Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getting the Most Out of the Space Station (Before It's Too Late)

Posted by Soulskill on from the remember-when-we-let-our-space-program-die dept.

bmahersciwriter writes: NASA administrators are strategizing a push to do more science on the International Space Station in the coming years. The pressure is on, given the rapidly cooling relations between the U.S. and Russia, whose deputy prime minister recently suggested that U.S. astronauts use a trampoline if they want to get into orbit. Aiding in the push for more research is the development of two-way cargo ships by SpaceX, which should allow for return of research materials (formerly a hurdle to doing useful experiments). NASA soon aims to send new earth-monitoring equipment to the station and expanded rodent facilities. And geneLAB will send a range of model organisms like fruit flies and nematodes into space for months at a time.

155 comments

  1. Mother Russia... by mlw4428 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ol' Mother Russia should not forget that NASA pays them good monies to send our astronauts into space. Space X is slowly becoming a viable option and American commercialized companies will carry far more weight with NASA than Russia will. Putini should also strongly consider the effects of the US (and US's allies) in implementing trade sanctions and embargos on his nation and how quickly things can go south without a single bullet needing to be fired.

    1. Re:Mother Russia... by johnsie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Chinese and Russians will be able to do it cheaper. It costs too much to employ Americans and purcjase American made products.

    2. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The kiddies have a hardon for anything SpaceX and anything to do with Thorium. Don't bother arguing with them, their devotion is religious and not based in fact.

      Personally, I do think that SpaceX has a good thing going at the moment but they're a failure or two or a political fuckup or two away from never launching again. The state of Russia has more experience, more expertise, more infrastructure and endless seas of funds in comparison. Add to that, smart money is not patriotic. Smart money goes where you launch the cheapest with the greatest successrate. Some times that will be Russia, some times that will be SpaceX... I doubt China will ever be a major player, personally, but I hope I'm wrong.

    3. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Father Russia

    4. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Personally, I do think that SpaceX has a good thing going at the moment but they're a failure or two or a political fuckup or two away from never launching again.

      Just like the three failures that kicked off SpaceX's program ended SpaceX? And how does this really differ from Russia? I'd say Russia is a political fuckup away from ending its primary meal ticket, the launches to ISS. That would have much the same effect.

      The state of Russia has more experience, more expertise, more infrastructure and endless seas of funds in comparison.

      How many rockets and engines has Russia developed in the last ten years? How can it have and retain such experience and expertise, if it's not actually doing the sort of things any more that generate experience and expertise? Russia may have more funding, the only thing I'm willing to grant on your list, but they aren't willing to spend that on development either of existing platforms or new ones. Their program is stagnant and not going anywhere.

      OTOH, SpaceX has developed two new rockets, at least three new rocket engine lineages (perhaps four by now), a spacecraft, and vertical landing technology in a bit over ten years. Even if they fail, say due to the gambles they are taking, it's still a solid and remarkable demonstration that their approach works far better than anything else out there. That means other such companies can fill in the vacuum and take SpaceX's place, using the same strategies.

    5. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the three failures that kicked off SpaceX's program ended SpaceX?

      Which of those failures ended in death?

      That's what we're talking about here.

      Nobody gives a damn if a payload of dehydrated beans explodes. When a human dies horribly in a gigantic fireball, though, oh yes - there will be cries for blood.

    6. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think that's a pretty thin hope to pine for. Everyone knows people will die in space and that has already happened before. And once we pass through the original hubbub, nobody is going to care any more, just like they don't care when a family wraps their car around a tree.

    7. Re:Mother Russia... by cheesybagel · · Score: 0

      You do not know what you are talking about. They recently developed the RD-191 and RD-0124 staged combustion engines. They are developing the Angara rocket to replace Proton. Russia is one of the largest launch services providers in the world.

      The largest problem they have had by far has been funding. The main reason for the delays in Angara has been lack of funding and lack of a launch pad because they have had no funding to build one. The first stage of Angara was launched rather successfully with the South Korea Naro rocket (the part of Naro that failed was the South Korean 2nd stage the Russian 1st stage worked perfect).

    8. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do not know what you are talking about. They recently developed the RD-191 and RD-0124 staged combustion engines. They are developing the Angara rocket to replace Proton. Russia is one of the largest launch services providers in the world.

      In other words, they upgraded the labels on rocket designs from the 1960s and 1970s. The RD-0110 was first flown in 1964 and the RD-170 was first developed for the Engergia rocket in the late 70s.

      If instead, we're going to compare apples to apples. we'll also have to note that SpaceX has similarly upgraded its rocket engines during the same period. For example, there are three substantial upgrades of the original Merlin 1 rocket engine (the rocket used on the Falcon 9) and a second upgrade to the Draco rocket engine (a in-space rocket engine used for maneuvering). So

      And while Russia claims to be developing Angara, as you already noted, they aren't due to the "delays" attributed to funding (which is actually the easiest part of the puzzle for Russia to fix - just add money).

      So to summarize the current count: SpaceX has developed four rocket engine designs from scratch and upgraded these four times in the same sense that Russia has upgraded the RD-170 and the RD-0110. Then they developed two launch vehicles while Russia has experienced delays in its alleged development of the Angara. Finally, SpaceX developed a new spacecraft and vertical landing technology while Russia did neither. I think you see where I'm going with this.

    9. Re:Mother Russia... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

    10. Re:Mother Russia... by cheesybagel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You call replacing a gas generator engine (RD-0110) with a staged combustion engine (RD-0124) with over twice the chamber pressure an 'upgrade'? You don't know WTF you are talking about. The engine is completely new with no relation other than that it is used as a drop in replacement with compatible interfaces.

      The RD-191 to a lot of people maybe be just an RD-170 with a quarter of the combustion chambers but things are a lot more complicated than that. Plus I only gave those two engines as examples. There are more.

      Pump fed engines, Kestrel and Draco, are trivial to design in comparison. The Russians also designed some of those much later than what you mention such as the S5.98M engine used in the Briz-M upper stage used in Proton. They also designed a LOX/LH2 expander cycle engine called the RD-0146. No man. The Russians are the world leaders in liquid rocket engine design and anyone who thinks otherwise are deluding themselves.

      SpaceX is doing a nice job so far but their engines are still not state of the art.

    11. Re:Mother Russia... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Angara is being developed alright. The launch pad was finally funded circa 2010 and they finished construction of it at Plesetsk recently. The first Angara 1.2 rocket is supposed to launch from Plesetsk at the end of this month. The first Angara 5 rocket is supposed to launch late this year or early next year. They also funded construction of the Vostochny Cosmodrome as a replacement for Baikonur on Kazakhstan.

      Also guess what the Soyuz capsule already uses rocket assisted propulsion for softening up capsule landing.

      Russia has not designed a whole new spacecraft because a) Soyuz works fine. b) Roskosmos wasn't exactly swimming in money and had other problems on their mind. i.e. ensuring they could manufacture Proton and Soyuz 100% in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union left a lot of the rocket manufacturing in Ukraine, replace analog with digital avionics, and the replacement of the military rockets based on hypergolics with a LOX/Kerosene launcher. That is Angara.

      There has certainly be no lack of proposals. Energia seems to propose a new capsule like every year or so.

    12. Re:Mother Russia... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh really, where are their space stations?

    13. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 0
      Yes, I call it an upgrade because it is.

      Pump fed engines, Kestrel and Draco, are trivial to design in comparison.

      [...] SpaceX is doing a nice job so far but their engines are still not state of the art.

      I guess you don't get the point. State of the art is not economical. An engine that is trivial to design and build, and which gives reasonable ISP and thrust/weight is a superior choice for rockets where you want more value out of them than you put in.

      SpaceX has a rocket which is already cheaper to fly than Angara and that includes the higher labor and operational costs of flying out of the US. And if, at some future point, it becomes within the interests of SpaceX to develop a state of the art engine (rather than merely incrementally advance their current engines to the state of the art as they currently are doing), they have the people in place to do so.

      And I still don't grant that Russia has more experience. The new crop aren't the ones who developed Soyuz and Proton. They aren't undertaking the same remarkable effort.

    14. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX has developed four rocket engine designs from scratch and upgraded these four times in the same sense that Russia has upgraded the RD-170 and the RD-0110

      Be that as it may, SpaceX has ignominiously failed to overtake the Russians in payload and cost, and these are Russia's 60's technology in the form of Soyuz/Progress. AND the Russians, with their 60's inventory, is still the only game in town for astronaut transport.
      I suggest SpaceX has some further development to do, even to just overtake 50 years old Russian technology.

      I think you see where I'm going with this.

      I think Elon is going to thrust that much harder into both your orifices.

    15. Re:Mother Russia... by giorgist · · Score: 1

      How come the US didn't think the same thing ? You see the US is the one handing out sanctions left right and center and pushing it's allied to follow suit. Europe should not worry, the US will find gas for them ... sure will.

    16. Re:Mother Russia... by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      The Russians have the resources and experience that a world power with interests in maintaining security accumulate over years of rocketry development.
      This is not Ford and Tesla.

    17. Re:Mother Russia... by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess you don't get the point. State of the art is not economical. An engine that is trivial to design and build, and which gives reasonable ISP and thrust/weight is a superior choice for rockets where you want more value out of them than you put in.

      The Russians claim staged combustion engines are more cost effective than gas generator engines. Who am I to say any different? As for SpaceX they wouldn't be working on the Raptor using a LOX/Methane staged combustion cycle while moving away from gas generators like Merlin if they thought the Russians were wrong.

      In fact if you look at the Merlin-1D a lot of the advances it has are clearly Russian tech derived like the channel wall nozzle. You know which other two stage to orbit LOX/Kerosene rocket is available in the market other than Falcon 9? Zenit.

      SpaceX is not using staged combustion now because solving those issues to get LOX/Kerosene oxidizer rich staged combustion is certainly not trivial. RD-171 took a long time to develop. Supposedly it is easier to solve the technical issues with LOX/Methane staged combustion, of which the Russians also have working engines, because it has less polymerization and coking issues.

    18. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so they are developing a rocket.

    19. Re:Mother Russia... by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Russians scraped their space shuttle equivalent after one flight because they had no use for it (instead of using it, to the cost of untold number of billions $ like the US did). Russians are pragmatic, why would they launch a space station while the ISS is still in orbit?
      Besides, they've done it before, remember Mir ?

    20. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea yea, I have also personally developed 35 rocket engines. Haven't had many launches though, but I guess that doesn't really count here, does it?

      The bottomline here is Russians can launch cheaper than SpaceX and have way more experience at it. Who the hell cares how many new or old engine designs someone has? That's engineer talk, business side here only needs to get shit up there cheap. If 1064 design works and is cheap it's good enough.

    21. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The bottomline here is Russians can launch cheaper than SpaceX and have way more experience at it.

      No, that is not the bottom line. And the Russians don't have that experience.

    22. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Russians have the resources and experience that a world power with interests in maintaining security accumulate over years of rocketry development.

      Which I might add, is not that useful for actually doing anything in space at an affordable price. The problem here is that cheap space launch is primarily a matter of economics not of experience, expertise, mostly irrelevant infrastructure, or funding.

      The space industry suffers from remarkably low expectations. Just because the Russians have a cheaper space program than the US or Europe (which is a very low threshold to achieve IMHO) doesn't mean that they have experience with the cheap space launch strategy that SpaceX is attempting to pursue.

    23. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Russians claim staged combustion engines are more cost effective than gas generator engines.

      The Russians claim a lot of stuff. I have no reason to take their word in the absence of evidence. My view is that the Russians let their program go to seed. Maybe you're right and they'll turn that around in the next few years. They are doing somewhat better than I thought they were. We will see.

    24. Re:Mother Russia... by servant · · Score: 1

      When Russian politics are involved, economics take a back seat. Putin thinks he and his country have been snubbed for a long time, and we have given him/them the keys to the kingdom by removing the shuttle from service before having a replacement system available.

      --
      ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
    25. Re:Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Russia has "upgraded the labels on rocket designs" - perhaps... do they work ?

      Let's compare apples to apples, as you seem so keen - how many of the *much newer*shuttles are still in service ?

      Also, please note that SpaceX != NASA - it's a private company. They can probably even sell to North Korea if they like.

    26. Re: Mother Russia... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      More or less at the same coordinates as the american one...

      --
      This is blinging
    27. Re:Mother Russia... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I count three statements in there that you really should reconsider. Nobody flies "shuttles" so there isn't anything to compare apples to apples. Nobody has confused SpaceX with NASA. And SpaceX wouldn't be allowed to sell to North Korea.

    28. Re:Mother Russia... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "When a human dies horribly in a gigantic government agency fireball"

      There, FIFY

      Deaths in private ventures are less likely to have politicians in a frothing rage.

      There have been a significant number of deaths on the ground in various space programs in the last 20 years(*), but NASA copped the flak because it was so visible - and the deaths were avoidable from the outset if a hopelessly compromised design hadn't been rammed through.

      (*) The two which spring to mind immediately are an entire chinese village which had a Long March land on them, and the entire Brazilian space program ground crew along with most of their designers in a pad explosion (Violating the cardinal safety directive: Don't conduct fuelling exercises with people in the vicinity of the rocket!)

  2. trampoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a great name for the SpaceX crew capsule

    1. Re:trampoline by myth24601 · · Score: 0

      XKCD should do a what if? for how a trampoline could be used to get to the space station.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    2. Re:trampoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it's simple, but it'd cost a ton.

      Step 1. Dig a second Kola Superdeep Borehole to give the trampoline enough room to compress.
      Step 2. Build trampoline over Kola #2
      Step 3. Calculate approximate weight of Russian deputy prime minister.
      Step 4. Send in a black ops team to kidnap said minister, followed by extraordinary rendition to the US.
      Step 5. Put weight on the trampoline such that if the weight of the deputy prime minister is added, the trampoline will collapse into Kola #2.
      Step 6. Dangle deputy prime minister over trampoline until he offers to fly astronauts into space again, at a greatly reduced price.

    3. Re:trampoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you would have to jump from a height exceeding the height of the ISS, (completely ignoring terminal velocity here too). You would have to accelerate yourself into the trampoline at great speed, and who knows how far the trampoline would have to extend using modern elastic fabrics and polymers. And would the impact from hitting this trampoline at speed be survivable by a human? I guess it would be a good chuckle if they did the maths.

    4. Re:trampoline by Sketchly · · Score: 0

      We'd need a Skynet for safety

    5. Re:trampoline by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no need to jump from high place, just jump along with a very heavy weight that gets removed to the side when the trampoline is at maximum displacement

    6. Re: trampoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catapoline

  3. Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by myth24601 · · Score: 1

    It always seemed like a mistake to get involved in such a venture with the Russians. Any joint venture with two co-equals with somewhat cold relations seems destined to lead to problems as each side has conflicting goals (sometimes unrelated to the joint venture).

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    1. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It always seemed like a mistake to get involved in such a venture with the Russians. Any joint venture with two co-equals with somewhat cold relations seems destined to lead to problems as each side has conflicting goals (sometimes unrelated to the joint venture).

      Yes.. we should have continued to fight them at every turn and paid for the space station ourselves with the money we saved...

      ???

    2. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It never was really a science project, it was a diplomatic venture. Precisely because of the cold relations between the USA and Russia, the ISS was to showcase how antagonistic nations could set aside their differences to work together for the good of humanity. The ideal was that such a display would encourage other nations and tribes to see their personal conflicts as a little less important in the grand scheme of life. As an observation of wars since the launch of the ISS can show you, it didn't have much of an effect outside the nations that were already getting sick of open warfare.

      If Russia goes through with effectively confiscating the whole project, the RSS (too bad they're not claiming the title "Soviet" like before, "SSS" has a fun ring to it) will change from a sign of cooperation to a sign of Russian ascendency and peerlessness. What, if anything, that changes on the ground is hard to guess at. I'm not even sure most nations or people would notice, it would just be mentioned whenever someone thinks it can be used to shame an opponent in an argument (debate hasn't been the rule of politics in quite some time).

    3. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With the constant pettyness and renegging on agreements by the US government, it seems like a very risky business to go into such a venture for the Russians as well.

    4. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Co-equals? They can get there all you can do is ask them to be a taxi service or threaten to shoot it down if they refuse.

    5. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by sabri · · Score: 1

      It never was really a science project, it was a diplomatic venture. Precisely because of the cold relations between the USA and Russia, the ISS was to showcase how antagonistic nations could set aside their differences to work together for the good of humanity. The ideal was that such a display would encourage other nations and tribes to see their personal conflicts as a little less important in the grand scheme of life. As an observation of wars since the launch of the ISS can show you, it didn't have much of an effect outside the nations that were already getting sick of open warfare.

      And this is why the Vulcans haven't contacted us yet. It's not about warp drive, it's about a society being civil and evolved beyond internal disputes.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    6. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vulcans haven't evolved yet. We are the Ancient Humanoids.

    7. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I disagree, as it is prompting us to work together despite current tensions, and has saved a lot of money. (If we had a cheaper option on hand we'd be doing it by now!)

      This is similar to how people disagree on the Olympics, or the UN as a whole. Some people say "the UN is a sham if Country X is on the human rights committee." I say "what, you think Country X would have better human rights if they weren't on the comittee?"

    8. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by peragrin · · Score: 1

      We will never evolve beyond internal disputes. heck 60% of all marriages end in failures do you really think we can cooperate on a national level over the long term?

      The thing is over time our disputes are getting less violent. we will still have them but in another one or two hundred years we will talk them out instead of shooting. well unless we fall completely back.

      I am not convinced that even aliens attacking us could get current leaders to work together.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      "what, you think Country X would have better human rights if they weren't on the comittee?"

      No, I think they'd have exactly the same (lack of) human rights, but they'd spend a lot less time telling the rest of us that they're a paragon of human rights, what with being on the Human Rights Committee and and all....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. If aliens invaded, half of the world's leaders would side with them in the hope of gaining advantage over their political opponents. Why? Because people still see anything other than the self, family or tribe as alien.

    11. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Just wait til the internet hive mind evolves. A little bit of right wing facism for some genocide and extermination of minorities, prisoners, and the poor. Then they'll wind up the left-wing nanny state factor gradually to slowly erode any concept of privacy, individualism, liberty, or meritocracy. Nobody will know it's happening, they'll all be grooving out to Nicki Minaj, Justin Beiber, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Kesh, Katy Perry, Rihanna, One Direction, Korn, uhh.....or watching 'Real Housewives.'

    12. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      If we had a cheaper option on hand we'd be doing it by now!

      How do you figure? I'd say that's a tautology, but it can't be because it's just not true.

    13. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Another mistake was to get involved knowing that we would retire the shuttle and have no means of getting there ourselves.

    14. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      we got involved in the ISS ages ago. First plans were in the 80s and Russia got involved in 1993 (first piece went up in 1998). And frankly, we are only not seriously talking about decommissioning the ISS because it ran so far over schedule. It should have been at end life before the shuttles.

    15. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ke$ha is spelt with an A and a $

      (Can we add "being a pedantic fuck on the internet" to your list of things we will be grooving out to?)

    16. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      During the cold war, the stakes where high. Now the stakes are low, so both sides are starting to get petty.

      Neither side will allow the diplomatic spat over Ukraine to escalate to all out nuclear war. Conventional military conflict must also be avoided as that contains the implicit threat of an out of control escalation into nuclear war. Thus the game of tit for tat escalation of hostilities progresses in baby steps, we have now escalated from "nasty letters" to economic sanctions. In Soviet Russia economic sanctions is raising gas prices or threatening to throw away a $150 billion dollar toy.

      This is a very clever political gambit to give the US/EU a deadline to drop its economic sanctions after the diplomatic fuss has died down. I'm pretty sure the Russian policy regarding the space station will return to the original agreement once diplomatic tensions have resolved themselves.

    17. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by cavreader · · Score: 1

      For some reason Russia and the US seem to be able to compartmentalize things like cooperation on space projects. The Russian scientists and engineers have to put up with the same amount of bullshit from their politicians that the US does.

    18. Re:Mistake to go in with the Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol they can't take shit.

  4. Needs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More, bigger and better, hamster tubes!

  5. Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Have to laugh at the stupid Russia Deputy prime minister, as if we cant get to space on our own.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by johnsie · · Score: 1

      You can't

    2. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and they can't either. It should be a team effort. Instead, we're bickering and backstabbing instead of getting off this rock... humanity at its usual...

    3. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell. How would you?

      Also, please note that even when SpaceX gets a man-rated capsule and launch system, it will be a commercial for-profit entity not beholden to any state.

      Thirdly, kindly stop patting yourself on the back for things you had no part in. Nationalism is for monkeys.

    4. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The universe is better off without humanity.

    5. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Pray tell. How would you?

      The Space Launch System, which expected to be ready to fly in 2017.

      Granted, using that to put people on the ISS is absurd overkill. It would be like commuting in an 18-wheeler.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      So you are expecting to use future technology that doesn't exist to put people in space now.

      Well done.

    7. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which expected to be ready to fly in 2017.

      So in other words, you can't. Thankyou for playing.

    8. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by khallow · · Score: 1

      which expected

      The Ares V was expected to fly in 2018 and put something in orbit around the Moon in 2019. Expectations have a way of not happening in the aerospace industry. Congress can expect the SLS to fly any time they want, but that doesn't mean it actually will do so.

    9. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Don't joke man. The SLS is a white elephant which will probably never fly in the final configuration.

      If you said SpaceX Falcon 9 or Boeing Delta IV Heavy I wouldn't laugh.

    10. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alright - seriously - can we get all the brainwashed Russians off of this site? You're not welcome here. You live in a shithole uncultured second world country, where half of you women are drunks, and half of your women are hookers blown out of their mind on amphetamines. The other half of your population is self-serving uneducated homophobic shitheads, who spend their entire lives being rude to each other and trying to screw each other over out of a couple of bucks. you have no middle class - you have the super poor, who all have the latest iphone, and the super rich, you pay a million to get their iphone a special plastic cover of an unavailable color. and you're getting worse. your population absorbs government propaganda spewed up by the news outlets, like in the ussr times, believes it, and supports it. and is proud of that. instead of the american dream, where you work hard for someone, save up money, start your own business w/ it, and start a family, your women go in for chemical peels and wear 5" heels to the fucking supermarket, just to get a man by the time they're 25, because after that they're an old maid and life is over. you complain about people screwing you over up at the top, yet your 1 goal in life is to be at the top so you can be the screwer. you're a rancid stew - that's why it's so hard for your people to get a visa to a normal country. You can't because We don't want you here. You're ruled by a dictator with his buddies sucking away all your money, and you support it. all your intellectuals and cultured people left when the ussr fell. you're left with shit people, in a shit hole. rot in your own shit, leave the rest of us alone. no one really needs you for anything. we all did just fine when you were isolated as the ussr, and believe me, we'll be fine now.

      we had a way to "get there". we decided to end it and come up with something new. there's a gap in between us changing our old car for a new car. we chose to make that gap and use your drunken kerosene-powered broken down old taxi to fill the gap. you don't want the business? cheesh, fine. we'll wait a couple of years. if we really needed to, we would do it earlier, but it's smarter to have the gap. your gdp is $2 trillion. ours is $16 trillion. if we wanted to, we could take one of those extra trillions and fly to space in a month. but that's not the best decision right now. you're a fucking joke, you only matter because you built a bunch of nukes. you're the bully who steals lunch money because you can't pay for lunch. 99% of your population would love to live in the usa or europe, but you don't belong, and we won't let you in. isolate yourself, please. during those times, your gdp was 0.5 trillion usd. go back to those times, before foreign investment, although I still think you'll all have the latest iphones so you can show each other how cool you all are, while not being able to afford a fucking toilet seat and living in panel housing that's falling apart. we don't need you. stay in your toilet, fuck off, especially from this site.

    11. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

      just you

    12. Re:Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > there's a gap in between us changing our old car for a new car.
      Problem is that the gap keeps extending everytime congress changes. Until the USA can design and build a pork-barrel-compliant human rated vehicle on a shoestring budget in less than 5 years, they'll stay without their new car.

  6. Direct economic confrontation with Russia by sinij · · Score: 3, Informative

    In any direct economic confrontation with Russia US will get impacted a lot less than Russia. This was true during cold war days, this is more so true today. Russia's refusal to provide orbital delivery will only serve one purpose - channel money away from Russian space program toward NASA or Space-X.

    Now, if Russia wanted to negatively impact US, then they'd mass produce tech and sell to anyone/everyone willing to pay. This would remove technological edge from US and enrich Russia.

    1. Re:Direct economic confrontation with Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any direct economic confrontation with Russia US will get impacted a lot less than Russia. This was true during cold war days, this is more so true today. Russia's refusal to provide orbital delivery will only serve one purpose - channel money away from Russian space program toward NASA or Space-X.

      And how far does a "direct economic confrontation" go? When you damage an economic system, you kill people - the system has less resources to expend on food and medical care. Are you really advocating that type of confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers?

      Now, if Russia wanted to negatively impact US, then they'd mass produce tech and sell to anyone/everyone willing to pay. This would remove technological edge from US and enrich Russia.

      You think the reason Russia isn't doing that already is because why, exactly? If it would "enrich Russia" they'd ALREADY BE DOING IT IF THEY COULD. Jeez. Anyone on the planet who can do that is already doing that.

  7. Get rid of NASA by Charliemopps · · Score: -1

    I hate to say it, but the space program was going along great while under the Airforce. As soon as NASA got involved in the late 50's we had a mess. The Shuttle program was an unmitigated disaster. It set us back decades, if we'd stuck with the Apollo program we'd have been much better off.

    Speaking of the airforce, anyone know how they're getting their mini-robot spy shuttle into orbit? You'd think people would notice the launch. Or are they doing it from the ocean?

    1. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely uninformed questions from someone willing to make such a bold claims of fact.

    2. Re:Get rid of NASA by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the space program had disasters under air force too. you must be young. plenty of successes under NASA for 1960s until now

    3. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sure showed him he wrong he was. Didntcha?

    4. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mistakes in the Space Shuttle design was made for the Air Force:

      "This led to an effort to interest the US Air Force in using the shuttle for their missions as well. The Air Force was mildly interested, but demanded a much larger vehicle, far larger than the original concepts. To lower the development costs of the resulting designs, boosters were added, a throw-away fuel tank was adopted, and many other changes made that **greatly lowered the reusability and greatly added to vehicle and operational costs. With the Air Force's approval, the system emerged in its operational form.**"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_design_process

    5. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, plenty of countries have military "space programs". LEO and communication satellites is all they got too.

      There is no magical fairy-tale to be had in space. It's huge, it's empty, it's hostile.

      Deal with it.

    6. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like you. Well done. Capital argument. Flawless victory.

      Enjoy your fedora.

    7. Re:Get rid of NASA by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      The Apollo Program showed it was capable of getting people to the moon, but the point of NASA isn't just getting people to the moon over and over, the point is to eventually establish a permanent, expanding presence in space. Pointing a V-2 rocket up at the sky is effective but is also a dead end.

      And of course the space program had problems under the Airforce.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:Get rid of NASA by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The problem of NASA is the politicians coming in and changing the direction of it's primary focus every couple of years. Plus they see it as a job stimulus project which would exist even if it was moved back into the military (for example, tanks that the military doesn't want).

    9. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're blaming NASA.

      Why don't you blame who is in charge of NASA?

      Let me hint who it is: They're the opposite of Progress

    10. Re:Get rid of NASA by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      I hate to say it, but the space program was going along great while under the Airforce. As soon as NASA got involved in the late 50's we had a mess.

      Uh, what great successes did AF have before the "late 50's"? Launching captured existing German rockets?
         

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    11. Re:Get rid of NASA by khallow · · Score: 1

      The mistakes in the Space Shuttle design was made for the Air Force:

      Only because NASA made too much rocket and had to get Air Force funding to cover the funding gap. One bad decision lead to another.

    12. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mistakes in the Space Shuttle design was made for the Air Force:

      Only because NASA made too much rocket and had to get Air Force funding to cover the funding gap. One bad decision lead to another.

      "The Air Force was mildly interested, but demanded **a much larger vehicle**, far larger than the original concepts."

    13. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he Apollo Program showed it was capable of getting people to the moon,"

      No, it was mostly to show up the USSR at the time. That's all. It was an empty symbolic gesture.

      " Pointing a V-2 rocket up at the sky is effective but is also a dead end."

      Space is a dead end. It's great to put some cameras and radios floating up there, but that's it. No one's going to camp on the Moon or buy a condo on Mars.

      Deal with it.

    14. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations?

    15. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
      They were 20 years ahead of NASA before they got the funding axe because the US needed only one space program.

    16. Re:Get rid of NASA by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      The USAF did develop the Atlas ICBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas) in the late 50's which had little to do with the Germans. The Germans were over in Huntsville working for the Army where they developed the Redstone IRBM and its successors, which included the Saturn line of boosters. But in the meantime the USAF developed the Titan line of boosters independently of the German/NASA/Huntsville team.
      In the early space program the Huntsville team had the first visible successes with their derivative of the Redstone launching the first US satellite and the first US astronaut. However the first US manned orbital mission was launched aboard an Atlas and the two-man Gemini missions after that were launched aboard Titans, though all the manned programs were funded and managed through NASA. Of course it was Saturns which launched all the Apollo missions.
      The OP's contention that NASA messed up the space program is an ignorant crock, though. On the other hand, the USAF certainly screwed up the Space Shuttle with their requirements for the vehicle.

    17. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, don't worry about it, I think Charlie's Haloperidol IV got disconnected somehow. You gotta dose Space Nutters very hard otherwise the hallucinations come back real quick.

    18. Re:Get rid of NASA by khallow · · Score: 1

      "The Air Force was mildly interested, but demanded **a much larger vehicle**, far larger than the original concepts."

      Nonsense. NASA would have been able to fund a small vehicle without Air Force involvement. Note that the current Wikipedia article you quote (which incidentally asserts the above without citation) also claims that NASA had already designed a vehicle too large for existing funding and only went to the Air Force to get additional funding.

      Also we have original concepts mentioned in the Wikipedia article like launching a reusable launch vehicle on a Saturn V. Do you really think the final Space Shuttle is larger than a Saturn V launch?

      So here's a summary of my arguments - NASA already had the ability to fund a small RLV, the cooperation with the USAF was voluntary, and they already had other huge original concepts in mind before they approached USAF. I think there's a simple explanation for this particular claim - historical revisionism.

    19. Re:Get rid of NASA by MShield · · Score: 2

      I would camp on the Moon in a heartbeat... and I would bring my kids,... and a telescope. And we would marvel at the wonders of the Earth and eat freeze-dried ice cream sandwiches.

    20. Re:Get rid of NASA by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I generally meant space missions. Perhaps they made great rockets, but there is more to space exploration than rockets. Military projects usually get deeper pockets than civilian projects, I would note. Civilian programs tend to get more scrutiny, in part because the military understandably has to keep most things secret, and second because Republicans are more critical of civilian projects than military ones for some reason.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    21. Re:Get rid of NASA by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. USAF didn't do squat for space exploration as we usually define it. Their boosters were great enablers though. I guess I jumped on your, "captured existing German rockets" statement which doesn't credit the enormous amount of rocket development done in the 40's and 50's independent of the Germans. I read a fascinating recent bio of von Braun, however, which concludes that the V-2 probably pushed rocket development ahead by10 years over the natural progress of technology in the mid-20th century. A lot of interacting factors led to the rapid development of the 40's, 50's, and 60's though.

    22. Re:Get rid of NASA by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      If we want to continue to have an expanding economy sooner or later we're going to have to use the resources available off planet. The human race is built for expansion and until we get into space in a big way we will continue to be vulnerable to all sorts of things. If we don't expand into space we have no real future in the long run.

    23. Re:Get rid of NASA by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The X-37? It has been launched into orbit by Lockheed Martin Atlas V rockets that use Russian RD-180 engines.

    24. Re:Get rid of NASA by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      No man. The DoD wanted Shuttle to be a lot larger so they could launch big reconnaissance satellites with it. The USAF also wanted the ability to do polar launches from Vandenberg plus a lot of cross-range capability so it could fly back to where it launched from. Both those features made the Shuttle immensely expensive and bloated.

      The original Shuttle proposals by Max Faget were supposed to launch only astronauts not humongous cargo.

    25. Re:Get rid of NASA by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The US launched a captured V-2 into space (but not orbit) in 1946 with a camera. Perhaps there were USAF-built rocket space missions after these V-2 experiments, but I am not aware of any until the "Sputnik scare" pushed military rockets into space use for a brief time until NASA took that over.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    26. Re:Get rid of NASA by khallow · · Score: 1

      So what? Again, NASA could have solved this problem, with money to spare, by scaling down the Max Faget vehicle till it fit in the budget.

    27. Re:Get rid of NASA by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Assuming the people actually controlling the money were interested in two different launcher projects that is. The same people that pushed through the F-111 one plane fits all.

    28. Re:Get rid of NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well then sooner or later we'll have to build a social model with no economic growth. We aren't "built" for expansion anymore than we're "built" to live under the water; we can do it as long as we can bring in extra energy. Left to nature, the death rate is quite high and we're mostly built to reproduce, suffer and die young.

      There was no human race a million years ago, and there won't be one in another million; evolution is still happening you know.

      We never had a "long term" future.

      Grow up.

    29. Re:Get rid of NASA by khallow · · Score: 1

      The USAF people already had Titan III and were expecting to keep it.

    30. Re:Get rid of NASA by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      USAF had decent flying shapes in the 50's. None could handle re-entry temps. Spam-in-a-can could. And it supported defense research (ICBMs).

      On the other hand, we had the USAF Man in Space Soonest program. The acronym proved prophetic, as we missed getting into space first.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    31. Re:Get rid of NASA by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Shuttle was supposed to replace Titan with the use of the Shuttle-Centaur stage. USAF had Titan III like NASA had Saturn V.

  8. This effort has really NOTHING to do with Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our position on the space station is only remotely related to our temp work around of riding up with them to get there.
    They can't "run it" with out our cooperation.

    Its much more complicated that it seems to the laymen.

    The life span of the station has not been impacted in anyway I have heard about.

  9. Getting the most out of Slashdot classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot Beta will be the death of this site. Trade email addresses with your favorite geeks now before Slashdot burns to a cinder on re-entry.
     
    Boycott Dice!
    Boycott ThinkGeek!
    Boycott Beta!!!

  10. Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Ukraine had a government sympathetic to Russia until Obama fomented a rebellion that ousted it. Remember the "Fuck the EU" comment? That was about the EU not wanting to destabilize Ukraine because they weren't willing to go to war over it. Obama fomented the rebellion anyway.

    Imagine Russia blatantly intervening in Canadian politics - for example in Quebec, getting English-speakers kicked out into the US and the rest of Canada - and what that would do to US attitudes towards Russia.

    Of course, in another perfect example of "smart power", after fomenting rebellion and damn near starting a war with a nuclear power - a crisis that's still simmering to this day - we got hashtags from the Obama admin. #RedLine.

    I guess Obama must have promised the Russians that if they liked the original Ukrainian government they could keep it.

  11. Somebody should tell NASA by dkman · · Score: 1

    Fruit flies don't live for "months". It's 8 weeks in case you were interested.

    Nematodes last about 2 months, so that one's ok.

    --
    I refuse to sign
    1. Re:Somebody should tell NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 months is approximately 8 weeks. Not sure why a life span of "2 months" means "months" is accurate, but a life span of 8 weeks (2 months) is not "months".

      Either way, it's the life span of the *population* that matters for the experiments duration, not the *individuals*, so "months" works just fine, even for values larger than 2.

    2. Re:Somebody should tell NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8 weeks is 56 days.
      There are no two consecutive months that have a combined total of 56 or less.
      So at best they live for a month and a bit, or close to two months.

    3. Re:Somebody should tell NASA by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Fruit flies don't live for "months".

      Normal Earth fruit flies, yes. But on the Space Station, their Space Station fruit flies apparently live much longer. It looks like they have slipped up, and lets us know what they are *really* experimenting on up there. Obviously, a secret space station longevity serum.

      Because they are doing the experimenting up in the Space Station, it probably means that there are still some bothersome side effects, like turning folks into zombies and stuff like that.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  12. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by worldthinker · · Score: 1

    So are you suggesting that it was up to the Americans and Russians to determine the choices a sovereign people should make? How about if someone made those choices for you? Oh Wait, they already do...

  13. The most? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most? Get everyone out of the space station before it's too late!

  14. Getting the most out of the Space Station - easy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Easy. Just open all the doors. That'll get just about everything that isn't tied down out.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure dude, what other Russian conspiracy theories are you believing?

    Maybe they should tell you about the rebellion in Utah, and how those poor persecuted Mormons are being oppressed! Or that dude in Nevada!

  16. Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "as if we cant get to space on our own"

    That depends, either on our willingness to pay off a bunch of aerospace/defense contractors tens of billions of dollars to recreate technology from the 60s (SLS). Or our ability to keep the corruption in the federal government from sabotaging some of the halfway reasonable attempts to bring down launch costs (SpaceX, Bigelow, etc).

  17. Time to consider another Skylab? by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    Remember Skylab? It was America's first space station, and lasted 1973-1979 (before it burned up on re-entry). We got a lot of good science out of that station, and maybe it's time we do it again.

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:Time to consider another Skylab? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe this time they can hit the target so I can get my damn taco...
      http://freebies.about.com/cs/foodfreebies/l/bltacobell.htm

    2. Re:Time to consider another Skylab? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      NASA's Skylab II concept, for earth-moon-L2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

  18. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by guises · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see that even the Russian conspiracy theorists take a "blame Obama" approach to politics. It's a small world.

  19. Getting the "most"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Most what? Earthworm and fruit fly "science" flown by high school students?

    Or most pork/state?

    The space program is a high tech welfare program for engineers.

    Deal with it.

  20. The shuttle's failings were largely by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the fault of the USAF!

    The USAF demanded the ability to launch, retrieve/deploy a payload, and return to earth in a single orbit. They also wanted the ability to get into a polar orbit, which required a huge cross-range capability not in the original design.

    After forcing all this crap into the design (and sinking billions on a shuttle launch/landing facility at Vandenberg AFB), they gave up on the project entirely, leaving NASA stuck with a vehicle that was no longer optimized for what NASA wanted to do with it.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:The shuttle's failings were largely by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I largely agree with you. A caveat, though, is the fact that shuttle *needed* USAF funding to get off the ground. Whether or not it was a good thing that it got off the ground is a topic for another thread.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  21. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So are you suggesting that it was up to the Americans and Russians to determine the choices a sovereign people should make? How about if someone made those choices for you? Oh Wait, they already do...

    First, sovereignty isn't an absolute, especially when Russia and Ukraine were in fact a single sovereign country until very recently. Crimea is historically Russian and was only part of "Ukrainian" territory in the USSR because of an internal administrative boundary change.

    Hell, throwing your "choices a sovereign people should make" back at you: what about the parts of Ukraine that are heavily Russian and WOULD rather be part of Russia?

    Obama didn't just allow the Ukrainians their own choice - he actively supported the rebels against the pro-Russian government. Given Russian interests in the Ukraine, especially in the Crimea where Russia maintains a significant military presence, and the clearly stated importance Russia placed in Ukrainian status, Obama still helped topple the government there.

    That's the mess Obama needlessly stepped into. And made worse. Then walked away from spouting hashtags while people died.

    But it gets worse - after fomenting a rebellion everyone in Europe knew the Russians would respond to militarily (which is why they didn't support Obama, resulting in the "Fuck the EU" comment), Obama seemed surprised by the Russian response. Hmm, exactly like Obama was surprised by the reaction to his deserter-for-five-terrorists deal. (Is "Chuck Hagel did it!" our fifth excuse for that PR disaster now?)

  22. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by TWX · · Score: 1

    "Blame Obama" has been popular for a long time, all the way back to about 2001 or so, so far as I can tell...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  23. ACME ACYOU by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    and Russia whose deputy prime minister recently suggested that U.S. astronauts use a trampoline if they want to get into orbit. Aiding in the push for more research is the development of two-way cargo ships by SpaceX...

    What about aiding the push for better trampolines?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  24. Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And that's gas that isn't traded in Russian currency. The U.S. can huff and puff its imperialistic hypocritical fascist coup supporting chest as much as it wants, but it can't do anything of significance as long as giving up Russian energy supplies would throw the continent into a depression. That, and Russia still has it's Security Council veto pen, and recent American efforts to make another round of "regime change" have stalled everywhere but Ukraine.

    1. Re:Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is a criminal kleptocracy run by a handful of people that are buddies with Putin. The state exists to serve those people and that's about it. This is the literal uncut truth and if you don't understand this then you don't understand how the world works. You're either stupid, or a shill.

        It's a bad place run by bad people the world would frankly will be better off not if but when the current regime collapses under the weight of it's own inadequacy.

      That said, Russia is never going to cut off gas supplies. They need the money more than everyone needs Russian gas. Sure, it will suck in the short term but all It's going to do is send everyone running full tilt in to the arms of the EU. The last thing Russia wants.

    2. Re:Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Im not Russian nor American it seems to me large chunks of your statement are valid about either nation.

    3. Re:Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I'm both Russian and American, I have to agree with you.

    4. Re:Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Methinks thou doth protest too much.

      The U.S. isn't being hypocritical by treating an illegal fascist-powered coup as the voice the people only to turn around and whine that an election to join Russia was totally illegitimate? Same for the rest.

      Methinks you're a poutraged American Exceptionalist in denial.

    5. Re:Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Russia is a criminal kleptocracy run by a handful of people that are buddies with Putin. The state exists to serve those people and that's about it. This is the literal uncut truth and if you don't understand this then you don't understand how the world works.

      You don't understand how the world works if you think a molehill is equivalent to a mountain. The United States has special forces deployed in 70% of the world's countries - how many for Russia? Does Putin have robot planes murdering people on the other side of the planet to him? How many countries has Putin bombed, invaded, or overthrown since 2000?

  25. Elon musk's spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It takes 60 days for a seller on ebay to get paid by paypal. Yes 60 whole days. By the time the seller can be paid, they are probably on the streets and homeless, while Paypal collects all that nice interest on the seller's money, that they can't have for 60 days.

    But Elon Musk has a spaceship!

    1. Re:Elon musk's spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes 60 days for a seller on ebay to get paid by paypal. Yes 60 whole days. By the time the seller can be paid, they are probably on the streets and homeless, while Paypal collects all that nice interest on the seller's money, that they can't have for 60 days.

      But Elon Musk has a spaceship!

      Have you been their lately? It's basically an all insider Hindu operation. Everyone brings their children to work, including all of the adult functions. Some of the equipment is even operated by them. You can't blame Musk for that crap, he left it years ago. It's an old world operation now, ripe for a competitor beat down.

  26. Purity Of Engagement by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "Well, cancelling our programs to save billions better-spent, votewise, on social programs, and paying Rooskies to ferry us up there to build goodwill and keep their scientists and engineers employed in non-terrorist jobs seemed like a good idea at the time."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  27. better start now by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    before we have a trampoline gap!

    But seriously we can find ourselves in a situation with no space station. Like there is no Shuttle, Orion is decades away, we are depended on Musk to make Dragon2 work. After Apollo there was concern at the time if US would have a manned space program in early 1970s when still debating Shuttle, and it could have been no Shuttle meaning Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 could have been the last time US put people in space. Hear Dale Myers talk about this per MIT OC course in 2005, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Everyone is spending a lot of time arguing budgets. That's a big chunk of hardware in orbit, c'mon you guys it may not be ideal but it's something.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:better start now by solartear · · Score: 1

      But seriously we can find ourselves in a situation with no space station. Like there is no Shuttle, Orion is decades away, we are depended on Musk to make Dragon2 work. After Apollo there was concern at the time if US would have a manned space program in early 1970s when still debating Shuttle, and it could have been no Shuttle meaning Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 could have been the last time US put people in space. Hear Dale Myers talk about this per MIT OC course in 2005

      sarcasm?

      2005 was before any COTS success, before any SpaceX success, before NASA's Commercial Crew program, ...

      Now Falcon 9 is launching Dragons to ISS and returning them to Earth, there are 3 different companies funded to build human spaceships, an Orion capsule is built and launching on a Delta IV Heavy within a year, and Bezos' Blue Origin is secretly building rockets and spaceships.

  28. Pushing the envelope by amightywind · · Score: -1

    A rodent lab. Now that's pushing the envelope of space technology. Is this really the space program you want? Marooned on a space station with an enemy (Russian or Chinese)? Watching with awe while a crony capitalist (Elon Musk) rediscovers the technologies of the 60's and calls them his own?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Pushing the envelope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What other technologies are there in the physical world? The Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and it still looks and acts the same today.

      The only technologies that progressed a lot are about information processing. The rest? Just coasting.

      Space is done and finished and over.

  29. Centrifugal gravity by werepants · · Score: 4, Informative

    The most useful and relevant modules would have been those that can provide artificial gravity - everybody is banking on this for enabling long term space habitation but we have just about zero on-orbit experimental data. If they only do one more thing with the ISS, that would be it. Japan even built a module for this, but it didn't get deployed so it is now just a museum piece.

    For your reading enjoyment:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    1. Re:Centrifugal gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked on it. Would have been a fascinating gadget, although there were a horde of teething problems during development. The guys who wrote the specs had no idea what they were doing.

      AC

  30. Re:This effort has really NOTHING to do with Russi by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    AFAIK the US controls most of the electrical power supply panels and the Russians do orbital reboosts and have most of the toilets. So it cannot run 100% without both.

  31. Re:Relations were OK until Obama undermined Ukrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it was up to the "sovereign people" of Ukraine, who chose a president in the most free and fair elections they've had since their country's creation 24 years ago. But then certain neocons decided that this wasn't good enough, so they fomented street protests to depose him.

  32. That isn't true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how you forget (1) costs keep increasing for foreign made goods (transport, materials, wages), (3) national security is a real factor when considering such technology, (3) Americans are more productive, and (4) American manufacturing is expanding rapidly (something that shouldn't be happening if you were right).

  33. On review, I must wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you just gotten so used to that refrain that you've never bothered to consider it could ever change?

  34. Not when Europe is dependent on Russian gas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see that TASS-lite is still coming up with such linguistic gems as "...imperialistic hypocritical fascist coup supporting chest..."

    Methinks thou doth protest too much.

  35. not an issue for russia by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The republicans (actually neo-cons and tea*) are doing their utmost to kill private space. As such, these same neo-cons/tea* that claim that Russia is an enemy and that we should not spend 1 B to get 3 private space companies going starting next year, will instead send another 2B to putin to launch us, 3-5B/year until 2025 to build the SLS, and another 2-3 B over the next 5 years to build an engine for ULA's use.
    IOW, Putin can count on the GOP constiting of traitors who will continue to help him.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Buzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Imagine Russia blatantly intervening in Canadian politics - for example in Quebec, getting English-speakers kicked out into the US and the rest of Canada - and what that would do to US attitudes towards Russia"

    First off, Quebec (and all of Canada for that matter) were never part of the USA (last time you tried in 1812 did not do so well ;) , as opposed to Ukraine being part of the former USSR.

    Second, Ukraine has lot more in common with Russia historically than Quebec will ever have with the rest of Canada( especially the west).

    Just adjusting your picture fella.

    1. Re: Buzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US never invaded an independent Canada. It declared war on the UK, and the UK included a large amount of land to the north.

  37. Yes, I agree, here's my previous post by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    What level of gravity do humans need to THRIVE for long periods of time? (That is so that they do not suffer from bone density loss, cardio-muscular problems, etc.) Is it 1/6 gee (moon)? 1/3 gee (mars)? Or will humans need a full 1 gee to live and, eventually, safely REPRODUCE?

    If the answer is humans need a full gee, then we might as well just resign ourselves to limiting our trips into the solar system to quick jaunts and robotic explorers. (While you *might* convince colonists to spend say an hour a day doing exercises to maintain their health, no way would you be able to make a fetus do them). We'll need to re-engineer humans before we can make a serious effort to colonize another world. (The only rocky planet with anything near our level of gravity is Venus and it is a hellhole). That's why the loss of the centrifuge planned for the ISS that would examine the effects of "partial gravity" (as opposed to the "micro-gravity" the ISS currently has or the regular gravity that we have) on biological systems was so disappointing. Literally it would have told us whether or not colonization of space was really feasible in the near future. (It probably wasn't going to be big enough to hold people but just seeing how partial gravity affected laboratory mice would go a long way to answering these questions).

    Perhaps if we can dump the Ruskies, with the money saved with using Space-X's rockets we could build a decent centrifuge to make these (literally) VITAL studies. Maybe we don't even need to attach it to the ISS; just take two of Bigelow's(?) inflatable habs, add a cable and spin! (Just by changing the cable length you could alter the g-forces so no additional propulsion other than the initial thrusting would be required). But that's the deluxe model, you could just take the Dragon capsule and have a cable attached to its spent second stage and spin THAT (the center of gravity might not be in the "middle" but it should work fine). Keep it in orbit for a few generations of mice and dissect them when they return.

    While we're at it, we should probably look into circadian rhythms... (but maybe mars, with it's 24-1/2 hour "day" is close enough).

  38. Fire the writer that used "strategizing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the slashdot editor that let it through.

    Oh, wait, there are no slashdot editors.

    What's wrong with "considering strategies for getting the most out of the space station"?

    Sheesh.

  39. Before NASA there wasn't much by dbIII · · Score: 1

    As soon as NASA got involved in the late 50's we had a mess

    Wow - you've really wound the clock back as far as when everyone was using tweaked V2 rockets and the British had just as advanced a rocket program as the USAF - good job!
    For a while after NASA started the USAF improved their own rockets a great deal due to an extent to some people being involved in projects for both.

    To a lot of people involved in making rockets, the USAF and NASA were customers instead of the sources of the technology themselves.

  40. Have to laugh at the stupid Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are buying taxi services from the Russians exactly because you can't.

  41. Translation: Let's waste more money on manned pork by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Instead of running scientific missions such as the Curiosity rover, Europa Clipper, Mars Sample Return, Terrestrial Planet Finder... This is NASA management being hopeless anti-science/pro-pork again.

  42. Water Balloons by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

    Please, for the love of god, don't let this opportunity go to waste. :)

  43. 60 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange, I recall having sold a great many things on eBay and never waiting more than a couple days. (Plus perhaps 2 or 3 more if I decided to have it deposited into my bank account from Paypal.)

    Just what the hell are you selling son?