Russia May Be Planning National Space Station To Replace ISS

An anonymous reader writes with news that Russia may be building its own space station to replace the ISS. Russia may be planning to build a new, independent national space station rather than prolong its participation in the $150 billion International Space Station (ISS) program beyond its current 2020 end date. The U.S. space agency NASA proposed last year to extend the life of the ISS — the largest international project ever undertaken by nations during peacetime — beyond its currently scheduled 2020 end date to at least 2024.

Comments

We'll build our own station

[camperdave]

We'll build our own station... with blackjack and hookers!
In fact, forget the station.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Brett Buck]

And the blackjack

Re:We'll build our own station

[gl4ss]

well they got russian hookers already everywhere else than on the space station so maybe that's it.

it's a joke though. they can't afford it, it gives them no meaningful bonus of any kind - science or military wise. ruble is already in the gutter and they would rather use the money and resources for jets and missiles. but talk is cheap.

or maybe they'll just photoshop it. the pro russia regime russian media has started being so sloppy lately that you have to even start wondering if being so sloppy in the pro putin regime news is some kind of deliberate quiet resistance("so you want me to create a fake news story about some american jet allegedly to be blamed for downing the passenger jet? fine, but I'll do a shitty job at it")

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

JFYI, the "Russian" hookers are actually Ukrainian. it's just that the murikans can't tell the difference, and they also speak Russian.

Re:We'll build our own station

[bkmoore]

...it's just that the murikans can't tell the difference, and they also speak Russian.

Russian speaking murikans?

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Plenty of those. Been to Coney Island recently?

Re:We'll build our own station

[MightyYar]

Don't tell Putin that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Ukrainians.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Thor Ablestar]

Some US agency decided to measure how many Ukrainians speak Ukrainian. They prepared question lists in Russian and Ukrainian and asked people to fill them in any language they want.

90 per cent of lists have been filled in Russian.

Any questions?

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. When is the UK coming to annex the United States, since the vast majority of US citizens respond to questionnaires in English?

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

t's a joke though. they can't afford it, it gives them no meaningful bonus of any kind - science or military wise. ruble is already in the gutter and they would rather use the money and resources for jets and missiles. but talk is cheap.

They can afford it just fine, Russia is nowhere even remotely near broke, they've got huge cash reserves, minimal debt, and the worst case scenario is a zero-growth year due to sanctions, which should correct itself in the midterm via Chinese and Indian trade. The position of the Ruble isn't as significant as you might think given that they'd build the thing themselves using Russian labour and materials. You have to remember that Russia doesn't import much and outsources even less.

As far as the utility of such an endeavor goes, there we agree, I'm not sure what the purpose of a Russian space station is other than militarizing space.

("so you want me to create a fake news story about some american jet allegedly to be blamed for downing the passenger jet? fine, but I'll do a shitty job at it")

It's actually apparently one or two Ukrainian Sukhois, which was mentioned in passing, I believe once by RT, not at all by Novosti, and in generally being run by conspiracy nuts. The state run media has been running German stories, and the official line has been a sensible one -- there isn't enough public information to determine who is responsible. At best the state-funded media has mentioned that it is curious that this flight was redirected to fly though a warzone, while others were directed away from the Donbas region. Should be noted that it was one of the investigators, a Ukrainian-Canadian actually, who first mentioned the possibility of bullet holes in the hull, during an interview -- only after did the stories about Ukrainian Sukhois start propping up.

Compare that to Western media that is convinced Russia did it, despite there being no evidence incriminating anyone, and faked imagery of imaginary Russian invasions, while making a lot of noise about the paratroopers who found themselves on the Ukrainian side of the border as proof of invasion, yet completely ignoring tons of stories of Ukrainians who found themselves on the Russian side -- Heavens forbid we accept that the Russo-Ukrainian border is a ten foor thick, straight, neon-pink, flashing line, especially considering that just 24 years ago, the border effectively didn't exist.

inb4 paid Kremlin shill

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah...lots actually, what was the reason for the question list, is Russian language an indication of national sympathies, where were these lists handed out, is Crimea considered into this, did any of the lists go out to areas where the Russian invaders are stationed? Just a few questions to start it off.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Adriax]

Spain and portugal better get to work on central and south america. Heck of a lot of countries they need to annex while russia and england only have a couple.

Re:We'll build our own station

[schnell]

it gives them no meaningful bonus of any kind - science or military wise

This is something that has long bothered me: what do they do on the ISS that is "important science" worth all the money and hassle? I can go read a list of experiments on the station, but it all sounds like picayune little science projects to me. Can somebody who knows more about this than me give me some context on what the heck is Really Important about work done on the ISS? Or do we just send people and things to it Because It's There?

Re:We'll build our own station

[Thor Ablestar]

1. The reason was to determine the percentage of people with Russian as first spoken language, not the national sympathy. There are lots of Russian speaking Ukrainian patriots who hates Russia, Putin and USSR.

2. The lists has been handed out in all Ukraine well before annexation of Crimea.

3. About Russian invaders in Crimea: Sorry, but Crimea (excluding Sevastopol) kept a referendum during USSR dissolution in 1991. The referendum gave 93 per cent for Crimea to be direct constituent of USSR. Nevertheless Ukraine ignored these results and annexed Crimea 4 months later. Sevastopol is the Union property (Similar to Washington DC) and as such excluded from Crimea and it's transfer to Ukraine by Commies, and all the Union property abroad and all the foreign debts of USSR are assumed by Russia by international treaty signed from Ukraine by V.Masol in 1994. Nevertheless, Ukraine annexed Sevastopol and subsequently took money from Russia for it's port. During 1991-2014 Russian language and local self-government has been systematically suppressed in Crimea. As a result, when Ukrainian nationalists came to power during revolt in 2014, angry local Russian-speaking population held a referendum in 2014 and asked Russia for reunification.

If you are English-speaking American, please imagine your own feelings if your state makes Lallans an official language.

4. There are no regular Russian army in Donbass now. Of course there are lots Russian (and not only Russian) volunteers on both sides of conflict but no regular Russian army and no Russian arms supply.

There is a crack in Russian neo-Nazis movement: Some of them are for Russian people and they fight for Donbass, some for Aryan unity and they fight for Ukraine.

And the last: Losses in Donbass conflict are about 1 Pravosek (member of Ukrainian nationalist group) and 10 Ukrainian conscripts from one side, 1 separatist rebel and 10 Donbass civil peoples from other side (There is no conscription on separatist side). Basically it looks like Ukrainian government just tries to kill as many people from BOTH sides as possible. Sorry but the state that violates Geneva convention for protection of civilians should be destroyed, period.

Re:We'll build our own station

[JohnClaire]

Thank you for sharing your fairy tales with us.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Thor Ablestar]

Thank you. Please keep listening to Jen Psaki. You will know, for instance, about sea borders of Byelorussia or mountain resorts of Rostov oblast.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Talderas]

France better get started on taking Quebec then.

Re:We'll build our own station

[unixisc]

Saudi Arabia can get to work as well, annexing everybody from Morocco to Iraq

Re:We'll build our own station

[unixisc]

On your #3 above, when Ukraine became independent, Russia too had announced its withdrawal from the USSR. So Crimea voting to be a part of a country that was on its way to dissolution made no sense: a few weeks after the meeting b/w Russia, Belarus & Ukraine, they had a follow-up meeting of all the 15 presidents in Almaty, where they announced their collective exit from the USSR and its replacement w/ the Commonwealth of independent States.

It would have made sense had Crimea & Sevastopol voted to join the Russian Federation, as opposed to the USSR.

Re:We'll build our own station

[JohnClaire]

Very funny. Russian humour at its best. :)

Re:We'll build our own station

[antdude]

Bender. is that you? :P

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people do not engage hookers for their conversational skills.

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

See your Saudi, raise you a Mongolia

Re:We'll build our own station

[cwsumner]

Yes. When is the UK coming to annex the United States, since the vast majority of US citizens respond to questionnaires in English?

Um ... Muricans don't speak English. I are one, and 1 know. 8-)

Re:We'll build our own station

[MightyYar]

Well, that raises all sorts of questions:
1. Did this actually happen?
2. Did this happen in the Ukraine, or was it a survey of Ukrainians in the US?
3. Was the Ukrainian part of the survey legible, or was it created by an idiot?
Gotham must know!

Re:We'll build our own station

[unixisc]

Why, how many other countries speak Mongolian?

Re:We'll build our own station

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. When is the UK coming to annex the United States, since the vast majority of US citizens respond to questionnaires in English?

Hah! Samuel Webster fixed that. We speak our own language with our own spelling, not that fancy shmancy British English. Admittedly there are a number of words that look and even sound similar, but by that standard, we'd be waiting to be annexed by the Italians. After all, they came up with all those Latin roots.

Peace Time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Peace time! The countries have been involved in almost constant war the entire ISS programs existence.

What's it good for?

[bradley13]

I am totally pro-space, but I just do not understand the ISS. It is hugely expensive to keep and feed crews. And yet, the human habitation makes whole classes of experiments difficult or impossible, due to the atmosphere, the vibrations from movement, etc..

Where human presence could be useful: if we were actually building a space infrastructure. Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system. While lots of construction tasks can be automated, human intervention will occasionally be necessary. But we aren't doing that.

So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the way you put that "Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system." just makes me imagine the naked gun:

Frank Drebin: Uh Raquel, so many go to bed hungry in this nation, yet cat food is full of tuna! I can't help but think each time I go to the zoo and see those porpoises, crammed into those tiny tanks, what a waste that is. Butcher half of them now! That's hundreds of pounds of dolphin meat that can be fed to our cats, freeing up that tuna for our nation's hungry. ...
Frank Drebin: Uh, so many are cold, shivering in the night, so I say, butcher those cats, skin them! Use their fur to keep hundreds warm!

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

Humans may be useful to build a base, but a base is only needed if you want to have humans in space. Apart from the 'cool' factor, there's no actual benefit from having people in a space base, or to send humans to the rest of the solar system. And if you don't send humans in space, there's no real use for the ISS. The ISS is a huge drain of money that could have been better spend on a large number of unmanned probes to do actual science.

Re:What's it good for?

[vux984]

The ISS is a huge drain of money that could have been better spend on a large number of unmanned probes to do actual science.

Studying the effects of living in space on humans and solving those problems is actual science; with lots of practical applications in medicine etc that will have real benefits even for us earthbound people.

Longer term we will want to know and solve those problems as well, for actually getting people somewhere else, even if its not am immediate plan to put anyone permanently anywhere else.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

with lots of practical applications in medicine etc that will have real benefits even for us earthbound people.

I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.

Re:What's it good for?

[Thanshin]

So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?

What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon? Manned space stations allow us to advance in one of the pillars of colonizing space; the actual survival in that space.

The question should be quite the opposite. what's the point on every other investment that doesn't allow us to push our boundaries? What's the objective of humanity?

For me, the primary objective should be to expand, so for example every single dollar spent in defense, to fight among ourselves, is only useful in whatever science those investments bring along.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon?

To satisfy our curiosity. For instance, I'm curious if there's any other lifeform in our solar system. To answer that question, sending unmanned probes is the quickest and most cost effective method.

Re:What's it good for?

[AC-x]

But if you're going to talk about worthwhile spending then maybe not spending ~$700 million per day ($100 billion every 140 days) in Iraq on a war that increased global terrorism is a better place to start?

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

That's a completely independent discussion. No matter what happens to the military spending, I'll still argue that the ISS is a waste of money, and that its budget could be better spent on unmanned space exploration, or even other science goals.

Re:What's it good for?

[hab136]

>So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations?

For one thing, testing various methods for keeping humans alive, healthy, and sane in space.

We need to expand beyond Earth. To do that, we'll need space stations as jump-off points, and we'll need to know how to survive extended periods in space (months and years). To do that, we need somewhere to test survival, like the ISS.

> Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?

The ISS cost $150 billion over 20 years, or about $7.5 billion a year to construct and maintain. The US currently spends about $3 billion a year to keep it going - or about $8 per person. It's not a lot of money. Think about that - watching a movie about space costs more than actually maintaining a real life space station.

We have to start somewhere. All the work put into building and maintaining ISS was necessary experience before would could build a "real" base. We can design all we want but there are a lot of lessons to learn when you try to put theory into practice.

Yes, for each individual experiment, automated experiments are cheaper and easier. They're still done: http://www.space.com/27003-rus...

We don't have to do ISS *or* automated experiments - we do both.

Space is the future and it takes big investments right now. They do pay off now, and they'll pay off even more in the future.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

We need to expand beyond Earth

No we don't. There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were the one who started the discussion about where money is best spent, so don't complain when people follow up with arguing that money is better spent on the ISS than on getting rid of the dictators standing in the was of Islamic State.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

You were the one who started the discussion about where ISS money is best spent

Fixed that for you.

Re:What's it good for?

[putaro]

There's a lot of value in having humans along. Currently, launch costs are so high that the costs of bringing along the life support for humans is prohibitive, but if it got cheaper many things would work better.

Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.

Or look at the Mars rovers. Great stuff, but there's little ability to improvise. Think up a different experiment you want done? Well, it'll have to wait for the next rover because that one can't do it.

Re:What's it good for?

[putaro]

And there's nothing in North America except trees and savages. What a short-sighted view you have.

Re:What's it good for?

[The Grim Reefer]

There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.

Venus is not a "cold rock". But it is very inhospitable. Jupiter in not cold either. It's extremely hot, and even more inhospitable.

But who knows what is beyond our solar system. It may take a hundred years, or even a thousand, until we find a viable way to get there. In the meantime, it's still worth while figuring out how to survive in these environments. The useful tech that gets invented is worth while as far as I'm concerned.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

Yes, if launch costs were cheaper many things would work better, including unmanned probes. Now, there's just a little problem of reducing launch cost.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

There's food, air, good climate and soil, and plenty of other useful resources in North America. Space is just empty. Instead of short-sighted, I prefer to call it realistic.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

To go beyond our solar system requires first and foremost a much better propulsion system. And, given that a better propulsion helps with anything you want to do in space, it would seem the best place to start. Until we have such propulsion (which may never happen), there's no need to start figuring out how to survive.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am totally pro-space, but I just do not understand the ISS. It is hugely expensive to keep and feed crews. And yet, the human habitation makes whole classes of experiments difficult or impossible, due to the atmosphere, the vibrations from movement, etc..

Where human presence could be useful: if we were actually building a space infrastructure. Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system. While lots of construction tasks can be automated, human intervention will occasionally be necessary. But we aren't doing that.

So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?

Better go shoot the international teams of scientists that have planned the ISS and its missions! They clearly have callously overlooked this very important detail that an internet commenter has cunningly observed.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reasoning with Space Nutters.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

with lots of practical applications in medicine etc that will have real benefits even for us earthbound people.

I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.

It's easy, lets stop wasting trillions of dollars in the military industrial complex. 100 billion dollars for the betterment of mankind is cheap change compared to the trillions of dollars thrown down the drain for no useful purpose.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baffling premises. You have a religious fervor for an empty, deadly vacuum that is incomprehensible.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

"For one thing, testing various methods for keeping humans alive, healthy, and sane in space."

We already know how to do that. Put them on a planet. Problem solved, we're already here.

"We need to expand beyond Earth."

Who's "we"? What "need"? Simply baffling.

". To do that, we'll need space stations as jump-off points"

Wow.
Complete nonsense.

http://www.distancetomars.com/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

Put down the Battlestar Galactica DVDs and get a grip.

"Space is the future"

"was". The 1960s are over. We don't even have Concorde anymore and you loons are planning the future of the human race in space?

Crackpotted delusional nuttery.

Re:What's it good for?

[N1AK]

Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.

For the cost of getting humans to and from an asteroid on a decade long mission (in anything approaching a functional state) we could have sent thousands of unmanned landers. Sending people adds a gigantic cost premium. It's nonsense to suggest the rover mission would have been better with people, it wouldn't have happened with people due to cost, and if we could afford the cost of sending people we could do hundreds of unmanned missions for the same cost as one manned one.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the cheapest and most cost effective method would have been to ask me. Release this pain. This pain has poisoned your soul. Stop searching for God in space. That is really what we are doing in our quest for knowledge. The kingdom of God is within you.
That being said, at least agree to stay away from Europa.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistic is the sun will eventually expand and engulf the inner planets before collapsing back and exploding. So despite the American bullshit of being the center of the universe, how do you propose get beyond that? I guess your imaginary space being will come to save Americans?

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

The expansion of the sun won't happen in a few billion years. If there's still a civilization, let them worry about a solution. In the meantime, let us worry about things that threaten our way of life in the next couple of decades.

Re:What's it good for?

[pedestrian crossing]

Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.

Uh, yeah but how would you have kept the skinbags alive for the 10-year trip to the comet?

Re:What's it good for?

[bkmoore]

I wish I had mod points. Chemical Rockets are probably almost as good as they're going to get in terms of efficiency, cost and reliability.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

Plus another 10 years to get back. And how much more fuel would it require to send dozens of tons of stuff on a round trip, compared to 100 kg one way ?

Re:What's it good for?

[dywolf]

completly different, kind of like...the difference between funding for space research and medical research?

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of good arguments that I did not read and I think we should bomb ruskis and impose sanctions if they survive. After all it's Putin's fault.

Re:What's it good for?

[dywolf]

oh no, you dont get to restrict your statements to just the ISS after making plain your wholesale opposition to anything manned.
there are limits to manned missions and there are limits to unmanned.
but the two are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary.
we need both.

Re:What's it good for?

[dywolf]

at this point you're just a troll.
a short sighted incurious troll whos more interested in staring at his feet.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

The point is that the $100 billion spent on the ISS is a waste of money. If it were my choice, I would prefer to have move that budget to unmanned space exploration. Now, if somebody counters this by claiming that medical research done on board the ISS is vital, I'll be willing to concede a portion of the budget to medical research on Earth, and spend the rest on unmanned space projects. Of course, in either case, we're talking about diverting the ISS budget, which remains completely orthogonal to military and other budgets.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

On the contrary, I am curious. I follow the news about Rosetta, Curiosity, and other space projects. The only thing I'm advocating is that we drop the entire manned space program, because human presence in space isn't a useful goal in itself, and not a cost effective method for doing science. Of course, in typical slashdot style, disagreements aren't met with sound arguments, but with a -1 Troll.

Re:What's it good for?

[ShanghaiBill]

But if you're going to talk about worthwhile spending then maybe not spending ~$700 million per day on a war

It is a logical fallacy to justify spending money on something stupid just by pointing out that we already spent more on something even stupider. That sort of circular argument just leads to a lot of stupidity. Each expenditure should be justified, or not, on its own merits.

Re:What's it good for?

[itzly]

Since the ISS is the only manned space project that was done in the last decades, except perhaps for some Hubble maintenance, I don't see why making a big distinction between the two is all that useful. I'm against manned space projects in general, and against the very expensive ISS in particular.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, another idiot trying to divert the discussion with some insults...

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sigh*

I actually pity you.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking short-sighted idiot you are....

Re:What's it good for?

[Thor Ablestar]

I see at least 2 breakthrough fusion methods that may work as propulsion energy source. One of them is a cold fusion, other one uses plasma instability to compress boron hydride to plasmoid. The TOKAMAK is possibly total fail. And BTW old good Uranium also just works, it's only the political problem to use it, not technical one.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not justifying the ISS money. He's saying if the argument is spending money on the ISS is stupid, it makes even more sense to not spend money on something that is more stupid, more expensive and more deadly, such as war in the Mideast.

The logical fallacy is in itzly's repeated insistence that the ISS money should be "diverted" to space research. Money is fungible. We don't need to "divert" money specifically away from ISS. We just need to find money for itzly's pet projects, and the way to do that is to look for the largest areas of waste, which the ISS is not.

Re:What's it good for?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Space has lots of good stuff. Those millions of inhospitable cold rocks are chock full of easily extractable metals of all sorts. The millions of inhospitable cold rocks are often also covered in ice, which can be turned into lots of things. And luckily someone left a giant nuclear reactor sitting in the middle of it all that we can use to take advantage of this insane abundance. Also, nobody cares about pollution in space.

Re: What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, another idiot trying to divert the discussion with some insults...

Re:What's it good for?

[Thor Ablestar]

Problem is that we Ruskies can survive the circumstances you cannot even imagine, not talking about imposing. You cannot.

Re:What's it good for?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Antimatter engines which can bring us to a significant percentage of the speed of light are an engineering problem, there's nothing theoretically impossible about them.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

If humans are to spread as a species and survive earth this is basic research that has to be done. You may disagree on that direction but it is a well established fact that the earth will be unable to sustain us with our growing population.

Re:What's it good for?

[butalearner]

That's just the hard limit. There will be many catastrophic events between now and then. Sure, the odds that the next one occurs in the next couple of decades is astronomically small, and we have a really, really long way to go to settling on another planet or in space. But your statement "if there's still a civilization" is telling: if we left it to people like you, humanity would keep kicking the can down the road, over and over, until it's too late.

Re:What's it good for?

[MMC Monster]

If you need an environment free of vibrations and atmosphere, can't you just park it a foot from the space station? And once the experiment is done, retrieve it?

The added bonus is that if the experiment needs modifications, you have the possibility of doing it in almost real time and send it out again.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the meantime, let us worry about things that threaten our way of life in the next couple of decades.

Short-sighted fools who want to wave their moist hands, gasp repeatedly, and somehow think the "problems" plaguing humanity since the dawn of bipedal man are "solvable"?

Re:What's it good for?

[sjbe]

There's food, air, good climate and soil, and plenty of other useful resources in North America.

All of which are ridiculously ephemeral. One good sized rock dropped from space and ALL of it is gone and us along with it. Not to mention that we're working pretty hard to ruin the climate here without anywhere else to go should we really mess things up.

Space is just empty. Instead of short-sighted, I prefer to call it realistic.

Space is not empty - just sparse. And you can call your viewpoint whatever you want but it remains short sighted. Human survival is far more tenuous than you seem willing to acknowledge. If you care about the survival of the species then you'll find that getting humans successfully off Earth is an imperative. Otherwise sooner or later we are screwed.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

"To satisfy our curiosity. For instance, I'm curious if there's any other lifeform in our solar system. To answer that question, sending unmanned probes is the quickest and most cost effective method"

No, thats an example of satisfying your own curiosity, not "our" curiosity.

Satisfaction of curiosity is fine - pay for it yourself. If all the rest of us are expected to contribute, then there had better be more material, measurable objectives.

Re:What's it good for?

[TangoMargarine]

Apart from the 'cool' factor, there's no actual benefit from having people in a space base, or to send humans to the rest of the solar system

First step to getting somebody on another planet so a single Extinction-Level Event doesn't come along and wipe out humanity.

I can't believe I'm practically the only one who can figure this out whenever this topic keeps popping up.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a towel

Re:What's it good for?

[TangoMargarine]

I guess we can just fire everybody at NASA and stop teaching astronomy in schools, then. Because itzly says there's nothing out there.

The arrogance.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddamn but he's right - all of you sound like a bunch of goddamn religious freaks babbling on about some hypothetical Nirvana we all must reach if we wish to be saved.

Bunch of fucking morons. And 5 will get you 20 its rooted in childhood memories of a fucking sci-fi TV show. Pay for it yourselves, fruitcakes.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is done by people, not by machines. The machines can be tools to do the science but it is still done by people. Getting 3 scientist to Mars and letting them do the science first hand would likely surpass what has been learned from all of the landers on Mars in a matter of months. Science progresses faster the closer you are to it.

Beyond that overcoming a challenge such as how do we safely handle the solar radiation or how to build a self sustainable colony on another planet can reap benefits locally too.

If we send nothing but robots we advance robotics, humans have to be sent to truly advance humanity.

Re:What's it good for?

[bitingduck]

Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.

Or they could have included three or four more copies of the lander and still cost less than sending humans. Rosetta has been in space for 10 years-- there aren't going to be humans floating around in tin cans in deep space for that long for a *long* time. At least not live ones.

Or look at the Mars rovers. Great stuff, but there's little ability to improvise. Think up a different experiment you want done? Well, it'll have to wait for the next rover because that one can't do it.

That's not an argument for manned missions so much as an argument to either make things we're sending smaller and more capable or increase our ability to send larger and larger things. A significant portion of the mass you send on a human mission will be just stuff to keep the people alive, limiting the amount of stuff you can send for them to do experiments or massively increasing the cost because you're trying to send a general lab. If you're developing a set of very general lab stuff that humans can take halfway across the solar system, for the foreseeable future (even with significant reductions in cost to orbit) it's going to be less expensive and lower risk to make a robot that operates the lab and feeds it with stuff.

Re:What's it good for?

[argStyopa]

As a sense of scale:

The US public spent $7.4 billion on HALLOWEEN in 2013, including $350 million for PET COSTUMES. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/wait-americans-spend-how-much-on-halloween/381631/)

Next Friday, on "Black Friday" US consumers will spend ~$40 billion on stuff that they & others don't need, but (mostly) want.

Re:What's it good for?

[bitingduck]

The ISS cost $150 billion over 20 years, or about $7.5 billion a year to construct and maintain. The US currently spends about $3 billion a year to keep it going - or about $8 per person. It's not a lot of money. Think about that - watching a movie about space costs more than actually maintaining a real life space station.

The movie analogy is one of my favorites. I like to point out to people that you can send a small rover to Mars for the same cost (or less) than making a couple of really bad movies about sending people there. You can send a large rover for about the cost of a James Cameron extravaganza or two about it.

Re:What's it good for?

[WrongMonkey]

Plenty of species managed to survive the last rock from space. If birds and crocodiles managed to survive, then humans have a good chance, too. No matter what catastrophe you can imagine happening to Earth, there is no way other planets in the solar system would be more suitable to life.

Re:What's it good for?

[Gr8Apes]

How much money does the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation have again? What breakthroughs have occurred from that source and how long have they been at it?

Re:What's it good for?

[bitingduck]

If you need an environment free of vibrations and atmosphere, can't you just park it a foot from the space station? And once the experiment is done, retrieve it?

The added bonus is that if the experiment needs modifications, you have the possibility of doing it in almost real time and send it out again.

It's not that clean an environment around space station. It's more llike the space equivalent of Pigpen from the old Peanuts comics- a station with a cloud of contamination floating along with it. There was a microgravity facility that was very loosely coupled to ISS, but it still has to be coupled so that when the space station maneuvers your things keep up. If you really need microgravity it tends to be easier to make a free flyer and stick it in a higher orbit. The possibility of re-usability is appealing, but it rarely seems to work out to be cost effective for anything large-- the cost of making the stuff is usually much less than the cost of all the testing and verification that it will actually work when it gets there.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about us humans is, there will always be 'things that threaten our way of life in the next couple of decades'.

Most of those things are simply other humans, you know how we take care of those other humans? It tends to be lead and explosives. No amount of waiting is going to resolve that. Yes there are starving people without access to food, water, etc. Working on expanding to space doesn't mean you cannot also focus some attention on addressing those issues too.

So while the sun's expansion might not be for a few billion years, the next climate altering asteroid or potentially comet might be 5 years from now. The unknown events between now and then are unpredictable. You seem unable to see that technologies to expand and explore the horizons of space can be used to benefit us on Earth. You almost seem to be like a kid hiding behind the curtains, your feet are clearly visible but since you cannot see anyone you assume no one can see you.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you don't sent the person down the gravity well, sending people isn't that expensive. Just use them to control the rovers from orbit without the delay.

Re:What's it good for?

[Thor Ablestar]

There IS a problem, the same problem as Hydrogen cars. The Boron hydride fusion spaceship is filled with Boron hydride that is produced chemically from abundant components involving no thermonuclear station. But production of antimatter will need to produce energy and to spend it to production of antimatter.

And the second problem. The higher the exhaust speed the less propellant and the more energy you need. Impulse is m*v and energy spent is 0.5*m*v**2.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

While finding out how ants defecate in a weightless environment may be mildly interesting, for $7.5B/year, I'd much rather see 4 MSL class missions. For a years worth of ISS budget we could have a couple of rovers running across pluto or Europa.

Re:What's it good for?

[sjbe]

Plenty of species managed to survive the last rock from space.

Doesn't mean we will be one of them.

No matter what catastrophe you can imagine happening to Earth, there is no way other planets in the solar system would be more suitable to life.

Perhaps not but irrelevant. Right now we are completely dependent on Earth so if something unfortunate happens to Earth then we are screwed. The ONLY solution to that problem is to have a meaningful portion of the human population somewhere other than Earth.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a hit with unions.

Manned space projects are just as important as unmanned space programs, and we're already benefiting. Products like Tang, for example. Studies on bone loss and regrowth can help osteoporosis patients. New technologies deployed to the ISS are being evaluated, constantly, for use here on Earth. They've done studies on plant growth in near-zero gravity. They're now doing research into 3-D printing. Their experiments seem boundless.

Re:What's it good for?

[MachineShedFred]

Your "well established fact" is only one because you didn't put a timetable in place. Yes, the sun will turn into a red giant and cook the planet into a cinder in a few billion years. That also gives us a couple hundred million years to figure it out before it really becomes a thing.

Were you referring to some other factor, because your blanket statement of nonsense didn't get specific...

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not savages. We're CANADIANS.

Re:What's it good for?

[wiredlogic]

Its a massive pork project to fund the domestic space industry that didn't have a mission to work on and to keep starving Russian engineers from working for the axis of evil.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, I wonder if anyone has mentioned that to Hollywood, imagine how much cooler the movie would be if it didn't use CGI, and instead was real footage from another planet.

Re:What's it good for?

[cbhacking]

Oh, that's hardly true. As a random example, SpaceX's Merlin rockets (currently on their 4th revision, not counting the difference between atmospheric and vacuum variants) have the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any production rocket engine, and they are a very recent design. The Space Shuttle Main Engines have a significantly higher specific impulse (thust*time per mass of fuel) but the fuel (hydrogen) is so low-density that you need a ton of it to get anywhere, and volume has its own costs (especially in atmosphere). The SSMEs also went through a number of revisions that increased their power and efficiency.

On the other hand, just because SpaceX is busy pushing the bounds of chemical rockets does not, by any means, mean we shouldn't be researching alternate thrust systems... and we are! Not as enthusiastically as I'd like to see, but it's happening. There's research into high-efficiency space drives, alternate launch systems, and even some research into drives which have the capability to make interstellar flight potentially feasible. None of these are close to production, and some of them (especially the ones involving nuclear-powered drives) have been mothballed for years or decades, but even if the test apparatus (for those projects which got so far) no longer exist, the designs and theories and mathematics do, and rocket scientists can and do continue building on those. I'd really like to see practical research start up again on these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N..., such as this project (which was building and testing actual hardware!) from the 70s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Re:What's it good for?

[Remus Shepherd]

The purpose of the ISS was to spread the cost of a space station among many different countries, so that no one of them had to foot the bill for their own. One of the reasons the USSR went bankrupt is because they could not keep up with US cold war expenditures, including the space race.

Which makes it truly bizarre that Russia would be thinking of going into space alone again. Putin doesn't appear to remember any history at all.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, so the pragmatic solution is to change US. Not dream about space colonies that will NEVER happen, EVER.

Where does this combination Doomsday/Space Salvation religion come from?

Oh...

http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I fear for the day reality will crash on you like a ton of bricks. Space is a dead end. No one is going anywhere. We'll have to figure it out right here on this planet. It's all we have.

So, figure it out or keep escaping into tired sci-fi clichés and easy dismissals?

Adult, or child?

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't believe you think this is a serious issue. It's mind-boggling. There are 7 billion people right here right now and 200,000 more every day. In the entire history of mankind only 18 people have gone further than Low Earth orbit. For three days.

That's it. Space is over. It's finished. It's not a Walmart full of platinum, it's not a holy vacuum ocean for us to traverse, there's no manifest destiny.

Meteorites fall to the Earth every day, do you have a titanium roof on your house? No? Why not?

Because doomsday nutters like you rarely actually believe your own crap, you just feed on the emotion, the drama and the Gothic poetry.

And again, another programmer with completely batshit beliefs about space unmasked!

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

"I can't believe I'm practically the only one who can figure this out whenever this topic keeps popping up."

Oh wow, do you fellate yourself too when you "figure this out"? Oh you're SO smart!!

Re:What's it good for?

[Talderas]

Money is fungible but a budget is a budget. Unless NASA is given specific legal directives to pursue this research they are electing to pursue this manned research instead of opting to pursue unmanned research.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also nothing theoretically impossible about moving the Earth out of the way of the Death Asteroid. It's just an engineering problem.

If you're going to invoke massive breakthroughs in about twelve different areas of engineering and physics, well so can I.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much Space Nuttery summed up. It's baffling to me, but there you go. My observations seem to show that a large proportion of these Nutters are programmers, misanthropes and the clinically depressed. One thing they have in common is a comic-book level understanding of real science and technology, and you can bet that they will fall back on emotionally-loaded doomsday scenarios to justify their beliefs.

As for the TV shows, well, they got their religion from Cosmism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...

There's nothing you can do except wait. These Space Nutters are brainwashed and can't see it.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Science is done by people, not by machines. "

No, it's done by people WITH machines. So unless you can figure out how to send entire laboratories along, you'll be severely handicapping your hypothetical space scientist.

And if you can miniaturize an entire lab, it raises the question of why you'd bother sending people?

That's the thing with Space Nutters. They always go on and on about how technology gets better and all these magical space spinoffs we have. But just suggest that we no longer need to send people if the technology is so good, they become Luddites of the first order.

Space Nutters are not well. They aren't firing on all thrusters, if you know what I mean.

Re:What's it good for?

[Gavagai80]

Even if North America had only trees and savages, those slaves and lumber were more than enough profit to motivate European conquest.

Re:What's it good for?

[painandgreed]

We need to expand beyond Earth

No we don't. There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.

There is almost limited energy. once fossil fuels run out, we will be left with essentially the energy that hits us coming from the sun (plus fission and fusion but... *waves hand*). There is a lot more of that out is space and we will probably want to tap into it. My bet is that eventually, the energy infrastructure in space will grow to the point that we'll both develop manufacturing in space and have people in space as that will be the least work intensive method to get that energy. From there, the infrastructure to support those people will grow until space itself can support itself. From there, we'll move out through the solar system and possibly the nearby systems harvesting materials as we go.

Re:What's it good for?

[WrongMonkey]

You don't need to put people into space to study astronomy. There is nothing that a person can do in space that a robot can't do better.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Space is the future and it takes big investments right now.

All the space "cultists" will say this. The fact is it will always cost #30,000 *per pound* to get something into orbit. What we have now with the ISS are astronauts chewing bubblegum and doing time. Not anything I'd call "ground breaking". The fact is the money might be better spent on robotics. Trying to get a man to mars or the moon even is a bunch of hooey. It accomplishes nothing that we have not done already. And if we really want to do something there, we could send a robot that will do more for a lot less.

It would be far more productive to use that money on less expensive rocket technology - or even fusion energy research which could lead to less expensive rockets. But we really need to call out what the nonsense about having man in space really is - religious fever.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> First step to getting somebody on another planet so a single Extinction-Level Event doesn't come along and wipe out humanity.

Utopic.

Re:What's it good for?

[rockout]

but the two are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary.

"I love what you've done with the people on your mission! So fancy."
"oh, that's fine, but YOUR mission is so much cleaner and free of human interference, it's great!"

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations?

You actually need to do research on microgravity's long term effects on the human body if we are ever going to get to Mars and beyond.

Re:What's it good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps not but irrelevant. Right now we are completely dependent on Earth so if something unfortunate happens to Earth then we are screwed. The ONLY solution to that problem is to have a meaningful portion of the human population somewhere other than Earth.

How does having a few dozen, hundred, thousand or even million people starving to death on Mars help it the Earth is so badly damaged it needs to be restocked with people from elsewhere?

Re:What's it good for?

[cwsumner]

... If birds and crocodiles managed to survive, then humans have a good chance, too. ...

Humans survived the more recent ones. But their civilization did not. They were probably reduced to eating their dead. Not a desirable outcome.

Consider the (small but non-zero) possibilty that the ones called "Angels", in the old stories, are the humans that escaped the previous extinction-level events by going to space.

Re:What's it good for?

[TangoMargarine]

We can't believe you think this is a serious issue. It's mind-boggling. There are 7 billion people right here right now and 200,000 more every day.

Yeah. Let me get all mathy on you for a second here...

A) There are 7 billion people we could help now and ignore the long-term. Alleviating human suffering should be our goal, right?
B) If there is no ELE there's more or less an infinite number of humans in the future (less because the universe will presumably end).
C) If there IS an ELE and we prevent/avoid it, see B.
D) If there is an ELE and we DON'T do anything about it, and we're all still on Earth, the number of humans comes to a dead halt.

It's all about debating the values of A and D.

Because doomsday nutters like you rarely actually believe your own crap

A) Thanks for the insult that doesn't add anything to the conversation.
B) You're the one who's labeling me a "doomsday nutter" to begin with so there's no reason for me to defend the position. I'm not; I'm just talking probability space.

You say "there's absolutely no point in spending money on space." I say, "We don't know enough about the universe yet to make a definitive statement on the matter." (For my next trick, I'll debate religion vs. agnosticism vs. atheism!)

In the entire history of mankind only 18 people have gone further than Low Earth orbit. For three days.

Kind of fits into my point, funnily enough. What we need the money for is to get further. Is "cutting our losses" at this point winning? I can see the argument for that.

And again, another programmer with completely batshit beliefs about space unmasked!

Well, you got one thing right, at least--I am a programmer. Hey, I'm arguing probabilities, so big surprise, right?

Oh wow, do you fellate yourself too when you "figure this out"? Oh you're SO smart!!

Aaaand more ad hominem insults. Good day, sir.

P.S: After skimming the first bit of that extremely long article, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it. The guy actually comes down as a supporter of the space program. Or are you taking the "it's hard therefore we should give up" line? s/hard/expensive/g

Re:What's it good for?

[TangoMargarine]

Beg pardon?

Re:What's it good for?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

This is gibberish, just build antimatter production stations near the sun. We're drowning in energy.

Why such a short lifetime ?

[dargaud]

Can't they plan something permanent, where you add and remove modules as needed ? Barely 2 decades of use for such an expensive project seems kind of a waste.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[AmiMoJo]

They probably will now, but the problem with the ISS is not technical, it's political. The US doesn't play well with others, and Russia is basically fed up with it. I imagine they will partner with China instead in future.

Re: Why such a short lifetime ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia partnering with China again?

I'd almost hope Putin would be that dumb.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[Hadlock]

It's not like we had hundreds of years of heritage in designing these things. We have yet to have a satellite collide with a human-populated space station. I'm sure we'll learn a lot about what to do/not not do with space stations in the years after that first event. Designing a space station module to survive multiple tens of thousands of MPH impacts with space debris, satellites, micrometeorites, etc for not just 10 years but 100 years is asking a bit much, don't you think?
 
We've only been building "semi-permanent" space station modules for 10-15 years. It's not like you can just ship 3 tons of bricks, some cement, mortar and trowels and tell the astronauts to build something "roughly airtight and space station-y looking" and hope for the best for 100+ years.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[kyrsjo]

I would say that recently, Russia are even worse of playing well with others...

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[Spy Handler]

Yep, it cost a lot of money to put all that mass up there. Seems like an awful waste to deorbit it just because the warranty expired and the rubber gaskets are getting brittle.

Maybe next time around, build it with self-healing materials or at least with some foreplanning into reusing metal panels that get pitted over time from micrometeorites.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they plan something permanent, where you add and remove modules as needed ? Barely 2 decades of use for such an expensive project seems kind of a waste.

It's like Mir. It gets old and crackly. You know, thermal stresses and such. You don't want explosive depressurization.

Anyway, nothing is permanent anywhere.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[wiredlogic]

It's not possible. The electronics on board have a limited lifespan due to their exposure to ionizing radiation. You can't make densely integrated electronics last indefinitely. Going back to the more robust low density electronics used on the long lived space probes would be impractical on a complex manned spacecraft.

Re:Why such a short lifetime ?

[dargaud]

Nut that's the point of doing it modular: send a new module every few years, retire one every few years, this way you don't need to dump the whole thing at once and start over.

Annoying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian temper tantrum. (characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, defiance, angry ranting, a resistance to attempts at pacification and, in some cases, hitting.)

What do you mean "may be"?

[Hadlock]

Russia announced that they were planning to end their involvement with the ISS in 2009 or so. This is nothing new. They've been telegraphing their displeasure with the ISS program for half a decade or more, and their lack of willingness to continue with it past 2020. The portions they're sending up to the ISS will be detached and converted in to a separate space station shortly after 2020. This is not "news", this is "established fact". Maybe it's more noteworthy the second time that they publish this through official channels?
 
The ISS will be a 20 year old international experiment at that point, yes the US and Russian halves of the ISS share a common "atmosphere" but mechanically they're completely separate space stations capable of detaching at any time. Most of the Russian segment of the ISS is made from leftovers from their MIR 2 project. It's no surprise that they're wanting to separate from the ISS. Those space station modules have a finite lifespan and most of them will be nearing their operational limits around 2020, with a maximum lifespan of 2030. Either we replace them with new modules or deorbit the whole thing. Russia has decided to replace them with new modules and go their own separate way. They've been talking about this for a looong time. The ESA has been talking about teaming up with the Russians moving forward, rather than NASA on the next space station. China ended up building their own space station after being turned down by the Americans. We're not making a whole lot of friends in the aerospace field with the ISS these days. The New ISS may be everyone - (minus) America next time around, due to our overwhelming fear of sharing orbital technology with the Chinese (who aren't allowed inside NASA buildings, just ask any Chinese aerospace engineer).

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So NASA has a special racist slanty-eye retina scanner at every entrance?

Or are Chinese nationals ejected when the hidden microphones detect "Ching-Chong-Ching-Chong" noises?

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So NASA has a special racist slanty-eye retina scanner at every entrance?

Although "retina scanner" is an odd term for "human guards with M-16s", basically yes, NASA has special racist guards with M-16s at every entrance.
They are not there to ONLY keep Chinese nationals out, but that is one of their functions.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given a history of crap China has pulled, like this , yes, some precautions are needed against Chinese nationals.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about US nationals with Chinese parents? A US national with 1 Chinese grandparent?

A US national with no Chinese ancestors that looks "kinda Chinese"?

If you're going to draw the line, let us know where the line is.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[DerekLyons]

Maybe it's more noteworthy the second time that they publish this through official channels?

Not really. The Russians have been publishing all manner of powerpoints about what they plan to do "real soon now" in space for a quarter of a century - and only a dozen or so have progressed to more powerpoints, less than a handful to anything more, and precisely none to fruition. And yet, people keep falling for them.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[werepants]

The ISS will be a 20 year old international experiment at that point, yes the US and Russian halves of the ISS share a common "atmosphere" but mechanically they're completely separate space stations capable of detaching at any time.

False. The US portion of the ISS cannot survive without the Russian parts, and vice versa. This was intentional, to ensure interdependence and continued cooperation.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Hadlock]

That was true in 2004, however with redundant systems installed since then, the US portion is capable of running on it's own today.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[stooo]

>> the US portion is capable of running on it's own today.
Aha. and how do you send people to it ?

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[werepants]

How do you boost it then? It needs periodic orbit boosts to compensate for orbit degradation from drag. The only permanent module capable of this is Russian owned (Zvezda), and although there are two vehicles capable of providing some boost capability, neither one is American. For that matter, almost all the docking capability belongs to the Russians as well. So your claims are entirely false.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[Hadlock]

The rocket motor on the Zvezda module has only fired twice, the second time happening 7 years after the first time. Resupply ships dock with the ISS and just before they leave, they boost the orbit until they have just enough fuel left to deorbit. Since the ISS' orbit degrades approx 1-2 km/month they boost it anywhere from 50-100km using resupply ships. The ATV has boosted the ISS numerous times.

Re:What do you mean "may be"?

[werepants]

The ATV has boosted the ISS numerous times.

And it is not an American vehicle. The point still stands - there is no way to "separate the two halves" and have a functioning station as you suggested. Even supposing we could get by entirely without Zvezda and Russian boosts, the Russian-owned docking module is the only place that another ship can mate for reboost. Interdependence is inherent to the design, and that is intentional.

What would happen?

[camperdave]

What would happen if the Russians just decided to keep the International Space Station going unilaterally? Is there anything critical to the operation of the ISS that only the US can provide?

Or is the ISS getting so old - seals are starting to leak, parts are getting brittle with age and the harsh environment of space - that it's safer to ditch it than to continue to use it?

All in all, it seems like quite a waste to splash a hundred and fifty billion dollar microgravity research station, especially when they're planning on adding new modules to it next year, and in 2017.

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but ISS is in a shitty, politically-chosen orbit that hamstrings it. Then again, the US government's heavy lift plans are another ever-delayed multibillion dollar pork boondoggle.

Overall, I have a definite case of "blahs" about the outlook for the US manned space program. I might get more excited if there were plans for SpaceX to launch their own station... but why would they do that?

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry if you could please elaborate on the "politically chosen orbit" part? layperson here, but I'm curious

Re:What would happen?

[Hadlock]

It was designed with a 10 year service life, then re-rated for 20 years. Current plan is 2024 but after that is really stretching things and major modules need to be replaced due to stressed placed on them by boosting the orbit (the ISS is actually in the upper atmosphere and loses about 2km (1 mile) altitude per month due to atmospheric drag. It gets reboosted by Soyuz and Progress spacecraft periodically.
 
Yes you could keep it going indefintiely but eventually the safety factor drops below an acceptable point. Based on what's there right now, that safe point is 2024-2030.
 
A next generation space station could possibly exceed a 25 year design life, but really, 25 years is pretty damn good given this was the first try since Space Lab for the US. For the Russians this is old hat, their segment(s) are just repurposed MIR 2 parts.

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/...

This means that it is more difficult to reach, requires more fuel to get there, less can be delivered, costs more to build and operate, etc.

Re: What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher inclination orbit (think flight path with respect to equator) to make Russian access easier (conversely making US access slightly harder)

Re:What would happen?

[drinkypoo]

Yes you could keep it going indefintiely but eventually the safety factor drops below an acceptable point. Based on what's there right now, that safe point is 2024-2030.

So, based on history, the Russians will try to keep it going until 2040

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on history, they had their own first with Mir. Therefore the ISS will be left to rot while they build Mir 2.0 if they don't chase China to the moon.

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is there anything critical to the operation of the ISS that only the US can provide?"

Sadly, the answer is an emphatic no. We can't even send up or get back our own astronauts to the ISS.

The last several US Administrations have gutted Space exploration for commercial and US Citizens, but not for Military..

This is a disappointment. The rest of the World moves on...

Re:What would happen?

[Pope Hagbard]

That's rich. You act like you know what you're talking about, but you seem to be completely unaware of the Salyut program, likewise Skylab.

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

... major modules need to be replaced due to stressed placed on them by boosting the orbit (the ISS is actually in the upper atmosphere and loses about 2km (1 mile) altitude per month due to atmospheric drag. It gets reboosted by Soyuz and Progress spacecraft periodically.

I wish they tried to solve that problem using a ion ramjet. If there is environmental matter to exert drag, then it could be and should be used as reaction mass for propulsion.

Re:What would happen?

[BaronAaron]

Launches from US are more expensive, but launches from Russia are less expensive. Given the Russians have done many more launches to the ISS then the US, this seems like an intelligent decision. Not politically motivated.

Re:What would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is still stupid. Given the cost of the station (and the fact that we funded much the Russians' development of their components), it makes sense for the inclination to be lower. As in, this thing is so fucking expensive we can afford to launch from someplace else even if we have to build it from scratch.

There's no reason they had to launch from Baikonur (except politics) and even that inclination was hedged due to China being downrange (again, politics). Hell, Baikonur isn't even in Russia, which further underscores the point.

Re:What would happen?

[schlachter]

why not boost it into a sustainable orbit when it's retired, so it's always there for future revival, unthought of experimentation, or an emergency shelter during future manned missions?

Long-term health effects

[mozumder]

You're not going to be able to do what you want without long-term studies on biology in space.

There's still a lot of long-term biological effects on humans and all animals/plants to be understood. This includes everything from zero-G effects on the body to psychological issues to comfort/oxygen/logistics/food-supply issues, etc..

This should eventually lead to long-term space exploration capabilities - mars travel, etc..

The Shuttle only stayed up for a couple of weeks at a time.

Re:Long-term health effects

[LordWabbit2]

Agreed, the real value in sticking people into a tin can in orbit is to study THEM, not the tin can. We need to understand the long term affects of low gravity, diet, mental health etc. etc. before we commit to sending them on one way missions to other planets. Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.

Re:Long-term health effects

[painandgreed]

Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.

No trip to Mars is going to be one way. We could probably send a one way trip if we really wanted to, but we will never do it. We will want a good chance of success and by time we do go through the trouble of figuring out the issues like "space scurvy", long term deep space habitats, and making sure that the trip actually has a desired chance of success to justify even making a trip to Mars, the return trip will be trivial.

I'm also planning a space station

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also planning a space station, but just like Russia, I can't afford one. Russian economy is in free fall. If oil goes below $50 a barrel and stays there for an extended period, the whole country will collapse.

Re:I'm also planning a space station

[Mysticalfruit]

Really? The US is now a net producer of energy and our economy is the healthiest in the world by a large margin. What's the downside to the US to continue to punch Russia in the gut? We mainly import raw materials from Russia that we can gladly import elsewhere or get domestically.

Currently Soyuz is the only way to get to the ISS, but once SpaceX gets the DragonRider fully man rated, then we don't Russia for that either.

If I was Russia, I'd be looking at the current situation in a state of horror. The crashing price in oil, the Europeans quiet but steady reduction in their dependence on Russian gas. I think the next five years in Russia are going to be interesting (as in the Chinese proverb)

Swell !

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2022 China gonna has its own space station and now Russia gonna send up its own space station as well

As for the US, the ISS being extended to 2024 is already stretching its limit ...
 
Is this yet another sign of the US of A falling from grace ?

Re:Swell !

[Anonymous Coward]

2014 election already proved that. The Rotten Republic is rotten to the core.

Re:Swell !

[Anonymous Coward]

No...The US has a long way to go to "fall from grace" even if it's on a decline. China's economy is on the verge of collapse, Russia is on the verge of depression, the EU minus Germany is still struggling to keep their economies growing. Sure, the US isn't the beacon for the middle class that it used to be, since the wealthy stole the money from the middle class through government, but it's still the top dog, and there aren't any indications that it's going anywhere soon.

Re:Swell !

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this yet another sign of the US of A falling from grace ?

No, not really.

We already have Amercian companies sending replenishment missions to the station and our Orion capsule will fly for the first time only 2 weeks from now, although it won't really be used until about 2020 itself.

And I seriously doubt we'll actually replace the station anyway. It will most likely be extended for a decade or more.

new ISS might be good for America

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, Russia sticks updated space station modules into orbit. China spends the money to develop modules, which take America's place. So, in 2030, there'd be the new Russia-Chinese space station, with the newest stuff, and experiments. It will be visited by all nations, including America. Then, there will be the used space station, running older, and less important experiments. Maybe there will be a couple of people, and some robots on this less reliable space station.

Re:new ISS might be good for America

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in 2030, there'd be the new Russia-Chinese space station, with the newest stuff, and experiments. It will be visited by all nations, including America.

Dream on, unless you mean only tourists. In 2030, America would have no capability to send anyone to the new space station. For Russia and China, there is no reason to let any American get on board, except for paying tourists.

Re:new ISS might be good for America

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume that there will be a Russia in 2030?

Re:new ISS might be good for America

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm while looking at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

i am sure that either
1. BOTH Russia and USA will exist 2030 (and after)
or
2. no humans will exist 2030 (and after)

any other country could be destroyed and humanity would survive, but if someone tries to destroy Russia or USA they will destroy whole planet (i would if i was in their place :) )

Russia plans a lot of good things

[avgapon]

Russia plans a lot of good things, but most of the things that it actually does are not so good or, even, are so not good.

Re:Russia plans a lot of good things

[dave420]

s/Russia/US/ and it still checks out.

Re:Russia plans a lot of good things

[JohnClaire]

This is total nonsense. A claim that USA fails in technology equally to Russia is just so plain riduculous that is even not worth discussing.

Re:Russia plans a lot of good things

[loonycyborg]

Because USA fails even more than Russia :P

Re:Russia plans a lot of good things

[JohnClaire]

A claim made by Rusian troll using American invented technology of PC and Internet, data broadcast via Western satellites and fiber optics cables. Well... Indeed, only cowards will let facts stand in their way, so why don't you tell us more about how great you are?

Re:Russia plans a lot of good things

[loonycyborg]

Inventions like that are in the past for USA. Now they'll only develop creationism.

Forget the Space Station

[robbiedo]

We should build a moon base. It will be the first of its kind...Alpha. Something we should have completed 15 years ago, instead of wasting money on ISS.

Re:Forget the Space Station

[Mike Frett]

I completely agree with you. A well designed, permanent Moon base is really what's needed. Many years from it's completion I can see it being self-sustaining and even launching people and goods back to Earth.

Human beings need to start expanding beyond our own Orbit. It's 2014 people, let's go.

Re:Forget the Space Station

[itzly]

How much would it cost to build a self-sustaining Moon base ? What exactly are the benefits ? How does this cost/benefit ratio compared with other projects we could do on Earth ? For instance, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels ?

Re:Forget the Space Station

[BlackHawk-666]

But we'll need a new shuttle design for transporting equipment back and forth, with a cool, American sounding name like....lambs, pheasants...no wait, Eagles!

It'd make a great place to dump all our old nuclear waste!

Re: Forget the Space Station

[ValentineMSmith]

The problem is that, as soon as you do that, some idiot will start using it to store nuclear waste. And once that waste explodes, you'll have a whole new set of problems.

Re:Forget the Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

what about hookers?

Re:Forget the Space Station

[Aussie]

Nice one :)

Re:Forget the Space Station

[xigxag]

It's R&D. If we already knew the exact benefits, we wouldn't have to do the research.

One of many worthwhile goals is in developing expertise in the areas of construction and industrial development in a vacuum. This is not something you want to learn at the last minute. And since it will require new methods and materials, there's a possibility we'll learn something that will accrue benefits back on Earth. Even a tiny improvement in a process that would work back on Earth could be beneficial to the tune of billions of dollars. Other goals include He3 mining, using the moon base as a launchpad for further space exploration, and pure science (astronomy etc.) and from the American POV, wanting to get there before the Chinese establish a presence and attempt to lay exclusive claim to the above resources. Besides all that, when you start looking at the long term survival of the human species as a goal, it's not really clear that cost/benefit in monetary terms should be the exclusive metric used to examine the situation. Money is a tool that loses its accuracy over time, and a moon base could take generations to come into its own.

Re: Forget the Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what ? An explosion on the far side of the moon that instead of putting the Moon on a collision path with Earth hurls it into the deeps of interstellar space ?

Re:Forget the Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many years from it's completion I can see it being self-sustaining and even launching people and goods back to Earth."

Yes, because remote, barren islands out in the middle of nowhere with small populations are known for how productive they are.

Imagine how productive a vastly more remote, vastly more barren island with few people could be! Especially when 80% of their time and effort would be spent on remaining alive for the next day...

Re:Forget the Space Station

[painandgreed]

We should build a moon base. It will be the first of its kind...Alpha. Something we should have completed 15 years ago, instead of wasting money on ISS.

I understand you are making a funny, but I see people saying this in seriousness. The matter of the fact is that if we were serious about going to Mars or a moon base, we would not abandon the ISS but fund it even more and probably need to build a second one, just to do the research to get the knowledge to make such things possible. Complaining about spending funds on the ISS instead of a moon base is like complaining about all the money spend on fusion research instead of just building the final working product right now.

Re:Forget the Space Station

[sunking2]

None of them are old enough to get the reference.

Re: Forget the Space Station

[cbhacking]

Not sure if serious, so I'll respond as if you are: nuclear waste does not "explode". The reason it's "waste" is because it no longer is even capable of maintaining a barely critical chain reaction in a moderated reactor core (neutron moderation - slowing them down to the point that they can be captured by other nuclei - is an important part of reactor operation). By itself, it's hot (decay heat) and radioactive (most of the half-lives are really long, so it doesn't actually release a ton of radiation per unit time but it will keep doing it for a long time), but that's about it. Now, it could be reprocessed to remove the low-grade stuff and refine out the actually really useful material. Only about 3% of the potential energy gets extracted from fuel in modern reactors before it drops to the point of being unable to maintain criticality, but with enough work you can purify it and make it usable again. You could, in fact, purify it even more to the point where it will go supercritical *without* a reactor core's moderation - this is one way to make bomb-grade material - but that's difficult, expensive, and never going to happen naturally.

Re: Forget the Space Station

[ValentineMSmith]

Not serious. Parent was an oblique reference to an old 1970's sci-fi series. We were just showing our age.

I'm also planning a space station

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the US will continue its little economic war against Russia for much longer. US producers won't be too happy if this goes on for too long. Sooner or later, Saudi Arabia will receive a call saying they can stop pumping oil and begin to make money again. Continuing the conquest for Eastern Europe and putting a puppet... sorry, I mean "friendly" government, near the border of Russia is fun, but there's a time when the price for little political games is just too much.

Unless of course the US is really trying to start a third world war before China becomes the new world leader.

Better idea

[benjfowler]

If the Russians want to ditch their share of the Station, why not invite the Chinese to come and take over the Russian segment, hand them all the technology, give them manned spaceflight experience, and then build an ISS2, partnering with the Chinese. Putin+cronies will be cured of their delusions soon enough...

The future belongs to rising countries like China, not with decaying has-beens like Putin's Russia.

Re:Better idea

[Ogi_UnixNut]

The irony of your statement, is that the whole reason Russia is planning on going their own way, is because the US does not plan to renew the station come 2020, but rather deorbit it (the US have been saying so since 2009 at least). As some of the Russian modules are going up in 2017, they would be barely 3 years old when the US wants to burn it all up. And these modules are not cheap to build or send up there. Additionally, the Chinese had to build their own space station precisely because the US did not want them on the ISS. Russians had no problem with their participation. So from Russias point of view, come 2020, detaching their modules, letting the US burn up its part of the ISS, and then forming a new station seems like a smart decision. Those modules would have 20 more years left in them at least. Plus, with the US no longer involved, they can invite the Chinese and the Europeans to join them if they so desire, for an ISS2. So in many ways what you wrote was perfectly correct, just replace "Russia" with "USA" to get to reality :-) .

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Let's storm the ISS with US Space Marines.

We'll teach those Commies a lesson about freedom and democracy that they'll never forget!

Re:Better idea

[Thor Ablestar]

Yes. In Russian language there is a word "Democratizator". It means a police baton.

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the English definition of "Democratizator" - http://the273.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/police-medic.jpg

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

...space station replaces YOU.

Why the time limit?

[Squatting_Dog]

Why is it going to be necessary to abandon the ISS at any point in time? What is the deciding factor? Anyone know?

Re:Why the time limit?

[dave420]

Its components only have a limited operating time before they succumb to the hostile environment and become untrustworthy.

Come in Moonraker 5

[MrIlios]

Two orbiting space stations might ignite some competition between the nations and hopefully further science for everyone. Or.....If the current cold war turns sour, we could see Jaws and James bond type characters duelling it out with frikin' lasers!

Re:Come in Moonraker 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Two orbiting space stations might ignite some competition between the nations and hopefully further science for everyone.

Or.....If the current cold war turns sour, we could see Jaws and James bond type characters duelling it out with frikin' lasers!

This time I won't root for James Bond. As an agent belonging to MI6 that spies on billions of civilians he can go get hunged. I'll give my vote to Hugo Drax and Jaws. Hip hip hip hurray whn Jaws shreds to pieces James fucking Bond and good riddance.

In Soviet Russia Whores So Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They Pay You!

So it was a documentary

[paiute]

Everyone who doesn't have an armed space station, raise your hand.

Re:So it was a documentary

[Thor Ablestar]

I have no idea about armed space station but all Soyuz spaceships are armed. Including, of course, the ones that transport US astronauts. Does it count as US militarization of space?

Re:So it was a documentary

[cbhacking]

Source? Given the extreme cost of any wasted launch mass, I can't imagine they would operate every launch armed. That they have experimented with arming the capsules would be no surprise - I'd be shocked if they hadn't experimented with arming *some* of their spacecraft, even if only unmanned satellites - and they might even have launched armed craft, but I sincerely doubt they've done so on *every* launch.

Re:So it was a documentary

[paiute]

The quote was from Iron Sky, but I do recall that Soyuz capsules did at one time carry small arms in case they landed near angry bears.

wait...

[argStyopa]

If they put their flag in space, doesn't that mean they own it?

Why Space if you can afford Ground Station.

[danielr7z]

It is time to think seriously about a permanent human base on the Moon (not just an orbital station), with an eye put on Mars. So we go away from our scientific comfort zone.

Of course the first step would be a concept mission aimed to get knowledge and experience on exoplanetary construction with local materials, effects of cosmic radiations and low gravity on humans, efficient propulsion systems, recycling, water / oxygen extraction, etc. The objetive would be to create and maintain a small (set of tentative) shelter(s).

Instead of big space stations around Earth or the Moon, a constellation of small backup ships, full with fuel and supplies, could be orbiting (just in case they are needed quickly) around both our planet and satellite, and/or travelling periodically (vessels) between the lunar base and home.

Full time astronauts' presence on the Moon would not be required nor recommended, perhaps just enough to trigger or supervise automated processes and experiments, and to perform mainteinance tasks.

It would be a nonsense not trying the Moon first before a mission to Mars, mining asteroids, etc.

Those are my two quadrillion cents.

Re:Why Space if you can afford Ground Station.

[cwsumner]

A base on the moon is at the bottom of a "gravity well". Not as bad as the one at Earth, but still a chore to climb out of.
It would be like sleeping every night at the bottom of an old dry well, and having to climb a ladder to get out every morning.

A station is free orbit is much easier to get to and from. And also easier to move stuff to and from.
Is is actually cheaper, in energy, to move in a ore meteor to a space station, than to move ore from the moon to earth.

Then get lost, already...

[Anonymous Coward]

... don't let the airlock hit you on the ass on the way out.

A lot of hot air and much less of sense

[JohnClaire]

Russians are "planning" a lot of things. One of the features of mindset of Russian society is permanent talk about ever greater and more impressive projects. None of those normally come true, but they make Russian people feel as if they would be the Greatest Nation of All. So Russians spend their lives in illusionary dreamscape where unfounded paranoid sense of one's greatness and superiority co-exists with the feeblest and most pathetic of realities ever seen by Man which in fact they are living in.

A common trick of Russian propaganda is comparing Russian _planned_ endeavours with the _actual_ accomplishments of the others. While absolutely absurd as it is, the trick makes Russians feel good about themselves, as noted above. The obvious difference between plans and facts seems eluding majority of Russian population.

Re:A lot of hot air and much less of sense

[Thor Ablestar]

You study the Soviet life via US propaganda about Soviet propaganda about real Soviet life. Ha-ha. Some Russian jokes for better understanding:

- Sister, please register me to doctor of ear-eye.
- Patient, we have no ear-eye doctor, we have separate ear and eye doctors.
- No, I need an ear-eye doctor. I hear something but see exactly the opposite.

Q: Radio informs that there is plenty in USSR but my fridge is empty. What to do?
A: Power your fridge from your radio.

Q: Why is the Great Soviet Food Production Program named Complex?
A: Complex things consist of real and imaginary parts.

Re:A lot of hot air and much less of sense

[JohnClaire]

"You study the Soviet life via US propaganda about Soviet propaganda about real Soviet life." - What did you mean by that?

Your jokes are very true ones.

Another one:
Q: Is that true that in Communism it will be possible to order food by telephone?
A: True. But it will be delivered by television.

Meh Space

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a total pro science and technology guy, but human space exploration is IMHO a waste of time with currently available technology.
The Earth is the only place, within like millions of light years, which can sustain a comfortable way of life for humans.
Which means, that even if today we find a way to travel at c speed, and at the same time we invent a propulsion system able to drive us at that speed, which is not still based on shooting mass on one direction, to achieve propulsion on the other, it will still take hundreds of thousands of years to reach places which might allow comfortable human life.
That's a hellvua of a long trip for the pilgrims to undertake!
 

Re:Meh Space

[Thor Ablestar]

Let us separate exploration where it may be efficient to travel somewhere to collect data and colonization which may be efficient only when there are some resources to be collected. And please don't forget the possibility that Earth may become uninhabitable due to, for instance, efforts of Obama to keep Putin with A-bomb from selling oil for Yuans.

Swell !

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the US, the ISS being extended to 2024 is already stretching its limit ...

Would it make a difference? The US can't get to ISS without Russia, anyway.

Studying humans

[sjbe]

And yet, the human habitation makes whole classes of experiments difficult or impossible, due to the atmosphere, the vibrations from movement, etc..

The primary thing we are studying on the ISS is the occupants. All the other experiments are just added value.

Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system.

Oh is that all there is to it? We don't need to learn how to keep people alive and healthy in zero G first? What is your proposal for radiation protection outside of the Earth's magnetic field? How do you propose to manufacture useful products out of asteroids of unknown composition given that we lack even basic space worthy manufacturing technology? How do you plan to keep people's bones intact and prevent the other physical deterioration we so far haven't even been able to figure out in low earth orbit? How do you propose to feed people on this hypothetical base?

I'm not even getting into the economics of it. I think you are being rather glib with a very complicated and difficult engineering problem. Your goal is a great one but a goal without a plan is nothing more than a dream.

So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?

The point is to learn how to allow humans to not only survive but thrive in space. Whether it is worth it is something you will have to figure out for yourself but for my part the answer is yes. I think it is the greatest adventure we are currently engaged in and I think it expands human knowledge more than anything else we are doing. As for building a "real" station, you have to crawl before you can walk. We don't yet have the technology to build a station on the moon or any other planetary body. That is going to take a while and will cost a LOT more money than we are currently willing to spend.

Stop the bombing first

[sjbe]

I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.

I'll concede the point once we stop spending trillions on bombing other people here on earth first.

Maybe repurpose it a little...

[NReitzel]

NASA keeps looking for long duration spacecraft. They have a -dandy- one already in orbit.

What it needs is a large ion thruster module. The ISS would make a really great long duration space probe. We already know that people can live on it for months at a time, and it's got many of the instruments one would want to explore deeper space than LEO. Flying supplies off Earth would take a whole lot less energy than launching an entire space probe.

Plus, it can be done incrementally. Attach an ion engine, fly ISS up to geosynchronous orbit, then fly it back down.

Seems like a much better idea than "Hey, let's burn this up in the atmosphere and count on the Government(s) to buy us a new shiny one."

It was thinking like that that led us to the Superconducting Supercollider -- oh, wait, we don't have one of those. But CERN has LHC, and they have studiously repurposed and refurbished their old accelerators since 1959.

C'mon, NASA. Think outside the box. For once.

Re:Maybe repurpose it a little...

[werepants]

Something made for interplanetary travel like that would need far more radiation shielding, which basically must drive most of the rest of the spacecraft architecture. The ISS is in one of the most benign orbits out there (not dealing with the Van Allen belts, yet still enjoying the protection of Earth's magnetosphere). As soon as it got beyond LEO, a single solar flare could be enough to give all the inhabitants a lethal dose of radiation.

Believe it or not, there are some fairly smart people working at NASA. And in the aerospace industry in general. Maybe rather than assuming that the people who do this professionally are ignorant, it would be better to assume that there's something they know that you don't.

Re:Maybe repurpose it a little...

[painandgreed]

The ISS is not a deep space craft. It and the crew is still protected by the Van Allen belt from radiation, and is not mean to handle the thrust of moving it. The boosting just to keep it in orbit is already taking a toll on the structure and it is very much still in the grip of Earth's gravity and probably could not handle the thrust needed to get it out into deep space. A ion thruster would not do will still in orbit. As far as a car analogy goes, what you are suggesting is like saying somebody should use a short ranged electric car meant for short city trips to do multi ton interstate shipping.

why build.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the Russians build a new stations. Just stop taking Americans to the ISS and they have there own private station.. They are the only country that can put a man on ISS right now.

Re:why build.

[Thor Ablestar]

Because we Russians believe that "pacta sunt servanda" (Treaties should be fulfilled). And BTW you pay.

multiple stations might be safer

[peter303]

People could move between them in times of danger. Must develop a "standard docking port". Most of the world uses ISS ports. And likely the Chinese xeroxed when they stole the specs.

But due to falling oil prices ...

[Crypto Cavedweller]

It will be more of a 'space kiosk' than 'space station.'

solar cell rotator largest failure so far?

[peter303]

If the solar cells dont optimize the solar incidence angle, the power could be cut in third. Power is kind of tight on ISS now, In the mid-2000s a shuttle mission replaced a broken bearing wheel on half of the solar cells. It would be much slower to replace such now without the shuttle.

Putin the economist

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin claims to be an economist. So here is the economy Putin is looking at. With the current ISS, he had about 450 million Europeans, 350 million Americans, about 35 million Canadians, 127 million Japanese, 23 million Australians, and about 4.5 million New Zealanders (Kiwis) plus 123 million Russians footing the bill (the Chinese were left out of the current game). So about 985.5 million people backstopping the current thing. He wants to do the same thing on the backs of 123 million people. And he can. Its just that each person will have to pay 985.5/123 = 8.01 times as much. The current thing cost 150 billion US dollars. It cost $152.20 for every man woman and child (of the 985.5 million). Putin can build a similar dingus but Russia only for 1219.51 for every man woman and child. Have fun storming the castle.

They should be in touch with India

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be in touch with India. Will be a great scene.

The next Cold War will be in Space.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russian Space Agency knows how to explore Space very well and if they do succeed at building their own national space station you can expect there to be great paranoia from the other nations of the world. A new cold war will begin, with superpowers like the United States, The EU, China and even India trying to secure areas of orbit around the Earth, The Moon, Mars and even comets and asteroids that may fly by.

Remember The Star Wars Program (Strategic Defense Initiative) launched during the Regan Era? If we don't want a sequel of this with even bigger stakes, robots, space drones and opposing space colonies on planets armed with nukes that can destroy from millions of miles away, then The United States and The EU better make peace with Russia now.

Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS was expensive to build because of all the BS associated with it. However, it is NOT expensive to run at this time.
About the worst thing that you can really say about it, is that it is too low (done for Russias benefit), and that is is missing the most important scientific instrument, which is the large life centrifuge. That later COULD be built and added.

However, to disable it at this time, is about one of the stupidest things that I have heard. We are proofing life support systems; we are now in the process of testing Bigelow inflatables; We are also learning to do 3d manufacturing in space; we are growing plants to provide fresh food and O2.
All in all, killing the ISS before its time is foolish. Hell the price to keep it up there is CHEAP.
The agency's human spaceflight branch gets $7.88 billion. The money will help keep the space station running for another decade, continue to fund private cargo deliveries to the orbiting lab and support the development of private American crew-carrying spaceships, with certification of such "astronaut taxis" coming by 2017, officials said.
Roughly, 1/2 of NASA 2015 budget would to to human flight. Of that, about .5B is for taking astronauts to the ISS, and .5B for cargo for them (which helps private space move along).
By far and large, the majority of that 7.88 will be used on NASA helping private space gain human lift. And with 2 or more PRIVATE SPACE systems, we will NEVER lose that again.

More space stations!

[XMark3]

Maybe it would be better this way. China's making a space station, there's the ISS, and Russia's planning OPSEK and maybe this other new space station... and a handful of corporations planning "space hotels" (okay, only the Bigelow Aerospace one seem realistic so far). I like the idea of international cooperation on the ISS, but on the other hand, I'm thinking maybe competition between different nations and corporations for space stations may spur more innovation in space travel technology and get more people and things up into space.

Space shutle all over

[findoutmoretoday]

By 2020 It will be even older and certainly technically dated, it's main function will be to pump money to the same hands for a few more years. So let it die and start with something new.