Slashdot Mirror
US Should Use Trampolines To Get Astronauts To the ISS Suggests Russian Official
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The Washington Post reports that Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has lashed out again, this time at newly announced US ban on high-tech exports to Russia suggesting that 'after analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I propose the US delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.' Rogozin does actually have a point, although his threats carry much less weight than he may hope. Russia is due to get a $457.9 million payment for its services soon and few believe that Russia would actually give it up. Plus, as Jeffrey Kluger noted at Time Magazine, Russia may not want to push the United States into the hands of SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, two private American companies that hope to be able to send passengers to the station soon. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have already made successful unmanned resupply runs to the ISS and both are also working on upgrading their cargo vehicles to carry people. SpaceX is currently in the lead and expects to launch US astronauts, employed by SpaceX itself, into orbit by 2016. NASA is building its own heavy-lift rocket for carrying astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit, but it won't be ready for anything but test flights until after 2020. 'That schedule, of course, could be accelerated considerably if Washington gave NASA the green light and the cash,' says Kluger. 'America's manned space program went from a standing start in 1961 to the surface of the moon in 1969—eight years from Al Shepard to Tranquility Base. The Soviet Union got us moving then. Perhaps Russia will do the same now.'"
"The Soviet Union got us moving then. Perhaps Russia will do the same now."
Back then those in power and the people in general cared that the Russians could do something we could not. That is no longer the case when it comes to space. Most people don't understand why space is important at all outside of things like satellites that provides communications around the planet.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Hey US, IN SOVIET RUSSIA ROCKET LAUNCH YOU. Sincerely, US citizens for restoring manned American space exploration.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
That's one helluva double-bounce. Start jumping Russia, well keep up!
Life is not for the lazy.
IIRC, the Ariane 5 launch rocket is man-rated (or at least built, with a view to being man-rated). This was done for the cancelled Hermes spaceplane.
Now actually getting it into the sort of shape to give Europe independent access to space, is another matter. I get the distinct impression that it's going to be very expensive, especially when the usual suspects get their snouts into the trough.
Nedd Ludd, is that you?
If years of Saturday morning cartooning have taught us nothing else, it's clear you would need, like, several dozen hundred trampolines to pull it off.
Yep, trampolines all the way down.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
a trampoline gap!
Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I know that's an unpopular viewpoint on Slashdot (where Elon Musk is a god who can do no wrong). But SpaceX isn't ready to just "take over." Soyuz has a rock solid safety record and is much more versatile. SpaceX's design is still largely untested, particularly with human cargo.
If they try to push too hard too soon, people are going to get killed.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
ISS isn't space. It's a LEO publicity stunt. The moon is space. Mars is space. ISS is just a jobs program, and a way to justify funding.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The glory days of Russian trampoline champions are gone forever. Time for a US resurgence. Move over China, you're about to get bounced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Opposing space exploration does not necessarily mean opposing development of new technologies. Vernor Vinge, that science-fiction writer who has spent so much time thinking about technological singularities, has speculated that an advanced race might simply burrow deep under its planet's surface and move into a virtuality reality instead of expanding outward into space. Such a future would still involve enormous progress in technology, and lead to new discoveries in mathematics etc. There are multiple technological paths open to us.
"Cutting us off from space is the worst thing we can do, and will certainly result in the end of man kind".
Eh? What on earth are you talking about? Please explain how not sending a tiny handful of astronauts into space, at immense cost and considerable risk, will affect the survival of the race. As far as I know no one, not even the most wildly enthusiastic advocate of space exploration, has ever said anything of the kind.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Simply because the Americans have temporarily abandoned a focus on manned missions in favor of autonomous exploration, you couldn't be more wrong.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Why do people mod "Troll" or "Flamebait" when I ask them to explain what they are talking about? I'm disinclined to bandy insults in a forum that I thought was aimed at constructive discussion and debate. Maybe I should taper off reading Slashdot, and stop contributing.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits United Launch Alliance from buying NPO Energomash RD-180 engines from Russia.
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2...
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
To some extent, I suppose I am a Space Nutter myself. It must have been about 1957 that I first opened some Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and other SF books and thrilled to the stories of galactic exploration and gigantic interstellar empires. I'm all for manned space exploration, even though I must admit that nowadays I can't entirely justify it in practical terms.
But what's this stuff about "the end of man kind"?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
According to an article in last weeks Aviation Week and Space Technology - you are ignorant.
The value of commercial experimentation on the ISS has taken an unforseen upswing. Real companies are paying Real money to put experiments of different varieties on the ISS.There is a back-log of customers.
I'm thinking the Dragon from Space-X is a nice answer to the Russian suggestion. I also think their minister needs some remedial science classes to learn about the law of gravitiy.... you can't possibly reach escape velocity with a trampoline ;-)
Have you compiled your kernel today??
...and this gets modded "Insightful".
I know Slashdot is popular with a lot of folks with "a zany sense of humour". But suggesting the nuclear bombing of Moscow - or anywhere else - is not clever and it's not funny. It's wicked, and I say that with no religious agenda. If the word "wicked" has any meaning, this is a perfect example of it.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
lighten up! Nobody is bombing anybody.
It's May 1, not April 1.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The trick to winning is to choose your opponents wisely. Drunks and small children are easy prey from my mastery of X's and O's.
When it comes to space travel, technology that isn't decades-dead has a good chance of turning itself into a cloud of dust on the launch pad.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"Please explain how not sending a tiny handful of astronauts into space, at immense cost and considerable risk, will affect the survival of the race"
If dinosaurs had advanced enough to have a space program, maybe they could of stopped the rock that hit Mexico 65 million years ago, and they would still be alive today.
Sooner or later another rock is going to be on a collision course with the earth, and if we don't stop it, it will wipe us out.
And there are othere problems in the long term, like the sun running out of hydrogen in a billion years...
If we don't get off this planet, then it will be the end of mankind.
Actually, with Moscow in particular, it falls even more into the "retarded" category than "evil".
We must not allow a trampoline gap!
the Trampoline!
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
“Dinosaurs are extinct today because they lacked opposable thumbs and the brainpower to build a space program.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
“The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!” Larry Niven
As to your follow up post, perhaps if you stopped asking questions with obvious and well-discussed answers, you wouldn't get modded down.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You forgot to add "I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but..." at the start.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
No, the thing to do is establish colonies on the Moon and Mars, perform fission experimentation in space vice the Earth's atmosphere, and mine some asteroids.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your forté.
In any combination of Boeing, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX, or Lockheed Martin vehicles, we'll get up there with people fairly soon and in modern spacecraft that will be able to do useful things for the next few decades. What we do with them then and how much it will cost is the key question. The NASA program is stuck in pork that traps its potential so we may well lose the Space Station. Not many really care about it anyway, other than those who work on it. Those companies that are innovating for cost, certainly SpaceX, perhaps Sierra Nevada and Boeing, could make the NASA program moot. The Russian problem of access to the ISS might accelerate the non-NASA New Space regime slightly, but it will happen. If our national space program can take advantage of this new capability, if the politics of supporting old players dies, we could be in for an exciting future of human space exploration. That might still happen if human spaceflight becomes a mostly private affair. We'll know in a few years.
I think you need to re-watch that movie. You missed the entire point.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Aside from the fact that your post is a pack of lies, we see Russia doing exactly what you say is unfavorable for Russia. The tactics being used are classic Soviet tactics, namely sending in Spetsnaz into an area to destabilize the local government then moving in to "stabilize" the area. So, let's take a look at what happened.
Russia increased troop presence in the Red Sea area.
Groups spring up in Crimea. Masked men take over government offices and terrorize the local populace.
Groups consolidate and take over the local government after a sham election and then asks to become part of Russia
Russia annex Crimea and continues to mass troops on Russia side of Ukraine/Russia border.
Groups spring up in Eastern Ukraine. Masked men take over government offices and terrorize the local populace.
Guess what comes next. Do you see the pattern? My best guess is you are a Russian who can't wait to visit the new acquisitions.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Mankind extending its reach out to space is like moving out of your parent's house when you're an adult. It might not make the most sense financially but it's important for you to learn how to make it out there on your own. It's for your own good.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Opposing space exploration does not necessarily mean opposing development of new technologies.
Not necessarily, but there's only so much we can do deep in a gravity well. Some technologies will probably require orbital manufacturing.
Vernor Vinge, that science-fiction writer who has spent so much time thinking about technological singularities, has speculated that an advanced race might simply burrow deep under its planet's surface and move into a virtuality reality instead of expanding outward into space.
That's not impossible, but such a culture is probably guaranteed to be wiped out eventually by an impactor if they don't develop their space technology. And if they want to support a large civilization they'll need lots of energy. Unless they strip-mine their atmosphere, putting the generation equipment in space will still be a good way to improve efficiency and safety.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'll tell you what wicked is -- wicked is the former Soviet Union with the Iron Curtain and it's secret police and gulags, and people disappearing during the middle of the night. Putin was part of the secret police (KGB) in former East Germany and Russia and I believe he would like nothing better than to bring back the former Soviet Union. If we could be selective with a good old American Crowd Pleaser and take out the folks that would like nothing better than to recreate the 'Glory Days' of the former Soviet Union then I am all for it. I have nothing against the citizens of Russia and would never want to see them hurt, their government did things to them that we Westerners can't even fathom, so anyone remotely attracted to the old Soviet ways is more wicked than you can probably even imagine. Whose government is directing the flyovers of Russian bombers into UK and other countries air space once again. The quicker the world is through with individuals like Putin and Rogozin the better we will all be.
No, the thing to do is establish colonies on the Moon and Mars, perform fission experimentation in space vice the Earth's atmosphere, and mine some asteroids.
It would make a lot more sense to kick off a few more Mars missions and learn more about the place before we actually sent humans. Maybe build a better communications infrastructure between the two, first, so that there's always contact. Can't do anything about transmission time, can do something about bandwidth and coverage. A colony on the moon is a really good idea, though. It's nearby, so we could feasibly make a withdrawal plan. Mars is a one-way trip in case of failure. You maybe could bring people back, but not in a hurry, or probably in a timely fashion.
Also, I'd like to see some missions to asteroids which are on the level of this Mars mission, with some kind of rover. Let's get a clearer idea of what asteroid mining is going to look like. If we're really going to get development and exploration of space kicked off, we're going to need to do our heavy manufacturing in space anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Makes you wonder why Columbus ever bothered...
It was a huge boondoggle to keep the skills in place for Russia and the USA.
The US needed to keep its best workers productive as the Shuttle spy satellite boondoggle was slowly ending.
Russia got to keep its best workers productive as the massive science cities/space funding was ending.
A lot of workers got to work with complex metals, fuel, life support systems, complex computer systems... for another few years.
Both countries also invited other wealthy nations in to 'share' in a huge sheltered workshop for years of fancy space funding.
Contractors, gov workers, federal and state political leaders all got the tax payer winnings out of that one last project.
The "diplomatic" charm that went with a modual, flag painted on the side and other national bragging rights seems to be lost on other nations too.
That cash could have gone to their own evolving space projects rather than renting a very expensive Skylab 2.0 experience.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
From your first line. "wicked is the former Soviet Union with the Iron Curtain and it's secret police and gulags, and people disappearing during the middle of the night."
Wicked is also the NSA, with its constant surveillance of citizens, its Blackwaters and other PMCs, its Guantanamo Bays, and people going on extraordinary rendition flights during the night.
I'm a Westerner, and while our think OUR system is more humane than theirs, I must say that we haven't covered ourselves in glory during the past couple of decades.
... a rail gun up the side of a tall mountain as a sort of first-stage booster stands a better chance of, ahem, taking off. (All puns intended.)
If it weren't wicked, it wouldn't be funny. Humor is always based on another persons pain.
-1. Congress micro-managing NASA instead of just budgeting money that goes into a pool that NASA decides priorities on.
0. NASA being primarily a conduit for the distribution of pork, rather than a research organization.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The glaring error is the claim that Orbital Sciences is upgrading their Cygnus cargo vehicle to carry crew; they are NOT.
1. Orbital DOES NOT MAKE THE CYGNUS nor do they make the rocket that launches it. They mostly just integrate stuff they buy. The Antares has a first stage liquid-fueled rocket body built in Ukraine and using engines built in Russia. The upper stages of Anares are solid-fueled units purchased from ATK (which made the shuttle SRBs and with whom Orbital has just announced a merger). The Pressurised cargo portion of the Cygnus spacecraft is made by Thales in Italy.
2. The Cygnus has no heat shield, no parachutes or wings, etc. It burns up on re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere (plunging into the atmosphere at Mach 20+ without thermal protection tends to have that effect). Making Cygnus survive re-entry and landing would require a complete re-design and would produce a "new" spacecraft.
All is not lost, however. There ARE several US firms working on manned access to space:
1. SpaceX has their Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule which currently carry cargo to AND from the ISS. The Dragon was designed from the outset for crew but does not yet have a tested launch abort system or life support system (this should be resolved within the next 3 years).
2. Sierra Nevada Corp has built and drop-tested the early (non-space) version of their Dreamchaser (HL-20 derived) lifting body. They've scheduled more flight tests for this vehicle (the equivalent of the Shuttle programs's "Enterprise") for later this year and have purchased an Atlas to fly a space-worthy airframe into orbit in 2016
3. Boeing is working on their CST-100 capsule which is designed to fly on an Atlas rocket.
4. Lockheed is working on the Orion (a crippled-form of the capsule that would have flown as part of the cancelled Constellation program) for NASA. Orion is NOT part of the "commercial crew" program, which is intended to get people to and from Low Earth Orbit (LEO); Orion is designed for deep-space missions with a heat shield and structure designed for re-entry into Earth's atmosphere at MUCH-higher lunar- and martian-return speeds. The first Orion will fly an unmanned test flight into space in December 2014 atop a Delta IV Heavy (which lacks the horsepower to loft Orion with a crew aboard). Orion will ultimately fly atop the giant SLS rocket which will make its maiden flight in Decemer 2017.
5. Blue Origin (run by Jeff Bazos of Amazon.com fame) is working on both a capsule and a re-usable launch vehicle of their own (with very little publicity).
Notes:
It's interesting that only the two companies run by internet guys are working on re-usable launch vehicles - the traditional aerospace firms are apparently so used to the wasteful government "cost-plus" way of business that they are using throw-away launch vehicles and will never be able to lower their mission costs.
Both Boeing and Sierra Nevada plan to use the Atlas launch vehicle which uses Russian engines and therefore is no more "assured" for US access to space than rented seats aboard Soyuz.
Virgin Galactic's "Space Ship Two" is NOT a competitor; it will never be an orbital vehicle. While SS2 will certainly go into space, this will be highly-ballistic like a WWII V-2 rocket going nearly stright up at a couple times the speed of sound and falling back at similar speeds (therefore not needing a proper heat shield). SS2 lacks the ability to carry enough fuel to get enough horizontal velocity to go into orbit (nearly 15K mph required) and would be incapable of re-entry if it DID attain orbital speed. SS2 will be a fantastic roller-coaster ride out of the atmosphere and back for super-rich tourists but is a dead-end as far as manned spaceflight.
It's not funny when a President makes the joke, but I'm guessing that Obama and Putin do not post as an AC on Slashdot.
Life is Beautiful was a fantastic comedy about the Holocaust. There's humor everywhere, and it makes a damn fine coping mechanism for many of us.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's not funny when a President makes the joke, but I'm guessing that Obama and Putin do not post as an AC on Slashdot.
It's likely pro-Putin propagandists post provocative comments advocating nuking Moscow, genocide by the CIA in Ukraine, usw. Then they quote those comments in the Russian media as somehow representative of western opinion. Haven't seen it here on /., but it seems to come up on some european online news sites.
The Soviet Union had ICBMs targeted at American cities
You seriously think China doesn't? China has the capability and I'm sure both China and the USA have some nukes with the other's name on them. It's not as tense as the cold war was (I'm old enough to have lived through a good bit of the cold war) but any time you have two large nation states there is always the possibility of military conflict.
I'm not hugely worried about getting into a shooting war with China but it's hardly inconceivable. Most likely source would be Taiwan. Also could be issues with Japan or on the Korean peninsula.
Europe never got its act together to build a manned vehicle to launch on it, AND they've grown weary of using it in a sub-optimal way as a commercial satellite launcher, to the current plan is to cancel it and replace it with a cheaper, smaller, and NOT man-rated "Ariane 6"
I think this is just another example of how badly the US has slipped in the world standings in just the last decade.
The US now can't even get people up to the space station that just 15 years ago they were taking a lead position in creating.
That's pushing a popular misconception, though. Yes, the US did rely heavily on German scientists for its rocket program. Most Americans think that Russia did too, but this simply isn't true. The US got almost all of the high-level German rocket scientists under Operation Paperclip, plus most of the rockets. The Soviets only got a handful of scientists and lower-level line workers. Various research and manufacturing facilities were studied by both sides. While the US incorporated the Germans deeply into their programs, the Soviet side didn't. Most were merely debriefed over the course of a few months. Even the highest-level German scientists that they did get were completely shut out of the program by 1951.
The Soviet rocket program was by and large domestic. German technology and data helped, no question, but it wasn't at all like in the US.
When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
When replying to the kind of stuff this Archtech is posting, bear in mind, that what is effectivly Russian ministry of propaganda employs scores of jackasses to monitor all kinds of discussion media (web forums, blogs, etc.) and drown them with pro-Putin lies. This is actually a big problem for all independent sources in Russia that publish anything even remotely politics-related and try to keep the discussion open to general public.
Troll fail:
(1) Entitlement spending doesn't make one bit of difference. These days, NASA gets less than 0.5% of the federal budget. The Pentagon wastes more money in a month than NASA spends in a year. The only reason Congress doesn't double or triple NASA's budget is that they see no political gain in it for themselves without earmarking the money for projects that will never be finished.
(2) Don't know how this is relevant. We knew all along that making ourselves beholden to Russia for manned spaceflight was a bad idea, but Bush and the last Congress did it anyways. If Ukraine hadn't happened, something else probably would have sooner or later.
(3) is flat-out wrong. If you hadn't noticed, the NASA Chief Administrator is a former astronaut himself--not some lawyer who was handed the job on a silver platter for ass-kissing. NASA managers are probably the most competent team in the whole federal government (not least because so many of them are actual rocket scientists), which is why we are able to do so many amazing projects in spite of the idiotic budget cuts that get thrown at us.
Thud's response was far more accurate:
(0) is an accurate characterization of the SLS-Orion project, the official successor to the shuttle and informally known as the "Senate Launch System". This is why we had to contract SpaceX to actually build a rocket, as opposed to pretend to build while distributing pork.
(-1) is really the same thing as (0).
You're also forgetting the stupid decision to start the Shuttle program (instead of using Apollo-like rockets and capsules to launch people into orbit, for far less money), and also the complete mismanagement of our foreign policy by the morons in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan Administrations.
Russia isn't what it used to be...it's anarchy now...basically a gas station that also acts as a front for criminal activities
On a map the country looks big...that's about all they have going for them...that and their oil and illegal activities
The thing is, I agree that most people don't care about Russia being able to do something we cannot...because its temporary and Russia is just a noisy lapdog for international criminals and illuminati
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm in no way a fan of Putin, but lets keep the record straight...
Time has an article on this
http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-russian-separatists-eastern-ukraine/
And as far as Russia 'invading' Crimea goes, they have a military base with an agreement with Ukraine. They could send more troops to that base as they see fit.
Until someone can prove that the referendum was done under duress, or the vote was rigged, why will no one accept the Crimean's decision?
It's interesting you talk about these 'groups' springing up in Eastern Ukraine.What about the initial group that overthrew the legitimate government in the Ukraine in the first place? I don't see you posting about how those groups were obviously western backed (since they were anti-Russian).
oh wait.. lets see, if its an ANTI-russian group, it's spontaneous people rising up; if its a PRO-russian group then its some sinister Russian special forces. .USA! USA! USA!
I got it. Sorry I forgot to read the western propaganda book
> My best guess is you are a Russian who can't wait to visit the new acquisitions.
Any time now. He is just waiting for the permit.
While I'm not defending Russia, I think there is one reason for this hard-line rhetoric:
Russia has a lot of borders, from Finland in the west to the US in the east. Historically, Russia has learned that the slightest sign of weakness, they get invaded. Hell, even the US went into Russia after WWI (although we did stop Japan from making a major incursion a year or two later.) So, they have a right to be paranoid.
There is a mindset with some of Russia's neighbors, especially near the Middle East: Some of them view strength above anything else. Their world view is that if they are not running from an enemy, they are running at an enemy.
Because of this, and the sagging economy Russia has had, they have to maintain a strong posture, even if it costs them economically. If they don't, Russian land can turn Chinese as easily as Tibet did.
Yes, Russia is scary (especially talking with people who lived life behind the Iron Curtain before the USSR fell), their leadership can be extremely brutal, and it isn't good that we are on the verge of another Cold War, but not many people (especially people in the US) understand the history of Russia and thus their siege mentality mindset.
Emigration to space never makes sense once you do the maths. The escape velocity of Earth is 11.2 kilometers per second. Assume that a human is around 100kg, the energy required to accelerate the human to escape velocity (assuming 100% efficient propulsion and no support equipment required) is around 6.2GJ, or 1.7MWh to put it into a more consumer-friendly terms. The average American (to pick the country with the highest per-capita energy consumption) uses around 87kWh per year, so the cost of getting a human away from Earth, assuming perfect conditions, is around 20 times their energy consumption living on Earth for a year. Even assuming a space elevator and the most optimistic efficiency numbers, getting into space for less than your lifetime total energy consumption on the ground is difficult.
And that's just the economic argument. The population growth rate is currently sitting at about 1% per annum. That means about 70 million more people are born every year than die. For exporting people into space to be feasible for reducing the population, you need to ship 70 million people into space per year, or around 200,000 per day. That's in the same ballpark as the total number of air passengers today, including short-haul flights.
Combining these two, the total energy cost is 340GWh (1.24PJ) per day, or 126TWh (450PJ) per year. To put that in perspective, the total energy consumption of the world in 2008 was around 140,000TWh, so you're only talking about 1% of the total energy consumption of the world for your colonisation project - assuming theoretically impossible technology and that everyone goes naked. It typically takes a minimum of ten times as much mass for life support equipment as for passengers, so now you're up to 10%. Even optimistic efficiency numbers bump this closer to 50%. If you actually want them to go somewhere with enough equipment to do something vaguely like colonisation, then you're up to over 100% the total energy production of the world today and a throughput of 2-3 people boarding every second constantly, all day, all year round.
A more compelling argument is that having some self-sustaining colonies in space means that a global catastrophe won't kill all humans. We're still a long way away from being able to build one though, and it's not clear that investing in things like the ISS are actually taking us in that direction. Just as NASA likes to tout how spin-offs from space research have helped other industries, significant improvements in technology used in space have come from elsewhere.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
: Until someone can prove that the referendum was done under duress, or the vote was rigged, why will no one accept the Crimean's decision? Putin himself admitted recently that the anonymous "people in green uniform" that seized power in Crimea were in fact Russian military. So that's about duress. As for rigging vote -- Russian authorities routinely do that in Russia on all levels -- from presidential down to local communal elections, so what is to prevent them from doing it on occupied territory?
Until someone can prove that the referendum was done under duress, or the vote was rigged, why will no one accept the Crimean's decision?
I would consider my country's government being occupied by foreign military forces a pretty good sign of being "under duress". Also if the occupying force held a referendum where status-quo was not an option, it would be pretty easy to argue that I am being forced to go down one of two paths that I do not want.
Maybe things look different from the perspective of the Crimean populace, and maybe this really is what the overwhelming majority wanted. But from outside it certainly doesn't seem legit.
SpaceX should name their first manned vehicle "Trampoline" and watch Dmitry Rogozin's head explode when it delivers astronauts to IIS.
I don't believe that Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK as of last week) has any near-term plans for carrying people. Orbital's Antares rocket, which is what they use for the commercial cargo program for ISS, was only ever planned for cargo (And incidentally also uses Russian engines, the NK-33).
The Sierra Nevada Corporation is making their Dream Chaser spacecraft for manned flight, but it relies on the Atlas V as a launch vehicle.
So the only way we are going to get people into space without the Russians, before the SLS is done, is getting the Delta IV heavy human rated, or, SpaceX.
It would be cool if SpaceX renamed Dragon to Trampoline in response.
"Rogozin does actually have a point, although his threats carry much less weight than he may hope. Russia is due to get a $457.9 million payment for its services soon and few believe that Russia would actually give it up."
Apparently Russian energy exports (which is what this whole thing is about) is worth about 160 BILLION dollars annually.
I am not event sure that 458 Million dollars is an annual figure, but even if it is:
0.458/160*100 = 0.286 or about 0.3% of the money at stake here.
If you don't think the Russians (Putin) would be willing to eat 0.3% for a chance to very publicly and embarrassingly throw it into Obama's face at a global scale, you may be mistaken...
Even if he does eat the 0.3%, it's not like Putin has to worry about being re-elected...
badda boom ting... I'm here all week, try the veal it's excellent! :)
Makes me wonder why you think that's a valid response. The equivalent would be if Columbus just floated in a circle half a mile from the coast of Spain, never brought back anything of any value, but kept yelling about how everyone in Spain will die if they don't build more boats. That's the Nutter "logic".
Great business model though, Columbus getting Queen Isabella to dip into the treasury to fund experiments studying the reproductive habits of various salamanders while underway off the coast. The only thing Columbus would have to worry about is some upstart named "Sea-X" convincing Isabella that unfettered capitalism is much more efficient and patriotic than having Spanish taxpayers shell out (no pun intended) for a socialized sea program, and getting a contract to deliver salamanders to the Sea Station using funds executed off the very same Accounts Payable.
6.2 GJ is also the heat content of a whopping 51 US gallons of gasoline. I use that much per month commuting to and from work.
ISS isn't space. It's a LEO publicity stunt. The moon is space. Mars is space. ISS is just a jobs program, and a way to justify funding.
The ISS is a research platform we need because there is a lot of things we need to know how to do before we can go to "space". If we were serious about getting to "space" we'd double our efforts at the ISS and probably have to build an ISS2. Once we've learned enough to actually build a deep space habitat, then we can look at going to "space".
We could have found a better project for our space industry. The ISS was a make work project... in space.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I remember an article (by Carl Sagan?) that argued that, even if a US-Soviet space station or mission to Mars were not justifiable from a scientific point of view, they worked as an example that peaceful collaboration among the superpowers was possible.
If both countries can't coordinate on keeping human presence in orbit, that's sad.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
This could be entertaining. While the U.S. is using trampolines to get astronauts to the ISS; Russia can use a catapult to get supplies to it.
That may be over-thinking. As we already saw in "Prometheus," in the future arrival at some mystery planet proceeds to immediate landing on visual at some place along the flight trajectory, hopefully flattish.
Way easier.
My fingers get tired in the outer troposphere, though. Need better gloves.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
C'mon! You did not figure the AC was joking ( or badly trolling) at the mention of New Zealand?
NZ does not even have a fighter jet, so I'd say Burkina Faso has a better space capability.
boston "wicked" or regular?
No, the second player just has to pick a box that precludes a win. Like first player picks a corner, 2nd should pick one of the center boxes
Not just that - w/ a population of just 150M, Russia is heavily underpopulated, and prone to invasion. It would be trivial for the Chinese to walk in & annex Eastern Siberia. As it is, Russia struggled just to keep Chechnya subdued: it would be tough for them to keep their borders intact w/o nukes.
Assume that a human is around 100kg, the energy required to accelerate the human to escape velocity (assuming 100% efficient propulsion and no support equipment required) is around 6.2GJ, or 1.7MWh to put it into a more consumer-friendly terms. The average American (to pick the country with the highest per-capita energy consumption) uses around 87kWh per year, so the cost of getting a human away from Earth, assuming perfect conditions, is around 20 times their energy consumption living on Earth for a year.
Check your numbers. I pay for close to 1.2MWh per year in electricity alone. Then there's heating, transportation, ... – and I'm not even American.
According to this table, US per capita energy consumption is about 84MWh/year. You're off by a factor of 1000.
Exactly what I thought of when I read Archtech's post...
I'll tell you what's Wicked! The play, Wicked. It's wicked good.
FTFY.