Slashdot Mirror
Panel Advises Longer Life For Space Station
suraj.sun writes "A presidential panel reviewing the US space program has found that the United States needs to boost NASA's budget by $1.5 billion to fly the last seven shuttle missions and should extend International Space Station operations through 2020. The panel also proposed adding an extra, eighth shuttle flight to help keep the station supplied and narrow an expected 5-7 year gap between the time the shuttle fleet is retired and a new US spaceship is ready to fly."
The Shuttle/ISS subcommittee headed by Dr Sally Ride has presented three options:
1. Do nothing, let the shuttle stop flying at the end of 2010 and let the station be de-orbited at the end of 2016.
2. Fly 1 more mission, and still de-orbit the station at the end of 2016.
3. Extend station operations through to the end of 2020 and fly more shuttle missions to support it.
The options explain how to do it, what funding will be required, and the consequences on other programs.
The President and the new NASA Administrator will take these options and decide which to implement, depending on what funding they can get from Congress.
The committee is not chartered with making any recommendations, and the options are not final until the report is released, around Aug 31.
You can give your opinions to the committee via the website: http://hsf.nasa.gov/
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why no other country had succeeded yet in developing technologies that could mimic what the space shuttle could do in order to supply the "International" Space station after the United States retire the shuttles. (with the exception of Russia)
In reality the United States space programs are still quite advanced than most of the world (even with such old technologies) and yet you guys are neglecting it.
If they're going to decommission a shuttle, why not leave it at the station? It would provide some redundant facilities, extra living space, and most importantly, engines to boost the orbit periodically (one of the main things the shuttles do now besides delivering supplies and new components).
Almost New - In orbit. Space Station. NR
Shipping - no delivery options. Get there yourself.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The ISS is the most amazing laboratory ever built. Vast amounts of awesome science is done on it. Thing is, NASA is so completely inept at communicating this to the public that even space geeks, like myself, have no idea what the hell they do up there.
The ISS program people will occasionally say "I could talk to you all day long about the great science we're doing on the ISS" and THEN THEY DON'T. Maybe if they talked "all day" about it now and then people wouldn't refer to their project as "busy work" for the space program.
But if you don't care about science, maybe you only care about exploration, then I guess you have to go with the argument that the lessons we've learnt about maintaining space systems on the space station will be invaluable for going to Mars.. and we're definitely not ready yet.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Can someone please explain to me why they're spending such vast sums and not taking the necessary steps to insure permanence?
You don't settle something by building tents, you build crude wooden structures, add to them, modernize them, then one day you look around you and its a bustling township.
Space will not become commercially viable until the government funded projects provide permanent way-points.
Imagine building a second ISS nearby, anchoring the two together, and setting them spinning to provide artificial gravity. Then you would have a healthier permanent environment with the capacity to add zero-g modules at the central point for research.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
How about using Russian-made spacecraft to do resupply missions and to ferry people back and forth from the station. The Shuttle fleet is unsafe, every mission becomes closer to failure. And honestly, they are becoming quickly obsolete, they were released what, over 20 years ago? We need a replacement. However, the ISS seems to be doing its job pretty well without any major errors. But really, NASA needs to hurry up to make a new spacecraft fleet, the Space Shuttle relies on a flawed design that seems to only get reviewed after a major disaster (see Challenger and Columbia). Plus, despite how much of it is re-usuable, it is terribly expensive to maintain them compared to other methods of resupply, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
option 4: the US quits participating, and they leave it in orbit and other countries continue to fly to it and to use it, as they currently do.
-- Terry
You do mean former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, right? You know, where it says "CHAIRMAN", it lists his name and everything.
Secondly, they haven't presented any options, yet. The report isn't done. This article pretty clearly states some of the constraints under which they've working, but some Slashdot Editing Magic(TM) has turned the panel's statement that ~"NASA needs a bigger budget and slightly longer timeframe to fly the flights already on schedule now" into what you see at the top of your browser.
Bob Park and the American Physical Society disagree.
Bob Park's testimony before US Senate re: ISS
"It is the view of the American Physical Society that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit."
APS, 20 January 1991
The APS recently reaffirmed its statement, but the ISS, though still unfinished, is now in orbit. The question is, what do we do now?
Well, vast amounts of science, as you say, could possibly be done on it. Thing is, not much of the possible science really started. The substantial delays in construction meant that the crew required to do the science, and many of the modules, didn't arrive until recently. That's why dumping the thing in a few short years is such a crime. $100 Billion, twenty years, and the lives of seven astronauts were given to build the ISS, and NASA wants to dump it to make room in their budget for an unfunded Mars stunt. The very plan is criminal.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I think all the people who's lives have been saved by the medical research done on the ISS would disagree.
You've gotta understand.. every scientist will say that the research of every other scientist is unworthy of being funded, because they want the funding for themselves.
There's vast amounts of work being done on the ISS.. and on the Shuttle for that matter.. but you've gotta dig to find it. Why? Because the media has repeatedly told NASA that it is boring and they don't wanna hear about it.
Science is boring.. yeah.. that's the society we live in.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Couldn't they attach an ion engine and let the solar panel's power keep it in orbit if by chance it becomes unmanned for a while?
Table-ized A.I.
"What" live-saving medical research has been done on the Shuttle or ISS?
From the link above:
"No serious contributions to knowledge of protein structure or to drug discovery or design have yet been made in space." ASCB, July 9, 1998
"The enormous investment in protein crystal growth on the Shuttle and Mir has not led to a single unique scientific result." NRC, 1 March 2000
Don't get me wrong, I am very interested to hear about anything useful going on up there other than the super-cool factor (I am a big fan of NASA TV and watch often), but as you say it's just not being reported. Wait a sec, not being reported anywhere? Nobody's talking? Not even NASA? Not the scientists? Pardon me, but could you help an AC out with a few links? (/. won't let me log in to science.slashdot today for some reason even though the front page is no problem.)
aside: the preview of this post looks like crap. does AC not get any html formatting options? My apologies.
China had been eager to participate in the ISS, but the Bush admin felt it was a military-technology risk to let them. Maybe upon review it's not risky anymore due to time making technology used less sensitive or because the Bush admin was perhaps unnecessarily paranoid. Russia probably sold China all the ISS secrets anyhow.
Table-ized A.I.
That's one of the major problems with the current Constellation / Orion / Aeries I / Aeries V / Moon / Mars plan. Although it's likely to be quite a bit more reliable (e.g. safer) to fly, the Constellation program doesn't do much to increase access to space. Constellation re-uses the Apollo/Shuttle launch infrastructure, with only two launch pads and two (or possibly 3, there is an unfunded plan to build one more) crawlers, and the constraints of the Vertical Assembly Building (with a limited number of assembly bays, one of which is used for storage of rocket parts). This means the flight rate to orbit tops out at something like a dozen or 18 launches a year, maximum. Flight rates for the heavy lift Aeries V are likely to be so low that the vehicle will never achieve a reasonable per-flight cost, because too few vehicles will be built to get the cost of flight hardware down.
NASA has abandoned the goal of building a reliable, cheaper transportation system. They were hot on the trail with the X-33 / VentureStar program. Like nearly all R&D programs, it went over the original budget and behind schedule. However, the program had the right goals, and the right basic plan for getting to them. If NASA had stayed on course, we would have had a replacement for the Shuttle by now. The planned VentureStar production flight vehicles would be flexible enough to sustain the ISS. It would have a capacity high enough (in terms of payload per flight, which was similar to the Shuttle) and flights per year (which could scale with the addition of vehicles, without the constraints of the expensive and limited Apollo-era launch systems). The modernized vehicle design (lifting body airframe, engines with fewer moving parts, substantially more durable thermal protection system, simplified container-paradigm-based payload integration) would yield shorter turn-around of a single vehicle, from days to a couple weeks, compared to a few months to several months for the Shuttle).
Instead, NASA dabbles in scramjets, with a million here and a million there in loose change. Scramjets are a technology with great potential, but even if aggressively funded (which they are not) they won't be ready for a long, long time. A more modest program like the X-33 / VentureStar could get us to higher flight rates with Shuttle-like capacity and reduction in cost of payload delivery which would be substantial enough to stimulate the space economy. We could get to the Moon and Mars a lot cheaper, and go there more often with a rational approach to building a transportation system. (NASA needs to rethink the in-space transfer vehicles, too. VASIMR is a technology within our reach, and if developed as the inter-planetary engine, can dramatically reduce flight times to Mars, from many months to 1 month.)
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I think all the people who's lives have been saved by the medical research done on the ISS would disagree.
Such as?
I don't know how they plan to get this to the ISS, but Ad Astra and NASA agreed to test VASIMR ion engine at ISS. Assuming they can resupply the engine, and the engine parts designed life is sufficient, even this test article could work to keep ISS on station for quite a while. The Russian resupply vehicles (Progress) periodically boost the station, too.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Although a space station as a "construction shack" might be useful for really large projects, the ISS isn't in the right orbit to be used as a way station to anywhere interesting. Smaller projects can be assembled easily in whatever orbit happens to be convenient for the mission. A mobile construction shack with an ion engine and appropriately outfitted for such duty would make more sense and cost less than retooling ISS for this new mission. The real issue is the cost of getting to orbit. It's way too high. If we don't do something to bring the cost down (something realistic like X-33/VentureStar, not over-reaching like NASP et. al.) then we will not see anything other than a series of changing plans, and missions aborted at a succession of funding crises. We might, maybe, see a return to the Moon for a few flights, which would then be terminated prematurely to make room in the budget for a series of flights to Mars, which are then cancelled before flown.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Yes.
No matter how bad anarchy may be, "the rule of law" can be far worse, with the organization to back it up.
This isn't an issue of sunk costs. It's an issue of entirely failing to capitalize upon the investment made, failing to do the science that the ISS was designed to do, the science that the public expected to happen when they funded the construction of the science platform. I merely enumerate the costs to demonstrate the magnitude of the crime that NASA and the Bush administration committed when they suddenly announced, without consulting their international partners, that the ISS would be de-orbited in 2016, far short of its original planned lifespan as a research platform. It was originally intended to be operational for 10 to 20 years, not four or five years, after it was completed.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Actually the program end is in 2015, with the de-orbit in 2016. This end, however, was pulled out of the previous NASA administrator's ass, when they realized the Bush administration wasn't going to come through with promised additional funding for Constellation / Orion / Aeries and flights to the Moon and Mars. NASA cancelled the ISS early, flushing the potential science down the toilet in anticipation of reallocating the projected funding to the Moon and Mars flights. They seriously annoyed their international partners (Japan, Europe, Russia) in the process. Don't let them fool you. I'm all in favor of expanded manned exploration, but I want it done right. Get the science we paid for out of the ISS. Build a launch system to reduce the cost of payload delivery to orbit, so that we can return to the Moon, and explore Mars and beyond with regular, sustained flight rates, not a political stunt once every fifty years or so.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Also don't forget, the ISS *is* the main experiment. Going to Mars or building a real permanent station are orders of magnitude harder than going to the moon, and we need this experience in everything from design and material choices to international collaboration. Every time something breaks in the station, it's not a failure - it's value, because we sure as hell don't want the same thing breaking on a trip to Mars.
Near the end of 2008, Ad Astra and NASA signed an agreement to build a 200kw flight article and test it at ISS.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
If you don't know what the hell they do up there, how do you know "vast amounts of awesome science" is done in it? I have yet to hear of one little tiny bit of actual science (awesome or not) they've done that couldn't have been done in a much cheaper way.
the incremental cost for a shuttle launch is ~$60M.
NASA says the cost per shuttle launch is $450 million.
No one is going to Mars. We have such massive problems on this planet, that our not solving these problems will get us in trouble soon. And no Mars program of any nation will survive these crises. India will not be able to do it, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, and USA have to decide if they are willing to get their primary energy system shifted from fossil energy and nuclear energy to renewable energy sources, also they have to look into world feeding, reacting to climate change etc. They are not doing anything right now so the problems grow. And yes most parts of these problems are not technical issues, nevertheless they are complicated and will eat up any resources for nice extra tours like ISS or Mars. Don't get me wrong I like space programs, but honestly they are the most expendable project in any budget beside new military hardware. Oh wait the US will not but that many Raptors and the EU will not by that many A400M, Eurofighters etc.
To be fair, your quotations are a decade old, and the second one doesn't even mention ISS.
I'm not claiming to know anything to the contrary, but 10-year-old sound bites are not exactly strong evidence.
For those interested, the third and final meeting will be broadcast Thursday, running from 8am - 4pm EDT:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/NASA-TV-HD
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=14237
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23nasahsf
I think the Thursday meeting will be the most interesting one, as it'll include the presentations from the "Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit" subgroup. Some options the subgroup is studying include not just the "Moon Base" plan, but also plans for going directly to Mars ASAP, as well as a "Flexible path" option which would involve manned trips to destinations in shallow gravity wells, like L1, asteroids and Phobos.
The videos from the Tuesday and Wednesday meetings aren't available yet, but you can find out much of what's been discussed already at the following links:
HSF Committee Public Meeting in Alabama - Reviews
HSF Committee Public Meeting in Houston - Reviews
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17962.0
The ISS is the most amazing laboratory ever built. Vast amounts of awesome science is done on it. Thing is, NASA is so completely inept at communicating this to the public that even space geeks, like myself, have no idea what the hell they do up there.
Your post got me wondering.. I had no idea either. A little google search gave me this interesting list.
"wahts woring iwth my tyoping?"
Apologies for commenting on my own post. Just a random pick from the list, an experiment done back in the day, Zeolite Crystal Growth (ZCG).
Some exerpts:
Zeolites, which are mineral crystals of aluminosilicates, have a rigid crystalline structure with a network of interconnected tunnels and cages that is similar to a honeycomb. A sort of mineral sponge, zeolites have the ability to absorb and release liquids and gases such as petroleum or hydrogen while remaining as hard as rock.
...
Results from the samples mixed on ISS suggest that the Lewis acid catalytic sites are altered in microgravity, as indicated by lower catalytic activity in the MPV probe reaction compared to Earth-grown zeolite. This further suggests that the control of fluid dynamics during crystallization may be important in making better industrial catalysts. Although space-grown zeolites had the same particle morphology and identical surface framework as zeolites grown on Earth, the average zeolite size of the space-grown crystals was 10% larger than crystals grown on Earth (Akata et al. 2004).
Larger zeolite crystals allow researchers to better define the structure and understand how they work, with a goal of producing improved crystals on Earth. Improved zeolites may have applications in storing hydrogen fuel, reduction of hazardous byproducts from chemical processing, and more efficient techniques for petroleum processing.
So just tacking a random pick of the huge experiment list, something called ZCG, I found that there are substantial results. These people just need to get the public interested with this stuff by communicating it more efficiently. "The science we do might lower gas prices and also contribute to hydrogen car research".
"wahts woring iwth my tyoping?"
And just as importantly, what experiments have been done up there that were not possible with robotics.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Less money means less political power, so you aren't going to find any existing manager, sr manager or chief scientist in NASA that will have the political will to design something that costs 50% less. That means fewer people reporting to them. Fewer people means fewer depends and less internal political power.
Congress is worse. In congress, you become more powerful when more people, not less, are dependent on a government program for a paycheck.
Only canceling NASA will reset everything, sadly.
funny, slashdot just gave me the following quote:
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
duh!
It's not their (well, most of it) money!
My view is that we shouldn't consider serious extensions to the ISS's lifespan until we see a demonstration of the value of the ISS. Currently, the prime value of the ISS is as a demonstration of orbital construction techniques. The building process will end some time in 2011 or 2012. Past that, we really only have two uses for the station, scientific research on phenomena in zero gravity and a testbed for space technologies. My view is that NASA needs to enlist some serious participation from private industry to justify either of those two. My view is that private industry would be somewhat more likely to find useful applications for space manufacture (and similar industries) than NASA is.
Moving on, I view the proposal to extent Shuttle launches with some concern. The Shuttle has long been an expensive boondoggle with little benefit for space development or exploration. They aren't proposing to extend the Shuttle's life indefinitely, which is a good win. But if this is the start of many years of extended use of the Shuttle, which could only be rationalized to service the ISS, then it's a heavy weight against continuing to use the ISS. To be blunt, if the price of maintaining the ISS means that the Shuttle continues to fly indefinitely, then by any safe means, deorbit the ISS. The Shuttle is a series of very bad decisions that has by itself greatly delayed manned space exploration. To continue this vehicle at the expense of the US's future in space (the ISS simply doesn't contribute as much as the Shuttle would impair) would be a disaster typical of NASA of the past.
Ok I know the shuttle is getting old and all, but why do they keep insisting that 2010 be the cut off for using it? Is there a sound engineering reason not to keep flying it until Constellation is ready? And what is so magical about 2010?
Seriously, when I was a kid all the books said by the year 2000 we'd all be flying around in jet packs and be living on the moon.
It'd be nice if ISS wasn't the only space station out there, maybe we could set up a trailer park on the moon?
For the price of the ISS, you could do 1000 times as many unmanned experiment. WMAP, COBE, GALEX, CHANDRA, Planck, .... (really the list is quite long) all of which have produced real advances (WMAP & COBE revolutionized cosmology) at a fraction of the cost of manned space missions.
Humans are frail (and they complain a lot). Robots work for 24 hours a day everyday without healthcare or a pension. I think the choice is pretty clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_satellite
You dropped a word from the phrase you were replying to; "cost" and "incremental cost" are not the same thing.
Example: the cost to produce 10,000,000 DVDs might be $10 per DVD, because the blockbuster movie cost $100,000,000 to make. But once the movie is made you don't have to make 10% more movie to make 10% more DVDs, you just have to print more disks; the incremental cost would be less than $1 per DVD.
With the shuttle things are even more complicated. Do you want the total cost per flight; the amount of money spent on the whole program divided by the number of flights? That's well over $1 billion per launch. What about the operating cost per flight? If the R&D is considered "sunk cost" and you just consider the current budget per flight, that varies widely from year to year depending on how many flights are made, and NASA's $450 million might come from one of those calculations. And the incremental cost is less still. If you cancel a shuttle flight and only fly 3 in a year when you'd planned 4, you save a bit of fuel costs, some operations costs, you don't have to manufacture another external tank... but you don't get to put all your employees on leave for 3 months, you don't get to mothball your facilities for 3 months, and so you don't save nearly as much as you might hope. I thought even the incremental cost was over $100 million per flight, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was $60 million.
You have it backwards, the ISS is a pressurized environment in a near vacuum. If anything it would blow. ;)
I say it's time to move on. We have to pivot off the ISS and onto the moon and mars because, as they point out in TFA, our resources are limited. ISS is awesome and we learned a lot and yes there's more to learn there, but all of that and more await us on Mars.
I also say we should strap some remote-controlled ion thrusters to the ISS and push it over to the moon where it can orbit indefinitely. That would be so cool.
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
We need a space station that can be used for construction, even if it is only rudimentary, so we can start building the infrastructure necessary to use space travel for more than photo ops.
So you want to build a construction station that is capable of building more infrastructure. What do you mean by this? Is it going to build spaceships or more space stations that can build even more space stations? Do you know what you are talking about?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Do not even try to explain it.
The reason we try to gain high amounts of karma is so that we can blow it on "risky" replies that make us feel better even though they will be modded to hell.
Table-ized A.I.
The reason we try to gain high amounts of karma is so that we can blow it on "risky" replies that make us feel better even though they will be modded to hell.
that's why I added that line....when you point out that you will take a karma hit before making a comment, you get modded up.
I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but this is one /. meme I plan on riding as far as I can.
-I only code in BASIC.-
"2. The US put it up, they're legally required to bring it down."
What's the time limit on that?
I.e.: when will the US be bringing the Viking landers and Mariner and Voyager probes, which the US put up, back down in order to meet their legal requirements to bring down what they put up?
-- Terry
Constant small thrust could push it up
For example, if the Russians threw up a Topaz-2 reactor and a couple spools of copper wire, and unspooled them toward the Earth to cross the Earths magnetic field lines, by pumping energy down the wire they could raise the orbit no problem. We considered a couple spools of copper wire as a means of powering space stations, at the cost of increasing orbital drag, but you could easily run the generator in reverse as a motor, so long as you had enough power to overcome atmospheric drag.
See also http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf82.html.
-- Terry
And just as importantly, what experiments have been done up there that were not possible with robotics.
A fair bit more than you realize. The main advantage of having a human researcher is that you can improvise an experiment and make changes on the spot that you can't do with a robotic mission. The iteration of the research cycle can be done in days or even minutes if you have a human researcher, where as with a robotic device each cycle will take years or decades from when you get results to sending up another package to test a new hypothesis.
This isn't to say that robotic exploration of space is moot and shouldn't be done (on the contrary) but that a complete and total dismissal of manned spaceflight is equally as illogical. Both have value, and getting people into space has more value in and of itself as well.
The point of the grandparent post was that such scientific research.... which has happened and has appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals of various fields... is usually discussed in narrow terms and regarding specific discoveries and not trumpeted in mainstream media outlets.
While I'm not as familiar with the ISS research as with previous manned spaceflight knowledge, there certainly has been value with manned exploration to make these critical decisions. Explicitly the research conducted by Harrison Schmidt during the Apollo 17 mission engaged in more discoveries about the Moon in particular and the Solar System in general than all of the robotic missions either there or to the rest of the planets of the Solar System combined. Yeah, that is a tall order, but if you read the scientific literature that came from that mission and the value of having a trained geologist performing a field survey in person and using his own eyes to make the determination of what samples to select.... it made a huge difference compared to the haphazard method of sending a probe there and having blind luck to find useful samples. And that is for going through the expense of getting somebody on the surface of the Moon.
Part of the problem with the ISS is that essential parts like the Trans-Hab module (built but not flown or schedule to fly up there) that would have provided the necessary living space for additional researchers got cut out at the last moment. In theory up to a dozen people could be on the ISS, but at the moment only 3 can live on it for long periods of time, and only two can be there with only Progress resupply modules. It also takes at least two and usually three people just to maintain the equipment. The lab modules were sent up, but there isn't a place to put the researchers that would be required to fine-tune and operate the equipment in a manner that would take advantage of a human researcher.... hence the favorable comparison of research done by robotic devices. That is an unjustified viewpoint, although it is a shortfall of this particular design for the station that was designed for political and not scientific purposes.
I think that instead of a ridiculously expensive one-off tin can that could produce "awesomely amazingly awesome" science, we should be looking toward, I don't know, the future? Perhaps making bigger and better labs in space. Perhaps building factories that could manufacture things in zero-G. Everyone is saying, "Hey! Lets build a station on the moon!" without even thinking of making it sustainable.
The days of the tin can should have died with the Mir. The "Isn't it cool we're here?" days ended in the 70s and no ISS, moon base, or suicide mission to Mars will bring them back. It is time for NASA to mature and start looking at space travel as more than a scientist's playground.
dig\ it.
Science is boring.. yeah.. that's the society we live in.
Here's an idea to make it more appealing for the majority:
A new reality show - last ones on the station. Get 6 couples, and put them on it. Then over the length of the show, send a different couple out the airlock every other episode.
This has the advantage of satisfying everyone's prurient interest in sex in space, and of course there could be a love triangle in which just one member of a couple meets the vacuum. In the final week, only one couple is left, but in the true tradition of scripted non-scripted reality, the station is de-orbited.
Then the deniers can have a "We never had a space station" hoax.
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?