Russian Firm Plans Commercial Space Station

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Firm Plans Commercial Space Station

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday September 30, 2010 @06:12AM from the love-to-visit-someday dept.

astroengine writes "Buoyed by plans for commercial space taxis, a Russian company plans to build and launch a privately owned outpost in orbit for tourists, scientists and other paying visitors. RSC Energia, which designed and built the Russian modules of the International Space Station, is partnering with Russian commercial space startup Orbital Technologies to manufacture the new hub, currently known as Commercial Space Station."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:14 · Score: 0

I already have a CSS
1. Re:No thanks by u17 · 2010-09-30 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's a trick, what the C really stands for is CCCP!
2. Re:No thanks by Simonetta · 2010-09-30 12:05 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Take a ride on Air Chernobil or Aeroflot to outer space?
  No thanks.
  Russians are good at three things:
  1) making cheap vodka.
  2) dragging the local Jews out behind the outhouse and beating them to death in the snow.
  3) crushing the hopes of world domination of any fool who invades their country at the beginning of the winter.
  Advanced 21st technology and providing a warm holiday experience for foreigners is not on that list.
  So go ahead. Mod me down to -2 hell for being a "troll, racist, etc...".
  It doesn't change the truth.
3. Re:No thanks by Jade_Wayfarer · 2010-09-30 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and here in Russia there are many people who do believe in some "unchangeable truths" too - like one that "all Americans are fat, dumb, loud, constantly suing each other and give firearms to their children for free, so they can go in school and shoot everybody there". My American (and Canadian, German, Swiss, etc.) friends are always laughing with me, when I share such "truths" with them. But I don't think that it would be amusing if I'd refused to use some American technology because "they still use to hang black people on the trees, or burn them alive on Sundays". A little too old-fashioned humor, to my taste.
  By the way, about warm holiday experience - there is still much more sanity in our airport security rules, as in other policies considering foreign visitors. Although weather right now is not all warm and sunny, that's true.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
There are no laws... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

against prostitution in space.
Oh yeah, Zero-G Porn!
1. Re:There are no laws... by oldspewey · 2010-09-30 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Money shots will present a much greater hazard to the film crew.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
2. Re:There are no laws... by geekmux · 2010-09-30 06:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  against prostitution in space.
  Oh yeah, Zero-G Porn!
  "...ah yes kids, much like the drive for Internet at broadband speeds, the primary driver behind the Commercialization of Space was indeed zero-gravity porn. And thus, Zero-G-oo Productions shot out of nowhere and covered the industry like a blanket of white....snow."
3. Re:There are no laws... by mcgrew · 2010-09-30 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Zero G porn? I don't want to watch some other guy banging her in zero G, I want to bang her in zero G myself!!
  Now get off my lawn, kid. Sheesh.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
4. Re:There are no laws... by ratnerstar · 2010-09-30 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's no moon!
  
  --
  Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
5. Re:There are no laws... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 07:10 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  To the moon, Alice!!
6. Re:There are no laws... by Cwix · 2010-09-30 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your user name is strangely relevant to your post.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
7. Re:There are no laws... by ghostoftiber · 2010-09-30 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  In space, no-one can hear you scream (either in horror or pleasure).
8. Re:There are no laws... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Even if there was, there's no cops!! Can you say........SPACE WEED!!!
9. Re:There are no laws... by loufoque · 2010-09-30 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Are you implying that there are some on the ground?
Will Virgin Galactic see this as a challenge? by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · 2010-09-30 06:14 · Score: 1

Or will the Russians have the first Spaceport in SPAAAAACE?
1. Re:Will Virgin Galactic see this as a challenge? by jgagnon · 2010-09-30 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'd bring a pig with me, but Jim Henson was way ahead of me.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
2. Re:Will Virgin Galactic see this as a challenge? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  if you have every travelled on one of Branson's trains, you will know to never, ever travel in space with this cowboy. Scenario: jam-packed train, toilets blocked to overflowing, stench permeating whole train - and you are only half way to your destination.
Tessier-Ashpool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's beginning.
At least someone is moving forward by syntap · 2010-09-30 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am glad some portion of the Earth population wants to try moving into space commercially. Tourism will be where the money is so it is a good way to start. Eventually the tourists will want to move to the moon and beyond.
1. Re:At least someone is moving forward by jgagnon · 2010-09-30 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's hilarious because not that long ago deep sea exploration was impractical and before that even flights through the air were impractical. Just because something is "utterly delusional, impractical, unrealistic, ignorant" now doesn't mean it will always be that way, unless your mind chooses to make it so.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
2. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  True, but how many people actually go on deep sea exploration, fly their own airplanes, etc (relative to the general populous)...without it being their job or being funded by some large agency that is ultimately underwritten by some tax base somewhere or some mega wealthy philanthropist? At this current juncture, how to does commercializing space benefit mankind? I'm not sure myself, maybe it's good, maybe it's bad. It's easy to talk big and think big, especially wrt space, but I think this is a lot "bigger" than most people realize....
  While we're busy launching a select few into the upper exosphere and beyond, some of us think that maybe we should focus such creative energy to supporting the 'least of these' as well.
3. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Do you really think that it will always be so expensive? Things progress. Right now the idea for this space station is crazy. The amount of money that would need to be spent on it is astronomical. However, that may not always be the case as better rockets are developed and newer technologies emerge. I suppose for that to happen, sometimes it takes the right guys to make the right push in the right direction. Is this company made up of those right guys? I don't know, but it's at least encouraging to see people making the push, even if it isn't really feasible in the present.
4. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's not how many people do it, it's how many people benefit from it.
  In the case of airplanes, flying your own is far less relevant than the cargo transported on them.
5. Re:At least someone is moving forward by amicusNYCL · 2010-09-30 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Space hasn't changed, it's still empty
  Huh. Space is a static empty void. That's news to me.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
6. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Just because something is "utterly delusional, impractical, unrealistic, ignorant" now doesn't mean it will always be that way, unless your mind chooses to make it so.
  I mean surely you've gotten laid by now... surely...
7. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Teancum · 2010-09-30 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I could ask how does the ability to fly in general benefit mankind? Answer that, and you have a similar answer for spaceflight.
  BTW, commercial spaceflight isn't a theory or something in the far off distant future. It is happening right now and in fact you wouldn't be reading these words at the moment if spaceflight never happened. Think about that and then tell me why you aren't trolling at the moment. Yes, I realize that IP packets typically don't go into space, but computer technology wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now if it wasn't for trying to get into space.
  By far and away the people of the Earth are living healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives because of spaceflight and in particular commercial spaceflight (as opposed to government sponsored spaceflight) than if it never existed. I can give examples but it isn't worth my time.
8. Re:At least someone is moving forward by fiannaFailMan · 2010-09-30 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah, the old "stop exploring space and spend the money on social programs instead" argument. Odd how it only gets applied to space exploration but never the much bigger military budget.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
9. Re:At least someone is moving forward by khallow · 2010-09-30 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  At this current juncture, how to does commercializing space benefit mankind?
  It's already been profound. For example, we now have the ability to instantaneously communicate from almost anywhere in the world. For example, I used a DirectInternet link back in 2003 while I was roughly 75 miles away from anywhere that had internet. While most satellite applications (outside of telecommunications and recently Earth imaging) are publicly funded, they also are mostly developed by commercial space businesses. So that means a lot of things like nuclear weapon and rocket launch detection, weather prediction, agricultural forecasts, etc have been possible due to commercial contribution.
  
  While we're busy launching a select few into the upper exosphere and beyond, some of us think that maybe we should focus such creative energy to supporting the 'least of these' as well.
  Too bad that we're unable to do more than one beneficial thing at a time. I guess we'll have to feed the children first. Then maybe fix the roads once that's done. Fix the environment next? Sure, sounds good. Maybe a few millennia from now, we'll be far enough down the list to do manned space flight. Assuming that the old problems haven't come back by then.
10. Re:At least someone is moving forward by khallow · 2010-09-30 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to my Space Nutter list.
  Can't even bother to post this troll under your real account? That's pretty weak.
11. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  well, if we shoot enough people those social programs wouldn't be needed...
12. Re:At least someone is moving forward by djdanlib · 2010-09-30 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, if you define 'space' as where things aren't, then most of the universe is space... except for things like stars, planets, etc etc. Kind of like saying "there's no dirt in that hole I just dug" right? ;)
  I know, it's silly.
13. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  1) How many tourists go deep sea exploring? Answer: None. Score 1-0 me.
  2) Flight was impractical before we found OIL and chemical energy. We haven't found a new energy source since then. You also have no new engines, space is still as far away as ever, and still as empty. No tourists, either. Score: 2-0 me.
  3) What my mind chooses has no bearing on physical reality. This is what you utter freaks need to get through your thick deluded skulls. None of your pitiful examples took 50 years to stagnate. There was commercial air flight within a decade of the Wright Brother's flight. And that's with early XXth century technology. There's still not a single practical, real, useful space vehicle for your delusions. *There never will be*. Humans are not meant for space, and the final nail in the coffin: NO ONE CARES.
  4) Space is immensely, mind-bogglingly HUGE. Our lifespan is simply not suited to space, yet every single one of you nutcases is against life extension research because we don't have the resources or it's not natural. We do have the resources to burn massive amounts of energy for no benefit and rockets and life-support systems are natural, it seems.
  You are confusing romantic emotional dreams with reality. My mind chooses reality, yours doesn't. And it doesn't matter, you'll be dead in 50 years. I'm trying not be. Wouldn't it suck for you anti life-extension nuts to die one day before a breakthrough in cheap, safe and practical fusion energy to help your favorite delusion become practical?
14. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Chris+Burke · 2010-09-30 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that the old problems haven't come back by then.
  Well never get past step one. The children need to be fed almost every day!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
15. Re:At least someone is moving forward by DougF · 2010-09-30 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  1) Heck, you can BUY your own submarine, if you want.
  
  2) Remember balloons and other lighter than air vehicles? They were not dependent on oil, and yes some were practical and would still be, if oil hadn't been discovered.
  
  3) I care, in fact, lots of people care. Going to space is much harder than flying or sailing, yet it took us thousands of years to develop proper ships, thousands more to develop lighter and then heavier than air vehicles, but because we didn't conquer space in 50 years we have to give it up? No, I don't think so. There's still plenty of time to conquer space.
  
  4) They said the same thing about oceans...too big to cross, only insane people think they can sail across one, too many monsters awaiting fragile ships, yadda, yadda. Been there, done that, next argument? Millions have died on the oceans (and people continue to die on them every year), yet here we are, still cruising about with boatloads of tourists, shipping tens of thousands of containers on cargo ships, moving oil and natural gas about the world, on those big ol' empty oceans...
  
  5) Not sure what your worries about death and life extension have to do with commercial space travel, but if you're that afraid of dying, a) I have bad news: so far, despite numerous attempts and lots of money/power/influence, no one has escaped death, not even Christ; b)I have good news: You can have everlasting life, if you're willing to accept Christ as your lord and savior.
  
  --
  Impetuous! Homeric!
16. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  I seem to remember a study done a while back where people were asked to guess how much budget the Pentagon and NASA had. Most people actually thought is was about the same. Unbelievable. Here are the real numbers for 2009:
  Pentagon: $685 Billion
  NASA: $19 Billion
17. Re:At least someone is moving forward by bobcat7677 · 2010-09-30 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Social programs just cause the population to become stagnant, unproductive and boring. Space programs encourage new technologies, new industries, promote productivity, and can be quite interesting. The "social programs spending" arguement is bunk.
18. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Idiomatick · 2010-09-30 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the atoms in your body are space.
19. Re:At least someone is moving forward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the old "stop exploring space and spend the money on social programs instead" argument. Odd how it only gets applied to space exploration but never the much bigger military budget.
  Odd how a lot of the same people who benefit from big military budgets also benefit from big space budgets. I never said increase funding for social programs either, but rather be just as innovative in social areas, which are areas where we don't innovate nearly as often as we do the technology that furthers space exploration. That's not to knock space exploration or even say it needs to be slowed down...it's already pretty slow now.
20. Re:At least someone is moving forward by zeropointburn · 2010-09-30 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget to remind them that money spent on space isn't just stacks of hundreds that get burnt up in orbit, never to be seen again. The money gets spent on payroll, services, materials, facilities, research. Once it has been spent on space flight, the recipients go on and pay taxes with it, then spend most of the rest. The people taking their income from said spaceflight-paid people do the same, and so on. This money does not simply disappear.
  Of course, that is true of anything on which we spend money but it's a good way to shake someone up if they didn't already know about circulation (ie. most people). In the case of space, the money hits the economy at the level of high-tech or precision companies, research groups, and so on. These are all production capacities that are wasting away in the U.S. and I see people here almost every day pointing that out.
  Spending a buck on space is spending a buck on America. *
  *provided you live here anyway, and yes I used the evil America instead of U.S.A. Sorry Mexico, Canada and South America, nothing personal.
  
  --
  -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
21. Re:At least someone is moving forward by darthdavid · 2010-09-30 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  (as opposed to government sponsored spaceflight)
  That's just patently untrue. I'm not knocking commercial space flight, I think it's pretty important myself. But you have to acknowledge who actually invented most of the technology, who did the risky, pioneering work before anyone else could afford to, who laid down the groundwork. The fact of the matter is that, while commercial interests may ultimately bring the benefits of space to the masses, it was and will probably continue to be the government that kicked down the door and made it all possible.
22. Re:At least someone is moving forward by darthdavid · 2010-09-30 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you wait a week or so that problem goes away. A little less if you cut off the water too...
23. Re:At least someone is moving forward by darthdavid · 2010-09-30 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely divided on this. On the one hand I agree with you up to #4. On the other hand, sarcasm can be hard to detect on the interwebs but the transhumanist and the atheist in me are both pretty sure they want to start flaming you over #5. :/
24. Re:At least someone is moving forward by RealGrouchy · 2010-09-30 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Odd how it only gets applied to space exploration but never the much bigger military budget.
  Odd how this has been repeated so many times, yet somehow it has still "never" been said.
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
25. Re:At least someone is moving forward by AGMW · 2010-09-30 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  3) ... There's still plenty of time to conquer space
  Sadly I baulked at No3. There are those who suggest that the opportunity window is somewhat smaller that suggested by the GP.
  The problem is available funds: Picture, if you will, the World in 1000 years time. The (human) population has continued to grow unabated (because numpties get all bent out of shape when people suggest we should be talking about Population Control - they think we are advocating euthanasia or something! Sheeez, we just think we should be talking about it!) and it takes all the World's money to feed the people.
  So, the World is now running out of space (to grow food, amongst other things) and we look wistfully skywards towards the untapped potential of other worlds but can no longer afford to explore them without making the decision to stop feeding some of the people, and as everyone knows, that can be a real downer to the voters and you probably won't get (re-)elected!
  So, all you clever people out there, what's the best guess on when the GWP (Gross World Product) will be only just sufficient to feed everyone? If we're not off this rock by then it will become very difficult, politically, to find the will to start exploring! If we at least start now we're ahead of the game and hopefully we can already have at least some off-world colony(ies) to play with before we start getting hungry!
  ... and, lest we forget, religion seems to be doing its best to make this problem worse rather than better (though I guess it could be argued that assisting the spread of AIDS is maybe their idea of the long game)!
  
  --
  Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
  handmadehands.co.uk
26. Re:At least someone is moving forward by mr_mischief · 2010-10-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, for one, not all Catholics are perfect Catholics who do everything according to the papal dogma. He's celibate, so not having kids is easy for him. For another, I think you'll find many religions, including the Catholic church in the past, have done more than their share to lower certain populations rather quickly and drastically, although spending a great amount of wealth and natural resources to do so. Ever heard of the Crusades? Ever heard of the Papal wars among European monarchies, in which the Church would offer land and money for one king to attack another king at the expense mostly of the people? The inquisitions you've heard of perhaps, at least of the Spanish Inquisition?
  Also, with no Spanish Inquisition Columbus wouldn't have had his Spanish funds to discover the West Indies. They seldom mention in public schools that the public hero Christopher Columbus was backed by the very same king and queen of Spain who initiated a general inquisition to rid their country of Moorish and Islamic influence, and whose coffers became rich with the money of devout Jews and Muslims who would not convert. It's a good thing for those who love the Western hemisphere that all those people were killed and their money taken, huh? They lowered the population and funded the exploitation and murder of hundreds of thousands more in the "New World", although I'm pretty sure the Incas, Aztecs, and Zunis just called the "New World" something more like "home".
  There are only five ways to force population control on people. One is to enslave or incarcerate them so you have control of their bodies. Another is to starve them. A third is to murder them outright. A fourth one is to assault them and forcibly sterilize them. A fifth is to initiate wars so that the populations are killed off generally. Hail Malthus, huh?
  Why don't we instead try what generally works best for motivating people: self-interest? It's pretty clear that outside of agrarian societies fewer children born later in life tend to make you wealthier. Most of the developed countries have very slow population growth, even those with majority Catholic populations. Countries that have massive population growth tend to be ones in which the people are poor, not well educated, and largely agrarian. The answer to population growth isn't force. It's ending poverty. I know it is counterintuitive, but poor people the last several decades multiply faster than middle class or wealthy people. So share some of that global wealth in the form of moderate development and immoderate education, and maybe we'll find a way out of the mess without forcing it on people.
  But then, you weren't really serious about talking about mankind as a whole, were you? You said "before we start getting hungry", which I can assure you much of the world is already.
27. Re:At least someone is moving forward by IrquiM · 2010-10-03 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Got to start shooting the right people first then!
  
  --
  This is blinging
What I'd like to see by oldspewey · 2010-09-30 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'd like to see a graph showing the total volume of pressurized, human-habitable "tin can" in orbit over time ... because I bet that graph is about to go hockey stick over the next few decades.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
1. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-09-30 06:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  tin can is mostly space. easy to launch. can even pack them inside each other. very efficient.
  human being is bag of water. effing heavy and inefficient to launch. and need other effing heavy but otherwise pointless systems to get them there safe. plus several replacement weights in food to keep them there. bloody expensive.
  send up a few humans to take pictures, show them in IMAX to the rest of us down here, and i'm good.
  beyond that, it's a game of how much would you pay to make the other country look stupid, plus how much science can we get out of it with the few people we can afford to send on the public science nickel, plus how much would you pay to be kinda special and have something to brag about, plus how rich and gullible are you.
2. Re:What I'd like to see by Nyeerrmm · 2010-09-30 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're missing the point. The most important thing we can do in space is to live there. Slowly but surely we need to learn how to live away from and independent of the Earth.
  At least thats what those of us who fight to do these things think. Its not about nationalism or even science -- you may disagree, but then you're making the wrong argument.
3. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-09-30 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just being realistic.
  
  learn how to live away from and independent of the Earth
  We evolved here. Here is where we function optimally. To function even close to optimally anywhere else, we need somewhere that is nearly like here. Where we can interact with the environment as we do here. Take our food, water, air, and shelter from it and give our waste and growth to it. The similarity we need is very, very, rare, to the point we haven't found anything even close, yet, and still consider living on planets that are no better than empty space.
  But to live in empty space we need to create an Earth-similar environment in a tin can. And make it work through all succeeding generations of us. Hard to do. The march of entropy says that closed systems are dead ends (which is of course the ultimate source of the notion that we have to find a way off this particular closed system).
  Unless you consider that we all are born, live, and then die. We as individuals are not eternal. Why do we believe that our exponential population growth, or the line of our race, must be eternal? Is it better to fight our eventual extinction and run into it full-speed with great suffering, or to recognize the limitations on our propagation on the planet and manage our population to make ourselves comfortable as the critical resources run out, for our last citizens to live comfortably and die happy, along with the race that prepared their world for them?
  So I'm not sure I'm missing the point. It's just not the only point I'm thining about.
4. Re:What I'd like to see by alien9 · 2010-09-30 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  indeed you're gonna see the skyrocketing count of orbit debris.
5. Re:What I'd like to see by oldspewey · 2010-09-30 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  "pressurized volume" - key distinction
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
6. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-09-30 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Don't let the government throw its money away if you think flying into space is a bad idea. But please just don't tell me I can't spend my own money to do that if that is something I choose to do. People throw money away to do silly things like take a submarine down to the deck of the Titanic in order to hold a wedding. If they want to do something equally silly by flying into space, why are you being such an ass by telling them or myself that I can't do that?
7. Re:What I'd like to see by fiannaFailMan · 2010-09-30 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We evolved here. Here is where we function optimally.
  We evolved in Africa. As the climate changed we decided it might be a good idea to spread out a little and try to adapt to living in a different environment. Result? We're still here after all this time. I'd like to think that we won't spend the rest of our existence with all our eggs in the single basket of Earth. Until we become a space faring race, we're one asteroid away from extinction. The sooner we diversify, the better off we're going to be.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
8. Re:What I'd like to see by Nyeerrmm · 2010-09-30 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Now you're making the right argument. Its not a debate about whether robots and such are better at exploration than humans, which is what your first statement sounded like.
  Since other reasons for manned exploration are not really sustainable, the debate over HSF should be whether or not its a worthwhile and feasible goal to learn to live off world.
9. Re:What I'd like to see by HeckRuler · 2010-09-30 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  In the long term, yes, I'd agree wholeheartedly. It's perhaps the most important thing that humanity will ever do. Maybe even for all life on Earth. But it ain't gonna happen any time soon. You're talking about sustainable, independent, life. You need to create an ecosystem for that. We had problems making that happen ON Earth. So, for this decade, we aren't going to have moon colonies. Hope and dream all you want, it just ain't happening. What we can do is explore space, learn more about the universe, and maybe build a space elevator out of carbon nanotubes.
  
  Learning about space can be done with probes. And until it's cheaper to escape the gravity well, every ounce counts.
10. Re:What I'd like to see by FrozenFOXX · 2010-09-30 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, I think you're still missing what the GP is talking about as it's all-encompassing with respect to your argument.
  
  Yes, it's hard to do. Exactly when has that ever stopped us before? You seriously cannot look five feet from you and not see something that just a thousand years ago (and really short period of time) wasn't completely and totally impossible in every sense of the word. The only constant in our knowledge is that what we know today will someday be replaced by a greater understanding. To quote the oft-quoted line, "Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow."
  
  As far as it being pointless to survive I not-so-humbly disagree. Part of the point OF being mortal is that we are supposed to survive. It's what we do. It's what we've done for centuries, millennium, and will continue to do until past the point where it would seem impossible to continue to (as we have before). We're wired that way and damned proud of it for better or for worse. The birthright of living things is to rage against the all-encompassing void. No creature and especially humans have ever achieved anything of value by sitting around and making ourselves comfortable and waiting for death. If you'd like to be the first I don't think anyone else will mind; we'll be too busy trying to make some sort of a difference for future generations, enjoy our current generation, and honor past generations.
  
  But to summarize, yes, these things are hard. Moving off-world is a seemingly impossible task. But we were born to do impossible things. We have done impossible things. We like doing impossible things.
  
  --
  "Just a fox, a whisper."
11. Re:What I'd like to see by Nyeerrmm · 2010-09-30 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, how can we learn if we don't start sometime? Now seems as good a time as any.
  I'm not saying we'll have independent moon colonies in 20 years. I'll be happy if we do in 200. Science can be done with probes, but the only way to learn how to sustain life in space is to try it.
12. Re:What I'd like to see by david_thornley · 2010-09-30 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Let's start with something easier first: self-sustaining colonies in Antarctica and in the ocean at least 100m down. Both those places are extremely hospitable and accessible, compared to any place in this solar system that's not real close to Earth's crust. If we have problems anywhere on the Earth's surface, the obstacles to space colonization will be insurmountable.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
13. Re:What I'd like to see by Chris+Burke · 2010-09-30 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Until we become a space faring race, we're one asteroid away from extinction. The sooner we diversify, the better off we're going to be.
  Just to be clear, it's going to be a long, long time until the human race could survive without earth, and a major, major impact to make earth less hospitable to life than anywhere else in the known universe. Actually trying to "put eggs in another basket" and create a sustainable off world colony today would be premature and foolhardy.
  On the other hand, the journey of a thousand light years begins with a single space station... or something like that. This space station isn't trying to be a sustainable colony. It's just another toe-dipping venture into space, and an important step on a long, long path.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
14. Re:What I'd like to see by geekoid · 2010-09-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because if they screw up, it impacts all of us.
  While it sound great to commercialize earths orbit with ventures like these, earths orbit is a finite space.
  These days I think it should be be pretty much reserved for science and communications.
  Yes we need to get off this rock, yes I love the idea of consumer space access, but look at how many satellite are there now, and look at all the debris.
  Put something on the Moon. Then if something goes wrong, it's the people that take the risk the get impacted.
  Just because you have money, doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
15. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-09-30 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  That sort of thing implies eugenics to force evolutionary adaptations.
  That's not what we do any more.
  Because now if we do it it's intentional, and considered barbaric. (That's irony, Alanis).
  If we take the "we have to leave" option, then we all have to leave, no matter how unfit and inadaptable we now are.
  Because if we don't, we have a population of left-behinds marooned on a dying planet, going extinct in the painful way and not the intelligent way.
16. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-09-30 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. Well, yes. I agree that robots are much better at exploration than humans.
  Because, honestly, 99.9% of the stuff we want to explore in space isn't accessible to humans at all. I mean, you can't touch an asteroid in its native environment. Might as well send a robot to grab a chunk (or a few nanogranules) and bring it back so we can touch it in ours, and do a whole university's worth of tests on it, instead of what we could stuff into a science-storage bin next to the toilet paper closet of the waste processing node in the habitation wing of the giant robot we have to use to takes us there anyway.
17. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-09-30 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  But we were born to do impossible things.
  Says the fuck who?
  We were born to eat, sleep, shit, get laid, and then die. Preferably downwind.
  The rest of this stuff is just something to do, because in the process of not-dying before we could get laid, we somehow developed more intellectual capacity than we'd ever need just to survive what this planet was throwing at us.
18. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-09-30 09:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Space is big. Really really big. You ought to read Douglas Adams some time to see just how mind bogglingly huge space is and noting that there is a whole universe "out there" to explore that we have only just started looking at.
  If you are worried about satellite debris, you ought to thank the U.S. federal government for much of that (along with the Russians and Chinese). Experiments that deliberately detonated nuclear bombs in space along with crazy schemes to spread flakes of metal in mid-Earth orbit to aid in telecommunications are still up there. Many of the problems in space are self-inflicted by the governments of this world.
  Besides, LEO is the one place where orbital debris is really not a huge problem as well. The exosphere extends up to that altitude where enough air particles do eventually cause the debris to rain back down upon the Earth. It is the mid-level orbits that are the biggest problem as at those altitudes the debris doesn't come down.
  As far as if "they screw it up".... I take it that you don't do much driving. You are by far and away in much more danger going down an interstate highway with 1 ton vehicles driven by teenagers lacking common sense than you are to ever be hit by debris falling from space or even being hit by a rocket made by a rank amateur. Life is dangerous, so live with it. And you want to use this as an excuse for why I can't go into space?
19. Re:What I'd like to see by Lanteran · 2010-09-30 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  we somehow developed more intellectual capacity than we'd ever need just to survive what this planet was throwing at us.
  At least some of us..
  
  --
  "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
20. Re:What I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Is it better to fight our eventual extinction and run into it full-speed with great suffering, or to recognize the limitations on our propagation on the planet and manage our population to make ourselves comfortable as the critical resources run out, for our last citizens to live comfortably and die happy, along with the race that prepared their world for them?
  Evolution doesn't give a damn one way or the other. The tribe that thought as you did - and never left the comfortable valley even when the rains stopped - has ceased to be. We're the survivors of people crazy enough to climb out of the valley and start a settlement a few miles away. The whole planet is our ecological niche, and if we don't fill it, some other organism will fill that niche.
  I hold that entire universe is an ecological niche. Your approach will be valid when, and only when, whatever species colonizes it is forced to confront the heat death of the universe. Evolution doesn't give a damn one way or the other, and I won't be around to see it, but in view of the lack of other alternative candidates, I believe on the basis of the evidence available to me that homo sapiens is the most suitable progenitor of that species.
  Some little green dude shows up on my doorstep, having solved all the problems that ours has yet to solve? Maybe his type of people get the universe. But until that happens, we're it.
21. Re:What I'd like to see by pclminion · 2010-09-30 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the point OF being mortal is that we are supposed to survive. It's what we do
  Actually, the important part of being mortal is that we die. It's incredibly important that we die, or evolution doesn't work. There is no selective pressure. Genetic evolution is random or non-existent. The first form of such life that arose, would simply continue on forever, reproducing and being just as boring in one generation as in the previous. Mortality is absolutely the most important reason we even exist.
22. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-09-30 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure if you can count the Genesis modules produced by Bigelow Aerospace as "habitable volume", but the rest of the numbers are available including the Russian modules. The data with links can be found here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_station#Past_and_present_space_stations
  Such a chart would be interesting to see. I'll have to see what I might be able to come up with.
23. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-09-30 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A robot might be useful, but having a skilled technician on site who doesn't have to deal with time delays as a result of distances and can grab another sample immediately after forming a reasoned hypothesis is something that a robot can't do.
  By no less than the authority of the Mars Rover program himself has suggested that he would take an astronaut over robotics any day. Robots are useful for initial surveys and to head into situations that are dangerous, but having somebody there or at least quite close is going to get you infinitely much better science than trying to do science from an air conditioned office on the Earth and having to strain to figure out what exactly it is that you are seeing or having to deal with equipment that is broken before you even start the investigation.
  I'm not saying that all robotic exploration ought to be halted, but robotic exploration is something that is done in conjunction with people, not something isolated by itself. It is also something that has diminishing returns until you get somebody up there. Dr. Harrison Schmitt did more real science on the Moon during the three days he was up there than most of the science that covered what was on the Moon previously. Arguably he did more there during that time than the rest of the robotic missions to the Solar System combined... except for the fact that there was so much low hanging fruit to be grabbed with robotic probes that some really cool things were discovered in spite of the limitations of robots.
  The only think that stank about Apollo 17 is that Harrison Schmitt wasn't able to do a follow-up investigation based upon what he found. Well that and no other scientist was permitted to go to the Moon.
24. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-09-30 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Going to Antarctica has one huge problem facing it: A armed stalemate between the major powers of the Earth that is only being resolved by pretending that nobody can go there. The reason Antarctica isn't being settled and colonized has nothing to do with technological issues, but entirely because of political issues that could erupt into World War III if serious exploitation and militarization starts to happen there. Keeping it a scientific playground is also something that is better for this planet for multiple reasons. Using this as an excuse is a tired argument and one that really doesn't hold water. If you can show me how I can get clear title to a hunk of Antarctica, I'll take that title and move my family there tomorrow. Seriously!
  I wouldn't mind becoming the oil baron of Antarctica, and there are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars worth of resources there. At the same time the environmental damage caused by extracting those resources may not be worth the effort, but I'd make a pile of money in the process. The technological ability to live there is already proven as there already are permanent outposts in several locations on that continent and even roads that connect those places.
  As for colonizing the ocean floor, from everything I've seen it is by far and away much more complicated living that far down than it is to even go into space.... at least to low-Earth orbit. It isn't nearly as simple as you are suggesting and on top of that the legal issues are just as complex if not more so for underwater real estate. Perhaps somebody could force the issue, but getting rights to hunks of land underwater isn't nearly as easy as you would think. Most property rights end at the shore. Yes, there are mineral leases and other things you can do for temporary access to a spot of seafloor, but not something permanent. You can't build a habitable place if some thug is going to take it away from you tomorrow.
25. Re:What I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Until we become a space faring race, we're one asteroid away from extinction. The sooner we diversify, the better off we're going to be.
  Then again, perhaps the best thing that could happen to the universe in general and the earth in particular is the extinction of mankind...
26. Re:What I'd like to see by baKanale · 2010-10-01 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Why do we believe that [...] the line of our race, must be eternal?
  Any species doesn't care about, and refuses to fight against, extinction deserves to die out and be replaced by one that does.
27. Re:What I'd like to see by mr_mischief · 2010-10-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  If there was a suitable number of humans on the planet that didn't rape resources right and left, the planet would probably sustain human life until an asteroid of sufficient size or the red giant expansion of the sun. Getting a good portion of us off the rock might help in that.
28. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  If that's his attitude, then his robots suck because he failed to specify them properly.
  With a robot, he's got time to make decisions about what things to do with the things the survey discovers.
  With a human, he's got a much shorter window of opportunity.
  And the human won't be making any decisions. Astronauts follow the protocol and the direction of the controllers. They're basically robots made of meat and inefficiency.
  Actually, I didn't need this evidence. I already know that the mars robots suck. They're slow, they're made out of tinfoil, their hands are wobbly shovels, and they can die if they get a little dust on them. Seriously, despite the pretty pictures and a few interesting spectographs, the Mars folks have screwed the pooch.
  But, because it's a robot, they can screw the pooch for years beyond the scheduled end of the mission, more than doubling the planned science results. Can't do that with a human. Got to bring him home for his parade.
  Hell, if you can do without the extra stuff you have to have to get a human there, let him sleep there, feed him there, contain his poop, and get him home, you could send a couple dozen more robots with real hands and burning tools and some serious 4WD.
  The only reason we didn't do that in the 60s: we Earthers have big rockets and huge gonads, but our robotics department was practically nonexistent. It's not like that any more.
29. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution doesn't give a damn one way or the other.
  Who's still evolving?
  Not me.
  I learned how it works, and how to stop it.
  Cave-man had no clue, so it just kept happening to him. And I'm glad it did, because I'm here now to stop it.
30. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  deserves
  There's nobody to make that judgment. The universe certainly doesn't care either way. As evidence, I can use the same judgment in complete opposition to your use of it:
  Any species that chooses to stoke the fire and drive its children into it, instead of controlling how many children it has and how hot the fire burns, to the point that it doesn't burn anyone, deserves to die out and be replaced by nothingness.
31. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with antarctica is that there's no food there.
  It is outer space, for all environmental purposes.
  Go there, then go 100 feet down into the ocean? WTF? Where are you going to put the ten billion acres of wheat?
32. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say you couldn't do it.
  I said it was vain.
33. Re:What I'd like to see by blair1q · 2010-10-01 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. It's big. But there's next to nothing out there.
  Literally. Do the calculations and you find the mass density of the universe to be about a third of a hydrogen atom per cubic meter.
  Most of that is collected into about 10^22 stars in about 10^11 galaxies, but, like us and our nearest-neighbor star, Proxima Centauri, and our nearest-neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, the distances between rest stops and attractions are very long.
  Good luck solving the travelling-salesman problem for that trip.
34. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-10-01 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  The south pole research station has a working garden... something that the researchers routinely head into from time to time that work there "overwinter". Growing stuff isn't that hard, but it might make life a whole bunch easier if a nuclear power plant or two was built there.
  My point is still that it isn't environmental or technical issues that are keeping us from these places, but rather political issues that are keeping us from building settlements in these places by force of the government and guns that will be pointed our way if we try. It certainly wouldn't be worth blowing a billion dollars on a major development project in Antarctica when some stupid court back by a division of Marines can wipe out that development effort.
35. Re:What I'd like to see by baKanale · 2010-10-01 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Implied teleology aside, there's no reason both ideas can't be true. You'll note that I never disagreed with you on controlling exponential population growth and resource usage. Self-destruction is a bad way to avoid extinction. What I disagree with is your apparent belief that eventual extinction is preferable to attempting to ensure survival by getting off the planet. It just seems, to me, to be a position as ridiculous as killing ourselves with overpopulation.
36. Re:What I'd like to see by Teancum · 2010-10-02 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  So the fact that space is really big is a reason to be worried about running into somebody else while you are "out there"? The argument given that I was responding to is that space is a finite resource that should be limited and therefore private individuals need not apply for going into space.
  I am arguing precisely the opposite, that it is an "infinite" resource by most measures and it is not something we need to worry about running out of any time soon. Even near-earth space is something where there is plenty of room to maneuver around in and it will be some time before a "space traffic control" will be acting like the air traffic controllers do in the Earth's atmosphere. It will be some time before that starts to happen. This is also a completely separate issue from clearing out from Earth orbit any kind of space debris that may be up there at the moment.
Marketing Genius. by geekmux · 2010-09-30 06:19 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"...currently known as Commercial Space Station."
I see Russian Marketing is about as clever and ingenious as Russian humor...
1. Re:Marketing Genius. by sharkey · 2010-09-30 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Be more visionary. Maybe tables-based web pages are not that bad, but a space station? At least they're committing to CSS up front.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
2. Re:Marketing Genius. by eriqk · 2010-09-30 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  In capitalist Russia, humor laughs at you?
Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by joe2tiger · 2010-09-30 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm saving up money for a trip into orbit. It would be feasible for me to spend $10,000 to $20,000 dollars for space flight. I figure this will be a possibility for me in 20 years when it drops to that price, maybe sooner when we have space elevators.
1. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 08:00 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  doubtful. take a spot check for commercial bulk propellants -- LH2 and O2 volume alone to push your 2000lb carcass/suit/consumables/basic life support and baggage (no food/water) to LEO in bulk costs well over $200,000.
  so with chemical rockets alone you have no hope. i dont see any reason why bulk LH2 and O2 refining/transport costs are going to come down anytime soon...there have been no significant breakthroughs in refining these for the last 100 years.
  other propellants are even more expensive than basic LH2 and O2.
2. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  The amount should be $20000 + K*Age, since we are not getting any younger and I assume it will be more expensive to fly to an orbit as a senior citizens... or will they be taking AARP discounts?
3. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by Type44Q · 2010-09-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saving up money for a trip into orbit. It would be feasible for me to spend $10,000 to $20,000 dollars for space flight. I figure this will be a possibility for me in 20 years when it drops to that price, maybe sooner when we have space elevators.
  The cost of a trip to orbit in the year 2030 may very well amount to $20k when measured in 2010 dollars but by the looks of it, you'll be if it buys you a cheese sandwich. May I suggest I putting your savings into something a little more likely than greenbacks to retain its value? :P
4. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by Type44Q · 2010-09-30 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Arrgh... that missing word be "lucky." :P
5. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by melted · 2010-09-30 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  By then a regular atmospheric plane flight will be $20K due to shortage of fuel. Spend that money on terrestrial travel now, while it is still cheap.
6. Re:Saving up for a trip into orbit.... by Teancum · 2010-09-30 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you possibly get these figures? For most rockets, the propellant costs are statistical noise in its development. The catering budget for the press corp at KSC during a Shuttle launch is more than the fuel costs to launch a Shuttle.... just to give a comparison here. It is not really a huge problem in terms of the fuel costs. Put it another way: The energy budget for travel to orbit is roughly the same as it is for travel from London to Sydney in a commercial jetliner... actually a bit less. It sure doesn't cost $200k for that kind of ride. I'm not saying that a trip into space will be cheaper than an intercontinental airplane trip, but it doesn't have to be substantially more. $20k might just be something fairly realistic.
  Armadillo Aerospace is already offering rides into space (admittedly sub-orbital, but still going into space) for about $100k, and this does include life support, propellants, and even the costs for a pilot. I think there is still substantial opportunities to implement economies of scale and drive costs down considerably. Virgin Galactic is charging $200k for their trips, and they are openly admitting they are laughing all of the way to the bank for that price.
Catering? by AffidavitDonda · 2010-09-30 06:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Who will get the catering contract? MacDonalds or BurgerKing?
1. Re:Catering? by jgagnon · 2010-09-30 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Taco Bell, of course. :p
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
2. Re:Catering? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  I know what McDonald's is and what Burger King is, but WTF are MacDonalds and BurgerKing?
3. Re:Catering? by elrous0 · 2010-09-30 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If that's a Demolition Man reference, I hereby proclaim you winner of the Internet.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
4. Re:Catering? by jgagnon · 2010-09-30 06:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Why yes, yes it was.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
5. Re:Catering? by AffidavitDonda · 2010-09-30 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia Mac Donald's writes you...
if wishes were fishes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 06:31 · Score: 0

I plan to have sex with a unicorn.

still ain't gonna happen.
Wait! The commies....? by Jedi+Holocron · 2010-09-30 06:34 · Score: 0, Troll

So, a bunch of former (are they really ever "former") commies are going to build the first commercial space station?
Wow...I guess that's appropriate given what we've built...
1. Re:Wait! The commies....? by c6gunner · 2010-09-30 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's nobody who appreciates capitalism quite as much as those who have lived under communism.
2. Re:Wait! The commies....? by alen · 2010-09-30 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  they were never communist in practice. most people thought it was BS, stole from the system or did some black marketing
3. Re:Wait! The commies....? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  And no one misses communism more than them also.
4. Re:Wait! The commies....? by Teancum · 2010-09-30 07:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Only a former communist would think of selling spaceflight trips to a socialist American government because that government can't pull its head out of its own behind to be able to build a working vehicle that would get its own astronauts into space. As of June 2011, the USA will be without any sort of manned spaceflight capability..... all of it will be done by flying Soyuz spacecraft out of Kazakhstan.
  Yeah, there might be some American companies who are suggesting they can fly a spacecraft of their own, but leave it to Congress to screw that up royally. A nice bi-partisan effort is making sure that only the best pork will flow to the proper congressional districts even if nothing ever actually gets built and the heck with anybody else trying.
5. Re:Wait! The commies....? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  The government simply doesn't care. If they really wanted to have their own manned-space-flight capability, they'd extend the service life of the shuttle by another year or two, and shove enough money into NASA to have a replacement ready in a couple years. However, there's no sense in such an approach. I'm a big proponent of manned space flight but, really, the ISS at this point is a waste of time, and no other manned projects are being seriously considered. All the most interesting stuff these days is being done by remote. So why waste hundreds of billions of dollars trying to rush a new program into place, when you can just buy rides from other countries / companies, and take your time figuring out what exactly you'd like to do in the future.
6. Re:Wait! The commies....? by c6gunner · 2010-09-30 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  On another note, I'd LOVE to know why /. insists on submitting half my comments as AC, these days.
7. Re:Wait! The commies....? by Teancum · 2010-09-30 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  If it was purely manned vs. unmanned spaceflight that was the center of the debate, that would be fine. I find it horrible that the science budget for NASA is being cut in favor of sustaining pure pork for manned spaceflight.
  Besides, travel into low-Earth orbit by astronauts is a solved engineering problem. If NASA was doing something new and original that would be a dramatic cost savings for getting that accomplished, I might support some research along those lines. About the only thing that the Constellation program was trying to prove is that they could take a shuttle SRB and fly somebody into space at the top. And that passes for innovation worth billions of dollars? If you are going to spend that kind of money, at least have something to show for it when you are done.
8. Re:Wait! The commies....? by c6gunner · 2010-09-30 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Speak of the devil: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/science/space/01nasa.html
I've got a name for it. by blair1q · 2010-09-30 06:47 · Score: 1

Spamnik.
Then when it gets old... by Qubit · 2010-09-30 07:03 · Score: 1

...we'll need to build something to deconstruct the Commercial Space Station so that it doesn't pose a hazard to other orbiting items as space junk.
We could call it "Deconstructor of the Commercial Space Station", although I guess that's kind of a long name and would take a lot of effort to say it all the time.... hmmm... maybe we can come up with a shorter name....

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
1. Re:Then when it gets old... by Teancum · 2010-09-30 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why worry about something huge that everybody can see in their backyard when there are going to be a couple thousand "microsatellites" all about the size of a basketball that you can't see until after it has hit you?
  It is a nice sentiment to be worrying about orbital debris and I also agree that it is a problem, but insisting on applying a special and unique standard to just commercial space stations is insanity at its finest. If anything, something large of that nature is more likely to absorb impacts better and be able to survive in a harsh environment where a whole bunch of debris is present.
  To insist that all orbital vehicles also include a requirement that they must have capabilities to be deorbited is a wise move. Of course it doesn't help that China, Russia, and America have deliberately blown things up in space and spewed shrapnel deliberately.
2. Re:Then when it gets old... by Confusador · 2010-09-30 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  In space, no one can hear you *woosh*
Step off the plane and get a face full of... by ebystander · 2010-09-30 07:09 · Score: 1

Iz spece steshun. Iz good. You see. Khave rhokket ship . Of course still fly, just need poosh. Oleg!
1. Re:Step off the plane and get a face full of... by arbitraryaardvark · 2010-09-30 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  How's the old joke go? In space, the hotelkeepers are Russian, the taxi drivers are British, the.. I forget the rest, anybody?
File it next to the Ark of the Covenant by DerekLyons · 2010-09-30 07:28 · Score: 1

Another set of 'firm plans' [without visible funding and with yet another maybe this year, maybe that year schedule]?

If the Russians ever figure out how to monetize the endless stream of plans they produce, they'll be buying China in a year or two.
Once a year by Brett+Buck · 2010-09-30 07:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Russians announce their "plans" to build a new space station, to start a trip to Mars, create a fusion reactor, etc. periodically. It's ready to go, all the work has been done, all they need is someone to pony up money to actually finish the work. It's not a lot different from the Nigerian Scam.
If anybody could pull this off.... by Teancum · 2010-09-30 07:55 · Score: 1

It would have to be RKK Energia. As the only commercial organization to have actually sent people into space, they certainly have the expertise, training facilities, engineers, and even the travel agents already lined up to be able to pull this thing off.
Richard Branson can claim a whole bunch of things and pretend he has his own space agency, but these guys are doing it right now. They're ramping up production of the Soyuz spacecraft anyway. In fact, I swear that this company forgot that there is a global recession going on as they are expanding production and hiring a whole bunch of people to help build their vehicles. Of course it helps if you are Russian if you want a job there.
1. Re:If anybody could pull this off.... by Type44Q · 2010-09-30 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  As the only commercial organization to have actually sent people into space, they certainly have the expertise, training facilities, engineers, and even the travel agents already lined up to be able to pull this thing off.
  Richard Branson can claim a whole bunch of things and pretend he has his own space agency, but these guys are doing it right now.
  Considering this "private company" was founded in 1946 by the Soviet government during the height of Communism, I'm not sure it'd be fair to compare them to recent Western startups, certainly not in terms of how much they've achieved vs the resources and sacrifices required...
2. Re:If anybody could pull this off.... by Teancum · 2010-09-30 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  While Energia certainly has roots established as a government agency, it is most certainly as much of a private company as Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. In terms of comparisons, that is the proper comparison not something like Armadillo Aerospace or perhaps SpaceX.
  My comparison to Richard Branson is that he is holding all of these "astronaut clinics" and acting like he is much involved with space, yet his company has yet to actually put anybody "up there", even into a sub-orbital trajectory. Eventually he is going to get there, but he hasn't done it yet.
  Energia, on the other hand, has put people like Anousheh Ansari, Richard Garriot, and Charles Simonyi into orbit (to name a few that have gone up). I'm just saying that Energia is certainly going to be able to pull this one off. If Boeing announced that they were going to send people into space and dock with a commercial space station, they would be just as credible.
  Oh yeah, Boeing did announce such a thing, didn't they?
I foresee a time.... by ben2umbc · 2010-09-30 08:49 · Score: 1

When celebrities start having extreme health problems from spending too much time doing coke in zero-g. We'll just call this ship the LiLo express...
1. Re:I foresee a time.... by Type44Q · 2010-09-30 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  When celebrities start having extreme health problems from spending too much time doing coke in zero-g. We'll just call this ship the LiLo express...
  That's what the black market whole-body transplants will be for...
This is only a project by tokul · 2010-09-30 08:52 · Score: 1

Make a list of RKK Energia ventures and ask yourself which ones are implemented. Parom and Kliper are still on the drawing board. Wake me up when they do put commercial space station in space.
Or in Canada... for the moment by phorm · 2010-09-30 09:52 · Score: 1

As several key prostitution laws were struck down recently.
However, I doubt that they'd setup a station in space to become an overprice brothel. It's still readily available on Earth (and legal in various places), and a ticket to another country is likely to be a whole lot cheaper than a trip to space for the visible future.
That being said, I wish that they could get past the "put a station in low orbit" concept and get on to building something on the moon. Having a semi-stable land-mass would eliminate a lot of issues that would crop up, and the moon at least has *some* gravity (if only a fraction of Earth's). Perhaps from there, they could figure out a way to deal with the raw materials issues, start some factories, and thus have a much more convenient launch location than from within Earth's gravity-well.
ISS by Alcoholist · 2010-09-30 11:33 · Score: 1

They could offer to buy the ISS. I hear it's going to up for sale in the next 10 years. I'll bet they can get it on the cheap.

--
Bibo Ergo Sum.
Well, we *could* by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 12:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

We could get astronauts to the space station then, just the DOD doesn't want to give up their ultimate crown jewels, the black budget advanced air/spacecraft/hybrids they are operating now. As it is now, they have ~marginal~ plausible deniability of such things as the TR3-B.
Unless one really believes they just ceased developing hyper advanced craft in total secrecy after spirit and nighthawk. I know where I would place my bets..it would be on them being true to form and always being 20-30 years ahead of what they admit to publicly.
1. Re:Well, we *could* by Teancum · 2010-09-30 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  So, we really do have a stargate program at Cheyenne Mountain, don't we? Good to know!
How long... by hitmark · 2010-09-30 13:21 · Score: 1

before some ultra-wealthy asshat uses this as a tax refuge?

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
We were born to do impossible things. by handy_vandal · 2010-09-30 14:29 · Score: 1

Amen to that, brother. If had mod points right now, you'd get +1 insightful.

--
-kgj
Your insights are almost all true by Simonetta · 2010-10-01 03:40 · Score: 1

Your insights are almost all true. You are correct in assuming that "all Americans are fat, dumb, loud, constantly suing each other and give firearms to their children for free,...". But it is not true for all Americans, only about half.
The other half are the ones who created the most prosperous, powerful, and advanced country in the world. The country that everybody and their uncle wants to move to. Nobody wants to move to Russia. Nobody.
We don't hang black people from trees; no more 'strange fruit'. As far as burning black people alive, well, it would seem that you have us confused with Africans. In many parts of Africa, "necklace-ing" is a popular way of dealing with someone from outside of your tribe who comes into your neighborhood.
Now that you're free as a country, why not learn about your country? Try reading "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. You'll learn a bit about why your country is so fucked up.
As for us, we have always been free to read dissidents like Noam Chomski and Howard Zinn. We know how our country works:we know the difference between history and propaganda.
As for airport security, well, we have a common enemy there. The crazy muslims want to kill your people as much as they want to kill our people. But fascism is new to us, but not to you. We tend to over-react, because we are still learning to be perfect assholes. But with all the former communists running around with little to do, we have the world's greatest teachers!