Slashdot Mirror


Russian Resupply Crash Could Mean Leaving ISS Empty

astroengine writes "In the wake of the Russian Progress vehicle crash shortly after launch on Aug. 24, a chain of events has been set into motion that could result in the decision not to fly astronauts into orbit. If this happens, the ISS will be temporarily mothballed before the end of the year to avoid landing astronauts during the harsh Kazakh winter."

46 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Oh if only by discord5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh if only some other nation had something spaceworthy... Like a shuttle or so...

    1. Re:Oh if only by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, it would take about 2 years to restart the shuttle program. When W killed it, much of the production lines were shut down. So, at this point, it would costs BILLIONS to restart the problem.

      However, private space is about to have 2 different cargo systems ready shortly. In addition, it is possible that either ATV or HTV can be speed up. However, my gut feeling says that Russia will launch within a month, successfully. Issues solved for this issue.

      What is needed is not the cargo, but human launchers ASAP. Now, a number of neo-cons have been pushing to give 10's of billion MORE Than the 20 billion that it appears that it will take. They claim that it would then be done quicker. HOWEVER, the current timeline for the 70 tonne rocket says that it will be ready in 2022. Adding the 10 billion MAY shave a couple of years off that. Hey, being optimistic, you might get it out the door in 2018. IOW, this is a typical neo-cons scenario of pump/dump money into a project that can not be afforded but they want for a jobs bill for themselves.

      OTH, CCDev is expected to have 3-4 crafts by 2015 (starting in late 2013/early 2014). Of course, that assume the 3/4 billion from the next CCDev bid. However the same ppl from above are working hard to block this. HOWEVER, it is possible that jumping the amount from .75 to say 2 billion, MIGHT get the first system ready by early 2013, perhaps late 2012. But getting the neo-cons to allocate, well, that is a different matter.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Oh if only by trout007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since I have been working at KSC during this whole mess I'll give my perspectIve. Bush did set the end date for the last shuttle launch. He then outlined the VSE and Griffen came up with the Constellation program. The problem is Bush's lack of leadership in getting the funding to get it done. It would have taken maybe 5 billion more a year which we would rather spend in Mideast wars.

      When Obama came in he had a choice. Get more funding to get constellation going, restart the shuttle components production to eliminate a gap, or trash everything and wait for commercial space to come up to speed. He chose the third option.

      So while Bush started the cancellation of the shuttle program Obama could have easily reversed it.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:Oh if only by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      As you say, the money was spent in wars. I doubt obama could have stopped those with the flick of a switch once they had been started ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:Oh if only by strack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the shuttle was a bad design. it needed to die a merciful death. as did the frankenshuttle derived constellation program.

    5. Re:Oh if only by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since I have been working at KSC during this whole mess I'll give my perspectIve. Bush did set the end date for the last shuttle launch. He then outlined the VSE and Griffen came up with the Constellation program. The problem is Bush's lack of leadership in getting the funding to get it done.

      Uh, no.

      The problem is that NASA designed a program that would cost far more than the government was willing to give them.

      If they'd built a Dragon-style capsule and put it on top of an Atlas or Delta, they'd probably have it in operation by now. Instead they wanted to build a capsule the size of a hotel and two new launchers of their own to launch it. Since the Apollo era NASA has often acted as though they have an infinite budget and then whined when their expensive plans get cancelled because there's no money for them.

    6. Re:Oh if only by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I think the relevant question is, should Obama have reversed the cancellation of the shuttle program? Considering that program was such an epic money sink for getting nowhere past LEO, and the fact that most of the technology being used had not improved since the late 1970's, I would assert that saving the shuttle program would have actually been a poort choice. That is just my teo cents as an launch vehicle engineer working outside of the shuttle program, though.

    7. Re:Oh if only by yog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      During the 2008 presidential election, Obama's campaign website contained a plan to cancel Constellation to pay for a national daycare program.

      Someone must have told him not to run on an anti-space platform, because this particular plank was later removed. Furthermore, his national daycare program never got off the ground.

      However, other expensive initiatives were indeed passed (healthcare, various bailouts), and Obama did follow through and cancel the current NASA shuttle replacement, until "the technology exists" in 10 or 15 years.

      The subsequent uproar from senators and congressmen in affected districts, supporters of the American space program, the press, and the general public then forced the Obama Administration to backtrack a bit, and they restored parts of the program including the actual capsule and a modified launcher.

      However it is clear that Obama has never been a big supporter of manned space efforts. Bush's vision was to replace the Shuttle fairly quickly, but unfortunately he shut down the shuttle before actually having a replacement in the wings. This gave Obama an opening to not only shut down the publicly funded manned program and give it over to the private sector, but he could blame Bush for the whole mess.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    8. Re:Oh if only by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Constellation is intrinsically unworkable due to thrust oscillation issues, it would have required a completely new design. The US won't be able to afford medicare in about five years let alone space flight so Obama's killing manned space flight is understandable. (Obama is a dealer not a leader but that's not relevant) The space shuttle is a bad compromise that should have been replaced decades ago, it's crazy to think about retaining it. Given current financial incompetence in the US it's unlikely they will continue working with the ISS let alone having any space flight (manned or unmanned).

    9. Re:Oh if only by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey it is all good so what if Obama killed the man space program, he closed Guantanamo, repealed the patriot act, and got our troops out of Iraq.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Oh if only by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Uh, the US is going into debt to the tune of over a trillion dollars per year. We don't have a trillion dollars to spend on fancy spacecraft, or on unnecessary wars overseas. The solution is to get rid of both, not use one area of waste as an excuse to expand another area of waste. I'm fine with having a military that is large enough to keep somebody from launching an invasion of South Carolina, and that doesn't have to cost nearly what we currently spend.

      The problem with your argument is that EVERYBODY has some favorite area of government where they think that spending a trillion dollars is a good use of money. The problem is that if everybody gets their way then we go bankrupt. The solution is to restrict government to only those functions for which there isn't a practical alternative. I think that basic research is one of those legitimate areas, but beyond that if something actually has a practical use chances are that somebody will foot the bill to make it happen.

  2. Re:Is that bad? by navtal · · Score: 2

    In the face of money spent on financial disasters and wars your comment seems a bit less then "well-justified".

  3. Re:Is that bad? by gcnaddict · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So basically, you're saying that spreading away from a ball on which humanity would otherwise forever be trapped is a total waste of money?

    Ensuring the continuity of life on Earth is a waste of money?

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  4. Well that was neat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the era of human spacetravel came to an end. Not from discovery or war or any disaster. But simple greed. Greed that says using our resources to take what others have or wasting those resources for entertainment are more important than the spread of the species.

    Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes.

    So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe. Be it a germ, comet, meteor, pole shift, solar flare, gamma burst, supervolcano or the unwise use of technology itself.

    Perhaps if another species arises on this planet it will be a little more intelligent and not keep all their stuff in one place.

    It's ok tho. It seems to be a common mistake given the emptiness of the universe. So don't sweat it too much. Go have a beer and some fast food, sit down and watch tv. That's whats important after all.

    1. Re:Well that was neat. by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe.

      The problem with that logic is that space isn't salvation, it's the worst kind of global disaster 24/7 all year long with no air to breath and temperatures that will kill you in a matter of minutes.

      If you somehow find a way to survive in space, you can just apply those same technologies to earth and will be save for any disaster imaginable.

    2. Re:Well that was neat. by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe. Be it a germ, comet, meteor, pole shift, solar flare, gamma burst, supervolcano or the unwise use of technology itself.

      You're deluding yourself if you think a few months or a few years delay in manned spaceflight would make one whit of difference. We're at least a century, if not more, from being able to create a 'colony' off planet that could survive (let alone prosper) prosper absent massive and ongoing support from Earth.

    3. Re:Well that was neat. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes

      Sob. This tiny blue planet
      Sob. The inevitable.

      Yeah, the inevitable is that you seem to have stopped your Prozac again. You know, with a little care and foresight this 4 billion year old rock can take care of us for a couple of billion more years. It's a nice planet. You might want to step outside and enjoy it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Well that was neat. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      For long term survival we need technologies that allows us to survive i otherwise hostile environments. Human colonization of space is a great way to research and prove such technologies.

      Actually, you're wrong there. Blasting stuff off into space tremendously accelerates the degradation of the only environment we can live in. Look at the greenhouse-gas emissions from a shuttle launch sometime, let alone the environmental impact of the space program as a whole.

      We'd be far better off working on 'research on survival in hostile environments' in domes at the bottom of the ocean, underground, etc.

      It's not dramatic, though, and space cowboys can't fly around in their dreams when their pod is down at the bottom of the ocean in a hole in the ground.

    5. Re:Well that was neat. by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Look at the greenhouse-gas emissions from a shuttle launch sometime

      ... The shuttle's main propulsion is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Its exhaust product is water vapor.

    6. Re:Well that was neat. by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The shuttle's main propulsion is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Its exhaust product is water vapor.

      Exactly. If I remember correctly, about 80% of the 'greenhouse effect' on Earth comes from water vapor.

    7. Re:Well that was neat. by lennier · · Score: 2

      #3, getting the hell off this rock

      By comparison to anywhere else in reachable space, Earth is not only not a rock, it's a six-star Hilton where everyone gets the Rock Star Suite and 72 virgins.

      You're welcome to trade anywhere on "this rock" for any of the hells out there. Want to breathe some hot sulphuric acid? I hear Venus is nice this time of year. Lethal doses of radiation? The moons of Jupiter await your landing. Carbon dioxide frost and instant depressurisation? Mars is just the ticket.

      Space is not what you saw on Star Trek. There are no actual Vulcans out there.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:Well that was neat. by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are good points. I will point out that there currently exists high value and/or profitable unmanned activity, namely, the launching of a variety of satellites for such things as communication, national defense, imaging, and weather. A person just is a very flexible machine with some overhead from habitation requirements. The ISS among other things helps develop technologies for living and working in space. I think it's vastly overpriced for the value it delivers, but there is some value there.

      There's also the crude observation that previous large-scale expansions of the environments into which humans can live or significant, new ways to travel have resulted in economic growth and some degree of scientific progress.

      Space activities are also interesting because they potentially can disengage economic activity from Earth-side resources. That would greatly increase the resources available to human civilization as well as employ people and generate wealth.

      Even now, we have things that are of some value such as various precious and platinum group metals which could be mined in space or solar power generation. So there is a path to becoming "worth it", namely, driving down the cost of space access to the point where the stuff that we already know has value can be done.

      Despite the hideously inefficient nature of the ISS, it does explore some risks of space activities (not just manned) and useful technologies, hence, is helping to reduce the cost of future access to space.

    9. Re:Well that was neat. by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 2

      It's fairly clear you haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about.

      Your computer, the internet, refrigeration, cell phones, GPS, it's all based on the space program. The first IC was created by Texas Instruments, with NASA's Apollo program as the customer. Refrigeration in self contained systems was the result of ICBM research (you know, those big ass things they launch satellites with?), gotta keep that cryogenic gas cool now. I think I'll just leave off here before I have some kind of stroke. Maybe, though, you could google around a bit and inform yourself about all the wonderful things that NASA has brought to your life.

      Furthermore, how is it that supposedly rational, educated peoples such as the populace of /. are unaware of the benefits of ANY kind of cutting edge research? Especially if it actually includes DOING anything, you know, like reaching other solar bodies. Do you live in such a vacuum that you can't fathom the benefit to dozens of fields of research?

  5. SpaceX to the rescue? by MaxBooger · · Score: 2

    According to a prior slashdot article, SpaceX is slated for another demonstration launch late November, this time docking with the ISS. Yes, it is a demo flight so, yes, you can't trust it to succeed. Still, is there any reason they cant load up the Dragon capsule with [critically required items]?

    1. Re:SpaceX to the rescue? by Dr+La · · Score: 2

      The problem is not supplies: there are enough supplies in the ISS already to last untill after the winter.

      The problem is that the only remaining return Soyuz module apparently is not fit to function untill next spring. So it has to return earlier, if no replacement arrives before that point. The hazard of a landing under winter (darkness) condition means that it cannot return later than November. Leaving the ISS with no return vehicle after November.

      So not, SpaceX can not come to the rescue....

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    2. Re:SpaceX to the rescue? by Teancum · · Score: 2

      So not, SpaceX can not come to the rescue....

      The Dragon capsule is being designed with human spaceflight in mind. That said, the crewed version of the Dragon is still under development as the launch escape system is still being worked upon as well as a few additional flights are being requested to test the equipment before crews are using that spacecraft. On top of that, I don't believe that the Dragon has an independent capability of docking to an unmanned space station and requires at least somebody in the station to use the construction arm to position the Dragon for docking.

      Orbital is also looking at upgrading their Cygnus spacecraft for making a crewed version as well, and Boeing is building their CST-100, so even here SpaceX isn't the only game in town. The problem with these other spacecraft is that they are even further behind in terms of development for crewed spaceflight than the Dragon is at the moment. A couple billion dollars might speed up their development, but it still will take some time. It won't be the end of the world as American astronauts flying on American hardware will happen again and relatively soon, but it isn't quite ready for prime time yet.

  6. Russia vs US spaceflight by kabloom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Russia has had fewer astronaut fatailities than the United States, and all of the fatalities Russia has had have been less recent than any of the US's fatalities (those occurring in space, not on the ground). Although it would certainly be a tragedy if people died on a Russian spacecraft, please remember that the reason we now rely on Russian spacecraft is because people died on American spacecraft, and NASA responded by retiring all of the spacecraft involved in the human space program (without developing replacements).

    1. Re:Russia vs US spaceflight by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Russia has had fewer astronaut fatailities [wikipedia.org] than the United States

      Only because they put fewer people into a spacecraft than we do. They've lost two crews, we've lost two crews.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Russia vs US spaceflight by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Russia has had fewer astronaut fatailities than the United States

      So what? That's an emotional argument, not an engineering one.
       

      all of the fatalities Russia has had have been less recent than any of the US's fatalities (those occurring in space, not on the ground).

      Yet, Russia has had an ongoing series of accidents and incidents with it's flights - and that with both the booster *and* the spacecraft. If a US craft behaved in the same way, there would be screams from all quarters to ground it, fire the managers, and consider canceling it. Here, you don't even seem aware that they have even occurred.
       

      please remember that the reason we now rely on Russian spacecraft is because people died on American spacecraft, and NASA responded by retiring all of the spacecraft involved in the human space program (without developing replacements).

      Um, no. NASA did what it was told by Congress and the Administration. They had no choice in the matter. Blaming NASA is like blaming a car for crashing, rather than the drunk at the wheel.

    3. Re:Russia vs US spaceflight by Clsid · · Score: 2

      all of the fatalities Russia has had have been less recent than any of the US's fatalities (those occurring in space, not on the ground).

      Yet, Russia has had an ongoing series of accidents and incidents with it's flights - and that with both the booster *and* the spacecraft. If a US craft behaved in the same way, there would be screams from all quarters to ground it, fire the managers, and consider canceling it. Here, you don't even seem aware that they have even occurred.

      And that's pretty much what the Russians did short of cancelling it. Go read en.rian.ru so you can get informed about the quality control comission they created, how they grounded their space vehicles, how one of the top managers lost his job a couple of months ago and how everybody starting with the prime minister and all levels of government got involved with the accidents.

    4. Re:Russia vs US spaceflight by Teancum · · Score: 2

      There were also six NASA astronauts who died flying the T-38 aircraft while performing official duties on behalf of NASA, and IMHO should be counted with any list of deceased astronauts in the service of the United States. Furthermore, the three crews mentioned in the above vehicles totaled 17 people, which should matter as larger vehicles ought to be safer vehicles too.

      While perhaps a bit morbid, there is a List of all flight and training deaths of astronauts on the wiki if you really want to get the full count of astronauts and cosmonauts who have died in the service of their respective countries.

  7. Skylab 2 (squandered abundance) by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    Just dunk the damn thing.. Wall Street isn't interested anyway.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  8. Astronauts? by jdbannon · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're all cosmonauts now, comrade.

  9. It isn't NASA's call by mbone · · Score: 2

    First, please note that this is not about supplying the ISS, it's about getting the crew there. NASA is worried about the safety of Soyuz.

    Also, note that the flight of the Soyuz is not dependent on NASA. NASA doesn't get that call, although they could yank their astronauts from the vehicle, they can't ground it.

    So, there is little to no chance that the ISS will be abandoned. I predict the Russians will keep a crew there, regardless of NASA's decision.

  10. Re:Is that bad? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your comment and others like it remind me of some wisdom gleaned from xkcd:
    "The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."

    Right now, our grasp of space exploration is still quite limited. In my opinion, the state of space exploration today is to its potential as alchemy was to modern chemistry. Nonetheless, alchemy represented the first baby steps toward real chemistry. I think that a lot of people recognize this and look at space exploration with the same disdain that they would an institute of alchemy. They key difference is that we don't do alchemy anymore because we outgrew it as it evolved into modern chemistry. Space exploration hasn't evolved into something useful and profitable yet but if we don't keep at it, it never will. (Note, I'm NOT equating space exploration with the ability to merely put things into orbit.)

    --
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  11. In by cratermoon · · Score: 2

    In Soviet Russia, ISS abandons YOU!!

    Note that if the station is left unmanned, it will be the end of an 11-year run of humans continuously in space, starting with the October, 2000 arrival of the Expedition 1 crew at ISS.

    By the way, the Chinese are still flying their man-rated Long March.

  12. Re:Is that bad? by cynyr · · Score: 3

    Humans need life support, robot do not.

    I do not agree with the GP, but this is the usual reason.

    If we are going to colonize a new planet at some point we will need to know how to get humans to this new planet. Practicing in earth orbit for how to keep humans alive and healthy in low || 0 G environments is useful science. About the only way i can see to test long term effects is to actually do the tests in a real low G environment with real people.

    --
    All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  13. Re:Is that bad? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    . Practicing in earth orbit for how to keep humans alive and healthy in low || 0 G environments is useful science. About the only way i can see to test long term effects is to actually do the tests in a real low G environment with real people.

    0G = bad stuff. If we were really interested in colonization and establishing a presence in space, we would have built a spinning space station with artificial gravity. That's the only way we'll be able to endure long stays in space.

  14. Re:Is that bad? by h5inz · · Score: 2

    Dunbal-"Actually you can." (... justify a bad investment by point to an even worse investment.) By bad investment he might have meant an investment with a negative overall outcome, which really shouldn't happen at all. How about something that actually isn't bad investment at all then? Like an investment into the search for alternative energy sources? Through the global economy it would make even the space flight cheaper, not to mention that it would also solve many other problems, like the next big problem - material production crisis (think about bauxite or silicon for example) and give rise to a new economic fluctuation (so that some "economic geniuses" could throw away their "communists were actually right about capitalism" thesis and concentrate on another stupid theory far from reality). Ok , now I went a bit off topic, but I am not going to delete it either. Thank you.

  15. Re:Is that bad? by standbypowerguy · · Score: 2

    "Class M" is a fictional Star Trek term. I think what you meant to say is that there are no nearby planets in the habitable zone.

    It's likely that "Class M" is more widely recognized than the scientific term "habitable zone". Even on Slashdot.

    --
    This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.
  16. Re:Is that bad? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    There's no reason to think we'll be sending humans other stars anytime in the near future.

    Before we can even think about it we need a whole new propulsion system. We could be working on that with the money we save by abandoning the ISS.

    --
    No sig today...
  17. Re:Is that bad? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    "The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."

    There's sooooooooo much work to be done before we can think about going out into space. The ISS is a joke is this is its purpose... ...and it's funny how the stated purpose of the ISS keeps changing, it's almost as if it's got no real reason to exist!

    Me? I say the ISS has done everything useful that it's going to do. Time to turn it into a museum for rich kids (who'll advance science much more by trying to get there than the ISS ever will).

    --
    No sig today...
  18. Re:Is that bad? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2

    A spinning space ship to make artificial gravity for humans is a tricky and very expensive task. It would probably need to be much larger than the one in the movie 2001. There are issues of motion sickness etc that would need to be worked out

    However, General Relativity states that a spinning system can be the same as gravity. It is the constant change in direction that does the trick. The same as centrifuges here on Earth work.
     

  19. The end? Hardly: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    I haven't noticed the Chinese scaling back. Granted, they're not as far along.

    I think they still count as part of humanity, so human space travel wouldn't come to an end even if both the US and Russians stopped.

    I don't like the possibility of mothballing at all but I think you're being a little breathless.

  20. Re:If we leave the station unmanned... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    "open the pod-bay doors! open the pod-bay doors! Crap. Stupid ISS doesn't speak Chinese."

    The funny thing is, the docking collar that the Chinese use is compatible with the ISS docking collar. They technically could do it. I wonder if the International Maritime Salvage laws would apply in space?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Re:Is that bad? by NNKK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For more fun and to find out how it works, check out the Spin gravity calculator.

    In a nutshell, if you can't built a space station half a mile in diameter, don't even bother thinking about it.

    Cool page, but it doesn't really agree with you. Note its quote:

    In brief, at 1.0 rpm even highly susceptible subjects were symptom-free, or nearly so. At 3.0 rpm subjects experienced symptoms but were not significantly handicapped. At 5.4 rpm, only subjects with low susceptibility performed well and by the second day were almost free from symptoms. At 10 rpm, however, adaptation presented a challenging but interesting problem. Even pilots without a history of air sickness did not fully adapt in a period of twelve days.

    This suggests anywhere from 1-2 RPM could probably be workable, suggesting a practical radius of as little as 0.15 miles, or diameter of 0.3 miles (~241/482 meters). Further, this assumes 1g. It's highly unlikely that 1g is necessary.

    Mars is one of the most likely targets for extended-duration missions, and has a surface gravity of 0.376g. So let's say 0.4g. This lowers the diameter to as little as 180 meters (~0.11 miles).

    If you bring it up to 400 meters in diameter, or less than 1/4th of a mile, you can have 1 1/3rd RPM at better than Mars-equivalent gravity.

    Finally, diameter/radius can be a deceptive way of looking at this, since a basic spinning station need not be circular. A first pass need be little more than a room attached to a counterweight with cables.