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."

17 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 strack · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
  2. 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/
  3. 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 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.

  4. 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).

  5. Astronauts? by jdbannon · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're all cosmonauts now, comrade.

  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.