


      What do you mean by "useful"? Useful for what?

      For the expansion of the human race. You do realize that is the #1 purpose of life right? It has been life's purpose from the beginning to expand into places that it isn't. You can try to add feelings into it and family and children or what ever, and they may even be the most important thing in "your" life, but it has nothing to do with life as a whole.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:it's a threat by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Several advances are needed until self-sustained colonies are practical. We are not even close. I think we need to wait until *other* technologies catch up.

    9. Re:it's a threat by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Informative
      ***You are all making a major error in considering this in nationalist terms.***

      Maybe.

      A bit of history. The ISS started life as "Space Station Freedom" -- an initiative of the Reagan administration started around 1984. It was to cost between 15 and 20 billion dollars and to be in orbit by 1995-1996. It was a US project. Around 1990 it became clear that Space Station Freedom was over weight, over budget, and quite possibly unbuildable. After a gazillion redesigns failed to improve the prospects, the Clinton administration sucked a bunch of suck^H^H^H^H international partners into the scheme, and renamed it the International Space Stations.

      So far, the US has put something like $30 to $35 billion dollars into Space Station Freedom and the ISS in direct costs and another $25 billion into space shuttle costs directly related to the ISS. Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency have thrown some money into the pot, but not all that much. Russia -- the other major contributor -- threw in two existing MIR modules and a number of Soyuz flights.

      You may think that the international aspect is important. I don't. This fiasco has Made In America stamped all over it except for the relatively inexpensive MIR modules contributed by Russia. In fact, without the US effort, the other participants would probably be basing their efforts on MIR, Russia would have earned some foreign exchange during the troubled years of the 1990s; the world -- primarily the US -- would be maybe $40 billion dollars richer; and the human race would have accomplished pretty much nothing much more cheaply.

      ***The ISS is an utter waste of time and money.

      Agreed

      ***The original purpose of the ISS was to have something for the Shuttle to visit.***

      The ISS (Space Station Freedom) didn't need a mission. We're talking the Reagan administration here. All gut feeling. No coherent planning. Reality need not apply. (Bush 1 and Clinton were quite a bit better. Bush 2 is even worse.)

      ***The purpose of the Shuttle was to build the station.***

      The Shuttle program predates Space Station Freedom by a decade. It was intended to replace the expensive expendable launch vehicles of the 1960s with much less expensive reusable lanuch vehicles. Predicatably the costs were grossly underestimated and the launch frequency of the reusable vehicles was grossly overestimated. 'Taint cheaper. More accurate would be to say that the purpose of the shuttle has become to build and support the ISS. Without the ISS, the Shuttle might actually make some sense as a platform for experiments.

      The good news is that the Shuttle is supposed to go away in a couple of years -- 2010 and be replaced by a super-duper low cost, reusable, launch vehicle called Orion in 2014. What are they going to use in the intervening 4 years? I haven't a clue. What will keep Orion from being a typical US manned spaceflight project -- over weight, over budget, late and lame? Again, no clue.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    10. Re:it's a threat by dan+the+person · · Score: 1

      EUA is already refusing to admit it could scrape together a few more dollars

      If the funding is fixed in US dollars, what's the problem? The US has shown no ambition to curtail it's current account deficit. The EU can keep providing a fixed euro amount of funding, and as the US dollar keeps falling this will translate to those generous europeans providing increased funding.

    11. Re:it's a threat by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The good news is that the Shuttle is supposed to go away in a couple of years -- 2010 and be replaced by a super-duper low cost, reusable, launch vehicle called Orion in 2014. What are they going to use in the intervening 4 years? I haven't a clue. What will keep Orion from being a typical US manned spaceflight project -- over weight, over budget, late and lame? Again, no clue.

      I wonder. The world economy is about due another recession, and certainly seems to be headed for trouble. If that happens, how much funding will the NASA get ? Enough to actually build the Orion at all ?

      I predict that once the Shuttle is retired, that's it for US manned space flight, at least until technology advances enough to make private manned space flights a reality.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:it's a threat by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Yea Columbus should have just put a message in a bottle and pitched it in the ocean and waited for a message from India to come back.

      Instead of, say, going over in person, stealing the property of the indigenous population and making them slaves?

      Columbus lived in the age of bits, there was no choice but to go in person, going in person was an option.

      If we take your analogy seriously we should honor centuries of proto-Columbus types who sailed out to the middle of the Atlantic and rowed around in circles for a few months before returning to their origin empty handed.

      We can send unmanned probes to Mars today. We can only send manned missions to the space station. We can learn far more from the unmanned probes than from the ISS boondoggle. Time to de-orbit it.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    13. Re:it's a threat by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Is that the "special ed" answer?

      We're going to catch up to the rest of the class by going slower.

      I don't think any technologies have ever caught up by just waiting. Perhaps we should actually work on them instead.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    14. Re:it's a threat by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, how about a compromise. We work on a perm moonbase but scrap the manned mars visits. One-time visits don't add much to colonization knowledge.

    15. Re:it's a threat by Milican · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for the numbers. Let's put that in terms of how much we spend in Iraq. According to the Congressional Budget Office, often called the nation's top accountant, we're spending about $9 billion a month (pre "surge" numbers). To date we have put in $533 billion dollars into Iraq. I know some damn big numbers. My eye balls are popping out of my head right now.

      So... let's say the Space Shuttle and the ISS has cost us $50 billion dollars over the last 20-years. Shit let's say it's $100 billion dollars. Now do that Austin Powers thing with your pinkie. I know you want to do it. So how many months in Iraq is that?.... 11... haha! Eleven months in Iraq equals 20-years of manned space flight spanning four U.S. Presidencies and creating a mother fscking space station that orbits around the planet Earth from scratch. Whoa! That is a helluva comparison.

      JOhn

  18. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Applekid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everything needs a solid number next to it, if not then it isn't there. That is correct, jellomizer (103300).

    Personally, I (993327) have never felt so accepted in all my life. These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  19. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OTOH (and I don't have any numbers to back this up, so it's totally a theory) ... maybe the subsidies we're providing their space program, along with money they make from space tourism to the ISS, is actually making Russia money??

  20. They insist now, but... by omgamibig · · Score: 1

    I guess whatever is scheduled to replace the station isn't ready by 2015. And how many amazing discoveries have been made with old, 'obsolete' equipment?

  21. Funny but true! by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    I was wondering too if perhaps some businesses couldn't band together and help share costs with russia - perhaps a super expensive (and exclusive) B&B wouldn't be such a bad idea, along with a zero-g lab you could rent.

    With NASA out of the picture you probably could save a bundle by not having quite the same strict safety standards...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Funny but true! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure if a good enough offer went up, it wouldn't be terribly long for it to have either a Virgin logo or Chinese flag stamped on its side.

  22. Five Years Lifespan by edesio · · Score: 4, Funny

    If 5 years are enough for Babylon 5 and the replicators, they are enough for ISS.

    1. Re:Five Years Lifespan by Dissenter · · Score: 1

      Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the space station ISS. It's 5 year mission to do jack shit. To hang out and accomplish nothing important whatsoever. To boldly waste more money than any other country on the "team" ... (queue theme song)

      Maybe Scotty can refit the space station in 5 years once Excelsior technology is ready to be integrated to make things interesting enough to make a full length Discovery film!!! Oh wait, our friend is gone... Someone go and get him. He's over by the Dyson's Sphere.

      omg, I'm such a trek nerd someone help me

      --

      Dissenter
      "There is no knowledge that is not power."

  23. Sticking to the Plan by Nymz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Space Shuttle program ends in 2010, and Orion won't be operational until 2015. So all station access will be limited to Russian launches for those 5 years, so how much sense does it make for NASA to continue funding it at the expense of other science and space programs?

    As for 'like-a-spoiled-child-on-to-the-next-toy dept' editorial, you can always go buy your own toys if that's how you show your appreciation. Listen, we all understand that America is greater in many areas, so a little envy is expected and tolerated, but a spiteful entitlement attitude is too much, and only reveals the depth of your lack of character.

    1. Re:Sticking to the Plan by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      Actually, just because the Feds won't have their vehicle ready doesn't mean that we will be limited to Russian launches. http://www.spacex.com/

    2. Re:Sticking to the Plan by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      SpaceX capabilities are nowhere close to capabilities of Russian "Proton" rockets.

      I very much want SpaceX to succeed, but it's doubtful they will be ready to deliver large cargo to ISS by 2010.

  24. The US are just beaing logical by MLCT · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant (in its current form). The ISS is complex, hard to maintain, and relatively difficult to live on. The moon, while having a few technical issues, is basically a much more sensible bit of solid ground to base yourself from. The ISS as a floating lab is very expensive - all it brings to the party is all the hassles of space (living in zero g, life support, things going wrong) and none of the benefits (resources, discovery, exploration)

    1. Re:The US are just beaing logical by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1


      You're an idiot right? I'm just checking.

      How the hell is the moon more sensible? How much fuel would it take to land a ship on the moon with a crew of 3, then return to Earth? Now how much extra do you need to bring equipment with you to build a base, with a crew of 3 then return to Earth?

      Exactly. Technology hasn't improved the efficiency of fuel consumption and bringing extra payload doesn't help. The Space Station, while flawed, was easier to travel to and build since you only needed to go to low earth orbit. The logistics are a nightmare and for what? A house on the moon? Which would be next to useless.

      Bring back voyager. That makes more sense and costs a hell of lot less!

    2. Re:The US are just beaing logical by MLCT · · Score: 1
      I'll ignore the personal attack and deal with just about the only point you made in there.

      A house on the moon? Which would be next to useless

      Failure to understand that (and it is not only an aside in the US space policy - it is the US space policy) means I can't really go any further. Permanent settlement on the moon is the goal - I *started* my post with the words "If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant". I can't say any more really. If you want to argue about the merits of having a permanent base on the moon then that is an entirely different subject, not one that I was talking about.
  25. oil in orbit by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1
    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:oil in orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That is a renewable carbon neutral non-evil power source that would cut into the profits of Big Oil.

  26. WE SHOULD OPEN SOURCE IT JUST LIKE IRIDIUM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Remember Skylab? by Zymergy · · Score: 1

    I remember Skylab falling from the sky when I was a kid... http://images.barewalls.com/closeup/j8/j8cov1101790716c.jpg So it is looking like the ISS may have the same fate?...

  28. Well, realistically... by drgould · · Score: 1

    Well, realistically, after the ISS is complete, what can you do with it?

    It's in too high an orbital inclination to be used as a way station for a lunar or mars mission.

    It's too small to use for any spaced-based manufacturing, like semiconductors, specialty materials or pharmaceuticals.

    It's too small for a real staff of scientists and/or engineers (who have to double as janitors anyway).

    It's too small for a tourist destination (yes, I know, some "tourists" have visited).

    It's already designed, so it can't be used for experimental construction techniques (like solar-power station construction, for example).

    So it's really a small, very expensive, high maintenance science laboratory and I have to ask myself, except for the experience gained in building it, how many science experiments are worth the huge expense.

    Wouldn't it be better to take what we learned from the ISS and use that to build a larger, easier to maintain, more versatile space station? Perhaps in a lower inclination orbit? Someplace you could do real science and manufacturing without scientists and engineers doubling as janitors?

    *Sigh* Yes, I know this is NASA, they're "only" going to support the ISS till 2015. Then they'll worry about replacing it.

    White-collar job security FTW!

    1. Re:Well, realistically... by __aatfqo5802 · · Score: 1

      Do the same thing I suggest they do with Hubble when they are done with it...give it a boost and send it to the moon. If we are going to have a moon base some day, we might as well have some useful parts and materials laying around rather than let it fall back to Earth and have to send new stuff into space again (at something like $10,000 per pound, right?). I'm sure the ISS would make a decent living module on the moon's surface, and hubble can still be used on the far side of the moon.

  29. you got that right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just let all the rednecks know the US is gonna "cut and run" from the ISS and they'll demand more funding!

  30. The orbit bit turned out to be a good thing... by sconeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, the orbit thing worked out, since for a period of two years, the only way up there was via Soyuz.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  31. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    The fact that they're spending that much proves they're NOT really Republicans.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  32. FUCK YOU MOD! AND YOU TOO AC! by SIIHP · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Face it: The U.S. is broke."

    And yet we can find money for the war.

    Face it, you're an idiot. And so is the retard who modded me down

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  33. And here's a precedent. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jules' Undersea Lodge is an underwater hotel built in what used to be La Chalup Research Laboratory, a 1970s underweater research station. Whether in the near or far future, there's bound to eventually be a market for a similar concept in space tourism.

  34. Paging Mr. Gibson, Mr. Sterling by StarEmperor · · Score: 1

    After we abandon it, some scrappy Chinese folks will move in and take ownership. Similar to a scenario suggested by Gibson and Sterling, but with slightly different players.

  35. 5 years my foot!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a tax payer, they better keep it for another 30 years. Either that or NASA should start refund the tax payer money
    if they only keep it for 5 years. Sheesh, some of us still own a 10 years old car. THose guy at NASA better have a lot of bake sale if they want their job

  36. What does it really cost? by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

    Ok, if we send people up there every now and then, it costs Nasa 2.3 billion. But just keeping it there, what does that cost? I mean, if you installed an ion propulsion system to maintain altitude, is there anything else that needs to be done?

    Because the obvious answer to me seems to be that everyone puts in the money needed to just keep it in orbit, and then countries and corporations can pay to rent it for a few weeks at a time or whatever. It seems so pointless to just drop it into the sea when its done.

  37. Pride not profit ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Russians who are in a far more corrupt nation then we are know the value of space travel.

    For Russia I think it is more a matter of national pride than future profit. With the collapse of the soviet union and communism several generations have little to look back upon with pride. The soviet space program is about the only prideful accomplishment that can be embraced and the current Russian space program is what remains of soviet program.

    And ... space is the military high ground. To not be in space resigns oneself to being a second class military power. Given the history within Russia's living memory this is also a major consideration.

  38. Scientific gambling sometimes goes null by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So it's really a small, very expensive, high maintenance science laboratory and I have to ask myself, except for the experience gained in building it, how many science experiments are worth the huge expense.

    When they were planning the station everybody thought that there would be lots of ground-braking anti-gravity research done in such a station. It seemed like a good bet at the time, but that turned out not to be the case. So far very little promising research has been done generally because there have been too few good ideas that don't have a cheaper Earth-bound alternative. Its just one of those things that doesn't work out. Scientific exploration always has risks, and thus sometimes it goes sour.

    I don't really blame anybody for not forcasting an idea drought.

    It could be compared to spending billions building a giant super-collider and never finding any interesting particle collisions.

    1. Re:Scientific gambling sometimes goes null by drgould · · Score: 1

      Scientific exploration always has risks, and thus sometimes it goes sour.

      I don't really blame anybody for not forcasting an idea drought.


      Sometimes they do know things are not going to work out right and for whatever reason (politics usually) they go ahead and do it anyway.

      Originally, as I understand it, the ISS was suppose to be manned by 7 scientists/astronauts/janitors, which they decided was enough to do "real" science and maintain the station. The ISS is currently manned by, what, 3 or 4 astronauts the last time I checked. Which, I understand, is just enough to maintain the station almost full time and maybe do a little science on the side.

      I'm not really blaming anyone for where the ISS is today. I think the most valuable thing we learned from the ISS is building and maintaining it. The science is almost secondary (but is the major political reason).

      My concern is that NASA is blinded by the mere existance of the ISS and refuses to admit even the possibility of any alternative till at least 2015 (probably longer, politics trumps all).

      It could be compared to spending billions building a giant super-collider and never finding any interesting particle collisions.

      But would you continue to spend billions of dollars maintaining it? Or would you learn from your mistakes and try something else?

    2. Re:Scientific gambling sometimes goes null by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, it is more like a shortage of promising research *ideas* than a shortage of ISS personnel. True, if you try enough long-shot ideas with more people up there, one may click out of sheer probability, but there are probably better Earth-bound science bets for the same money, the experts are saying.

    3. Re:Scientific gambling sometimes goes null by drgould · · Score: 1

      I don't know if there's a shortage of research ideas, though I wouldn't be surprised. Zero-gravity research is a fairly specialized area.

      My recollection is that the ISS was designed for a crew of 7, but because the Soyuz emergency reentry capsule can only hold 3 people, they only allow 3 people to stay on the ISS between shuttle flights. NASA was suppose to have a 7-person reentry vehicle by now. The problem is that 3 people are barely enough to maintain the ISS, so there's relatively little spare time to do actual science.

      My problem is that I'm old enough to remember the "Golden Age" of space travel; Mercury, Gemini, Apollo (and the Russian flights also, credit where credit is due). If you asked anyone back then, they'd tell you we'd have a moon base by the end of the century and be on Mars shortly after that.

      What we have is a gold plated brick in LEO and then we congratulate ourselves on what a great job we're doing.

  39. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not to be a prick or anything, but quantitization precisely means to put a numerical value on something. you really are advocating a qualitative position.

    oh, who the fuck am i kidding? that was totally to be a prick.

  40. We shouldn't have even done it by VoxMagis · · Score: 0

    About the only good that I can see out of the entire Space Station project is that we still send people into space because of it. That's quite a fall from Kennedy's vision of space travel, regardless of politics and Cold War era posturing. Where would we be now if we had continued the vision of the politicians, astronauts and managers that put us on the moon? Mars was a discussion in the early 70s. Moon Bases. Who knows? Right now, the russians are probably more interested in keeping it working so they can keep shipping bored rich people up there as tourists. Granted, we're learning lots about space construction (probably) with it - but we would have learned it doing many other projects as well. I'm a RABID supporter of the space program, but I just can't see what we've gained by building a bus station in space (and one that wants to fall out of orbit, at that).

    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
  41. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    Pfft. Newbie.

  42. Plasma Crystal Experiments by pln2bz · · Score: 1

    I hope this is a bluff. IMO, the plasma crystal experiments alone made the whole thing worthwhile ...

    http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Permanent_Mission_in_Russia/SEMSBDYEM4E_0.html

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  43. Long Term Storage... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

    Please tell me that the ISS is in a geosynchronous orbit that won't degrade so fast that it'll be hurtling back to earth in less then 20 years. If we do have to shut it down temporarily, I don't want to have to rebuild it all over again once we get an idea to reignite our space efforts.

    1. Re:Long Term Storage... by PixelThis · · Score: 1

      The ISS is in a low earth orbit (about 325km up) vs a geo-synchronous orbit which would be over a 1000 times higher (around 35800 km above the earth). Since the space shuttle can only get up to 1000km (with minimal cargo), there'd be no way to service the ISS if it was up that high. Plus the radiation environment would be considerably worse (geo-synch orbit being dead in the middle of the outer Van Allen radiation belt) than where it is now which is about 300km below the inner Van Allen belt.

      The big problem with the ISS being in low orbit is that solar max is coming and if something isn't done to boost it up and maintain it at a higher orbit, the atmospheric drag is going to bring it down in a very messy way.

    2. Re:Long Term Storage... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

      So basically this was a "Earmarked Project". ...I'm seriously considering not paying taxes anymore.

  44. Re:Remember Skylab? (falling down) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I remember Skylab falling from the sky when I was a kid... So it is looking like the ISS may have the same fate?

    I would hope they would put ion engines on it so that it could maintain its own orbit using power from the solar panels. Or push it into a higher orbit with less atmospheric drag. But I wonder what other problems would happen if it is not manually maintained, such as massive mold growth, toxic leaks, air leaks, etc.

    If they don't find a scientific use for the thing, I hope they find a commercial use. Letting it fall would be a shame.

  45. Microsoft May Buy It by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Microsoft will buy it for a server farm so they can run a cheesy promotion:

    "Run IIS on ISS", the sky is not the limit for your web apps!"

    They have money to burn.

  46. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Funny

    Speaking of which: a man who called himself You-Know-Who just invited you to a secret wink-wink at the you-know-what.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  47. Richard Branson? by Radon360 · · Score: 1

    By the time the contributing nations get ready to bail on the ISS, maybe Branson will have his space tourism business started. It might make for the next logical step in that enterprise. Then again, it would be one heck of a remodel job for the ISS.

  48. it's because he's blowing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you think of better ways to spend a trillion dollars plus? You could double nasas budget, pick up the entire european and russian tab, and still have enough left over to fund mass wide scale deployment of a variety of new alternative energy projects, like millions and millions of solar panels, starting with every governmental building in existence, local community wind farms, etc., finish bringing broadband to the rural areas,fully fund the OLPC project so it really does get down to being a hundred bucks for a decent little machine, heck, throw in reopening a car plant or two and start pumping out some sort of Model A electric cars for the masses, run by all the new juice that would be out there. Hey, how about paying some public school math and science teachers better? how about guaranteed zero interest student loans for engineering and medical doctors?

    That's what you can do with a trillion dollars and counting right now. And, they still could have taken out saddam and his sons, just offer a big enough bounty, no strings attached, some goombah over there woulda offed them skunks for a cool billion in tax free cash. Maybe some of them blackwater types might have done it, prove their macho instead of popping off iraqi peasants.

    *Instead*, we've alienated half the world, we look like big stupid drunk redneck bullies, and put ourselves into multigenerational debt and destroyed the worth of the dollar and *increased* the likelihood of more "terrorism".

    He and his cronies should be bashed on any thread relating to technology, politics or money, because it ain't offtopic at all.

    He's a drool, man, get it? Short bus? "Special needs"? He was picked out because he's malleable and the neocon handlers ran him as their controllable spokesperson, but he went far beyond rationality and now their whole party looks like dunces and probably set back their legitimate old traditional and at least somewhat rational policies by 20 years. His administration can be summed up nicely "no bribe, crime or idiocy left behind". We got retired generals now falling out of the woodwork, breaking the traditional military "no criticism of the da chief" silence, saying essentially the same things.

    One of the worst mistakes ever in US politics, letting the out to lunch looney tunes cabal of PNAC and AIPAC supporters get so much concentrated power.

    1. Re:it's because he's blowing it by easyTree · · Score: 1

      *Instead*, we've alienated half the world, we look like big stupid drunk redneck bullies, and put ourselves into multigenerational debt and destroyed the worth of the dollar and *increased* the likelihood of more "terrorism".

      Indeedy.

      On the plus side, the world is more aware of the problems within the US, which would allow such a group to seize control and run the country and it's people into the ground. So, long-term it's a good thing.
    2. Re:it's because he's blowing it by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      He's a drool, man, get it? Short bus? "Special needs"? He was picked out because he's malleable and the neocon handlers ran him as their controllable spokesperson,

      You know what the scary thing is? I don't think this is even remotely true. I think the "GWB is teh stupid!" line has been used as a way to help him appeal to the "everyman", and to provide a contrast to the uppity, cerebral democrats. I think this image is, for the most part, a complete sham, a fabrication, in order to help him win the election, and the hearts and minds of the people. I'm willing to bet a) GWB is more intelligent than he would appear in the media, and b) he's in full control of his and the administration's actions.

      And what makes this scary? That, in order to explain his actions, it must be necessary that he wholly believes his choice to wage war in Iraq was correct, and that, in the end, the world will see him as a hero and a visionary. So what we have is a person sporting a dangerous combination of intellect and blind ideology, with a firm grip on the current administration, which implies there will be no chance of change until he leaves office.

    3. Re:it's because he's blowing it by owndao · · Score: 1

      I would have to agree with the AC that discussing the termination of such an expensive project must call into question the reasons why it is being done and that drags in the topic of funding and those responsible for it.

      Having worked on the shuttle program (ASRM) and the Lunar-Mars project (initial technological feasibility studies and scenarios) I have seen the shuttle program build two thirds of an Advanced Solid Rocket Motor plant (ASRM, approx. $3 billion to complete) only to have the program cut due to Thiokol lobbying thereby lowering needed payload capacity (thus smaller ISS modules, ISS redesign, and thus fewer crew, etc.).

      I've seen the fully outfitted Shuttle-C with larger sized payload bays canceled (I touched the nearly complete prototype complete with engines). And, I've seen the Lunar-Mars project receive lip service from three presidents and absolutely nothing come of it in 17 years. One political party congress kills the ASRM project under Clinton, and another strangles out the Texas Supercollider in retaliation.

      So, yes, I believe a discussion of politics and the mental abilities, motives, and knowledge of politicians is certainly in order. The discussion of responsibility is the least (we always seem to do the least these days) we can do.

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
  49. It's a big help by Naam+Gozar+Mohavi · · Score: 1

    Building the ISS is a step towards traveling to Mars in the same sense that going to your attic is a step towards traveling to the Moon.

    1. Re:It's a big help by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You'd be right if the ceiling between the attic and the rest of the house was a gaseous environment that caused trouble going through it at high speeds, and your attic was a possible staging area for larger objects due to the weightless environment.

      God I hate comparisons. You can compare anything to anything, and take everything out of context.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:It's a big help by Naam+Gozar+Mohavi · · Score: 1

      You're right, my comparison was poor. It's more like going up to the attic, and setting fire to all your money.

  50. Automated Transfer Vehicle by StefanoB · · Score: 3, Informative

    If new vehicles aren't developed to reboost the ISS regularly (e.g. robotic boosters) the ISS will simply fall into the atmosphere and burn up. The European Automated Transfer Vehicle is capable of reboosting the ISS. First launch will be early 2008, according to the ESA.
    1. Re:Automated Transfer Vehicle by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard the station can boost itself nowadays

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  51. Re:early withdrawal (was it's a threat) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    early withdrawal


    early withdrawal is sloppy at best
  52. It will not be retired for at least 20 years by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    What is going to happen is that it will be used by private enterprise. It is part of the reason why we are trying to turn the station into a national lab. But ESA and RSA are fighting that move. By threatening to withdraw from this, we are threatening to take our goods and destroy them (which we will not do). So, ESA and RSA will go along. Instead, Bigelow will almost certainly hook up one or more of their BA-330's to it, and make it useful launch point (though it still strikes me that that it is WAY too low and needs to be pushed up higher). I suspect that it will remain as a place where we test future equipment. Now, to make it truly useful, they need to restore the CAM and get it up there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  53. Don't bet on it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    COTS is coming along. In a year, it will be apparent as to how it works (or doesn't).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  54. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that they're spending that much proves they're NOT really Republicans.
    No, it just proves that they're hypocrites/not fiscal conservatives. Republicans are whatever the majority of Republicans decide they are, and the sad fact is that the majority of Republicans haven't decided they're fiscal conservatives.
  55. NASA says: Let's close the ISS in 2015! by dontspitconfetti · · Score: 1

    Because we have a much better space station already in the works!

    Oh, wait, no we don't...

  56. Re:Long Term Sto...Why not boost it out of polar? by colenski · · Score: 1

    IANARS, but:

    -SS Freedom was meant to be a waypoint to the moon and Mars (and as free west propaganda)

    -SS Freedom was killed because Congress told NASA to get funding internationally

    -Russians said OK, we'll participate, but the orbit has to change b/c it's easier for them

    -Now the ISS is useless for trans-lunar b/c of different orbit, so once everyone is done with the station it will be abandoned and de-orbited

    -There's a bunch of noise about going back to the moon

    -If that's the case, wouldn't it be useful to just MOVE the ISS to the right orbit? Then it could be used for it's original ORIGINAL purpose, namely trans lunar waypoint. Hell, Burt Rutan should be able to reach it in a few years. Then, a very expensive asset could be reused.

    Can rocket scientists tell me why this would not work?

  57. i has everything to do with iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he fucked away all our money there, now there is none for nasa you stupid fucking cock choker

  58. Independent companies... by jim_deane · · Score: 1

    By 2015, which independant company do you suppose will be ready to buy the ISS (or buy out NASA's share)?

    Perhaps one of the budding private spacefaring entities will step in at that point. Maybe an announcement like this is a way to quietly urge them in that direction...

  59. So why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of deorbiting I wonder how much it would cost to use it as a test platform for an ion drive. Doesn't MIT already have one that's been in "test mode" for a couple of years? Seems like mounting 3 or 4 drives and plotting a new orbit (higher, better positioning) would make for an excellent practical test. If it works then maybe even move to L4. If it does... well the backup plan of a controlled deorbit can always be the fall back.

    1. Re:So why not... by VENONA · · Score: 1

      I don't know about an MIT ion drive test, but Dawn is scheduled for launch tomorrow. First non-experimental ion drive spacecraft, which is supposed to orbit Vesta and Ceres.
      http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  60. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funniest ./ post ever.

  61. Frankly, by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After I learned about the life and death of Project Orion, I came to the conclusion that we (the US) should give up on manned space exploration.

    Without cheaper, easier propulsion, and without the ability to get larger loads into space, there's really no point in it. We can keep playing with satellites and the like, but we'll never gain any economic benefits out of going to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. The extra weight needed to transport humans is really unnecessary.

    Mankind needs to get over its fear of nuclear power. A hybrid fusion/fission Orion design would not release significant amounts of fallout into the atmosphere (especially compared to all the nuclear explosive testing done in the 50s), and who knows; perhaps after we lifted a few hundred thousand tons of equipment into orbit (and perhaps to the moon) we'll be able to build most of what we need in space, where fallout doesn't matter.

    Without significant advances in propulsion technology, or a resurrection of Project Orion, there's no point to manned space exploration. We should redirect these billions to propulsion technology, or just take it out of the doomed space program altogether.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  62. Correction by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

    I meant "tens of millions of tons".

    The largest orion designs were for space craft upwards of a million tons. That we change our very notion of space exploration, and we could have done it with 1960s technology.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  63. are you kidding me? by dr_davel · · Score: 1

    This is worth $50B? Experiments that could have been performed in unmanned spacecraft for a couple hundred million dollars?

    --
    Never eat anything bigger than your head.
  64. Google should invest in ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google should invest in ISS

  65. Who is ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Who is number one? ... You are number 6.

    I am not a number - I am a free man.

    - From TV series "The Prisoner", also used on IronMaiden's Number of the Beast.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  66. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by kocsonya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > The Russians who are in a far more corrupt nation then we are

    Are you sure?

  67. Outer space is responsible for 9/11 by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Hey, we need to invade outer space. All it takes is one terrorist asteroid, and entire city is cooked. Oh the humanity! Screw the space station, what we need is for the USA to build ....

    http://www.scifi.com/galactica

    Battlestars!

    --
    This is my sig.
  68. The world has always been broke. by Froeschle · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems that the world has been hopelessly broke since the beginning of time, yet there has always seemed to be more than enough money *everywhere* to finance mass murder.

  69. Science magazine had it right by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    There was a pointed editorial years ago in Science magazine that pretty much nailed the fate of the Space Station: a white elephant that consumes all resources, desperately trying to justify the last white elephant (space shuttles) instead of cutting losses and focusing on value for money. The focus of NASA should have been on new and creative ways to get things into orbit and back cheaply - a wide variety of competing small projects rather than one megaproject that becomes an intractable money sink because it can't be allowed to fail. A side effect of lots of high-risk tests is that all sorts of scientific payloads and probes could have had a shot at getting into space.

  70. Wait just a minute! by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like only Republicans waste money- oh, no- not by a long shot. Remember the huge flood, I think it was 1996, which flooded thousands of families and farms along the Mississippi River? Carol Mosley-Braun D-CA, demanded that each and every one of her constituents needed $100 each for "grooming" before she would sign the bill. I don't know where this money went...and that's a big part of the problem...but this is insane.

    So was the space station. Thanks to your hero, it was launched at an attitude more favorable to the Russians, giving them the catbird seat; American shuttle launches require more fuel and time to get there. But in a 'don't rock the boat' administration, he was trying to make everyone his friend.

    The key point here is that, as a Conservative since 1980, I'm no happier with my guys than you are with your pseudo-anti-war, pseudo-anti-racism, "one more vote against the Republicans and it all gets better" people. To be precise, both side suck.

    There's not one member of the cast of clowns on either side that's presidential timber, only wannabes. There's not a Regan on our side, nor a Truman on yours. So let's do something that'll fix it all: term limits. No more than 20 years in any elected post, ever. It will simplify it all. Robert Byrd is about to celebrate his 59th year in Congress; the founding fathers didn't see it as a life, just a short term-or-two and go back to the man's original business.

    But now the business is being run by people who *only* know the law and how to get elected...which is why Hippa, SBO, The Patriot Act, and just about every other piece of legislation is pure Vertigo. They'll do whatever it takes to get re-elected, even if that means giving technical assistance to the other superpowers. Why should Hillary dictate hospital business? She's never been a nurse. At least Bush was a small part of the energy business when he wrote the energy policy, but that's not much help.

    So push term limits; get the whole elected class out on the streets, and let's await the firy return of the space station.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  71. Explore? by szundi · · Score: 1

    Scrap it, and let's go explore our solar system with humans. This station is just wasting money.

  72. You mean "No dinero" by Titoxd · · Score: 1

    For the people who may actually care: It is "no dinero", not "no denero", by the way. "Denero" doesn't mean anything in Spanish.
    ~~~~

  73. The ISS was needed by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    America has learned a great deal about putting up structures. In particular, Russia knew a lot about it, and we had very little practical knowledge. Now, we are not just aware of the costs, but how to hold them down. Would we build another space station like this? I seriously doubt it. I am guessing that we will see lots of robotics come into play when we go to the moon and mars. The arms were good ideas, but we still need a better way to work on things in space. Two items that we screwed up here, is that we should have had node 2 (as opposed to node 3) handle the life env. Node3 is expected to have the O2 generator and the carbon scrubber (though we did move the O2 generator to Node2). These systems need to be tested and make sure that they will work with out issues. Keep in mind, that you can not simulate the env 100% on earth.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  74. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    George Bush claims he's fiscally responsible! LOL!

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
  75. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by sauron_of_mordor · · Score: 1

    Someone just gave me 100 bucks to confirm that this is definitely the case....

  76. IIS same price as first 3 months of Iraq war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was watching to the news in June 2003, and listening to the commentator it hit me.
    The first 3 months in Iraq cost the same thing as the entire IIS program.

    Not trolling and I don't want to start political flaming (I was all for the war but for entirely other reasons than WMD BS), but it made me really sad and think about priorities in Western Societies.

  77. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    We don't have reporters who report something bad about the government disappear. There is still a lot of protest about how bad our government is and people can say they dislike (name any government official) without fear that the police will go and take them away on that topic. I am not saying American Government is Clean and they find ways around the law. But compared to Russia Americans are saints.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  78. Re:Wasteful Government Republicans by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Quantify is putting number on things but the process of putting number on things is reasonable and the realization that it could be put number on it to accuracy assets its value.
    Mathify (My own made up word to express this situation) is putting values to things that really cant be represented in numbers, values of national pride, feeling of progress as a race, possible new discoveries that can inherence our lives. We just put a silly number on these and make policy based on the random number we give to it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  79. FUCK YOU MOD! AND YOU TOO AC! AGAIN! by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    Lick my nutsack you fucking loser, I love watching you waste modpoints on me.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.