Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Multi-National Crew Reaches Space Station

Posted by samzenpus on from the blast-off dept.

An anonymous reader writes A Russian capsule carrying three astronauts from Russia, the United States and Italy has blasted off for the International Space Station. Aboard the capsule are Russian Anton Shkaplerov, Nasa's Terry Virts and European Space Agency astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti, Italy's first female astronaut. "I think that 100 years from now, 500 years from now, people will look back on this as the initial baby steps that we took going into the solar system," Virts told a pre-launch press conference. "In the same way that we look back on Columbus and the other explorers 500 years ago, this is the way people will look at this time in history."

48 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Same as Columbus by halivar · · Score: 1

    A clear sign that we are finally going to exploit the resources of our solar system.

    1. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      There's not much to exploit that we can't get by digging in the Earth for a lower cost.

    2. Re:Same as Columbus by dpilot · · Score: 1

      That depends on the destination for the final product. If you're building something for use off-Earth, using space-based resources from construction allows you to eliminate launch costs for the weight of that thing.

      This of course presumes that the launch cost of your asteroid harvester is less than the launch cost of what you're building with the materials. Then again, if one Earth-launched asteroid harvester can get enough raw materials for more than one space-built asteroid harvester, you're on your way. Or to put it in a more Slashdot-memetic way:
      1 - Launch asteroid harvester.
      2 - Use harvested materials to build more asteroid harvesters, plus other neat space-based stuff. Repeat.
      3 - Profit!!

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 2

      Without a useful primary purpose of all this "neat space-based stuff", it's a circular argument.

    4. Re:Same as Columbus by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Right now, that's true. But as the cost of digging deeper escalates and the minerals get more scarce, there will inevitably be a time when the cost of resources from space will drop below the cost of terrestrial mining.

      Long before that, we're going to see steadily increasing local use of space resources, such as habitats and solar arrays on the Moon made from lunar materials.

    5. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Figuring out how to robotically mine, refine, and construct machines serves no useful purpose? How about getting all those polluting industries off earth? What you really mean is that it serves to profitable short-term purpose....which is true. But since when are profitable short-term goals the only worthwhile ones?

    6. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      Figuring out how to robotically mine, refine, and construct machines serves no useful purpose?

      It serves no useful purpose to do all of that in space given the insanely high cost.

      How about getting all those polluting industries off earth?

      How about figuring out how to mine stuff without pollution ?

    7. Re:Same as Columbus by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But since when are profitable short-term goals the only worthwhile ones?

      Since the stock market decided that quarterly numbers was the only meaningful metric and corporations stopped having any longer-term goals?

      Seriously, for the last decade it seems like long-term thinking is out the window, because people who run corporations only give a damn about the next quarter.

      And when the management team gets swapped out, they cancel anything which had been on-going in favor of new short-term measures.

      Or, at least, that's how it has seemed to many of us for years now.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      we're going to see steadily increasing local use of space resources, such as habitats and solar arrays on the Moon made from lunar materials.

      Why spend astronomical amounts of money to build habitats on the Moon ?

    9. Re:Same as Columbus by dpilot · · Score: 1

      We keep launching stuff into space, and launch cost is always a concern. This isn't new business, this is existing business. Even if only structural components could be space-source, and not the electronics or optics, it can still be a financial win.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    10. Re:Same as Columbus by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      "Same as Columbus"? Does that mean they are going to try and secure Samantha Cristoforetti's place in the history books as the first person to discover the International Space Station, in direct contradiction to evidence suggesting other people made it there first?

    11. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It serves no useful purpose to do all of that in space given the insanely high cost.

      It's R&D, it costs a lot of money. It's not meant to replace efficient industries yet.

      How about figuring out how to mine stuff without pollution ?

      There are always toxic side effects to industry. What you're proposing can't be done.

    12. Re:Same as Columbus by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Expansion of the human habitat beyond earth.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      What you're proposing can't be done.

      That's what they told Columbus. LOL. But seriously, mining with low pollution on Earth is much more realistic than an autonomous robotic mine on an asteroid.

    14. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in order to make your argument sound more plausible you're argument has changed from industry in general, to mining; and from no pollution to low pollution. What exactly is unrealistic about an autonomous robot on an asteroid. We've already done this. It's far more plausible than attempting to perform useful work without toxic byproducts...considering that nature wasn't even able to accomplish this natural selection.

    15. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      Why ? You suffer huge cost, just to end up in a covered dome on some barren rock where you will be one mechanical failure away from death.

    16. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1
      It doesn't have to be "no pollution". It just has be low enough that it's not causing damage, or low enough that you can clean it up.

      What exactly is unrealistic about an autonomous robot on an asteroid

      Not just a "robot". Autonomous mining and refining equipment, plus all the infrastructure to build more. For instance, I assume your robot contains a CPU. That means you need a IC factory in space, plus a factory to build IC factories. Plus factories for all the materials you need. Basically, we're talking about launching a small to medium city. Now, how much rockets and fuel does that require ? How is that "no pollution" ?

    17. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about a small to medium city. I'm simply advocating R&D in space based robot industry. That is a worthwhile endeavor. And there's no reason you can't research that, AND lower the toxic side effects of industry. But the problem with lowering the toxic side effects of industry is that the entire manufacturing industry is against you. Whereas, with the R&D I'm proposing there is virtually no opposition except for a few extreme liberals who believe we shouldn't be launching rockets as long as there are hungry people somewhere on this planet.

    18. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I think you just revealed yourself as the luddite that you are, Anti-space-nutter guy.

    19. Re:Same as Columbus by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The costs for digging things up on earth are going to be higher than anywhere else because it is our own habitat.

    20. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Why ? You suffer huge cost, just to end up in a covered dome on some barren rock where you will be one mechanical failure away from death.

      How is this any different than being on Earth? There are huge costs to society here on Earth. Yes, parts of the Earth will sustain us for the foreseeable future without us expending any energy. But that's never been enough for us. We humans are always moving into new habitats. We develop new technologies to help us do it. When we left Africa we developed tools to help us hunt and kill animals for the skins so we could survive in colder climates. We developed agriculture and husbandry for the same reasons. All of our technological advancements have allowed us to continue to grow into new formerly uninhabitable environments. Space is no different. Mechanical failures kill us all the time. We're all going to die. Why not die doing what we're clearly supposed to do...going forth and multiplying. Multiplying on Earth can only continue for so long.

    21. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      What I see is a vast expensive infrastructure designed to kill other people and take their stuff. That's not going away. It's not ever going away. It's as much a part of our nature as sex. And it accomplishes absolutely nothing for us as a whole. Why not build stuff on other planets so we don't have to waste so much money trying to take it from other people. We can either sit around destroying and stealing from each other on this planet for the next several thousand years or however long it takes to kill ourselves off completely, or we can do that AND start looking for other rocks to live on, or other ways to live without large rocks. It's a worthy goal. You know.... building stuff instead? It is a worthy goal. It may be a matter of survival one day. Most of the people on here are more interested in building stuff...why aren't you? Why are you so obstinately against us? Are you really so worked up about that fraction of a percent of the federal budget that goes to NASA? You'd rather spend all that money on war machines then?

    22. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      What specifically are you referring to? Capitalists have historically shown absolutely no qualms about replacing human labor with mechanical labor.

    23. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      We'll have to make arrangements right here with real, actual solutions.

      Bullshit. Nature has already solved this problem for us. We instinctively kill each other. This will NEVER change. Even if we have one world government, there will always be violent factions.

      The population is increasing by 200000 people EVERY DAY. That's about SEVENTY THOUSAND SATURN V launches *EVERY DAY* just to BREAK EVEN!!!

      I'm not talking about evacuating the existing population, that's impossible until something like a space elevator comes along. I never billed this as a cure for overpopulation. Stop putting words in my mouth.

      Exactly, new technology that will be used by the SEVEN BILLION people here right now, not the ZERO people on Mars.

      The same argument could have been used for staying in Africa.

    24. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      How is this any different than being on Earth?

      For starters, we can walk around outside, and find stuff that we can eat and drink just using our bare hands. So, if technology breaks down completely, humans will still be able to survive. That's a little different than anywhere else in the solar system, right ?

      Multiplying on Earth can only continue for so long.

      Even if all of Mars was habitable, it would only add one quarter additional Earth surface. But it isn't. And the rest of the solar system is even less hospitable than Mars.

    25. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      The same argument could have been used for staying in Africa.

      Poor analogy. It didn't take much resources to leave Africa, and survive outside of it.

    26. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      You're advocating stealing tons of resources and energy from the Earth right here so you can build hypothetical comic book sci-fi impossibilities, but *that's* OK?

      Yes. Stealing *tons* of resources from Earth to expand human habitat to space is fine by me. It's a drop of water compared to the *billions of tons* of resources and energy we put into killing each other. You guys keep trying to play this up like we're throwing away our future in order to finance space research...that is not so. It is nothing compared to our other (less worthy) expenses.

    27. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Primitive humans would probably disagree.

      They had to invent the technology to kill animals for food and to acquire pelts for warm themselves in cold climates. They had to learn to control fire. They had to learn language. It simply could not be done without the knowledge you and I take for granted. You're belittling what a huge undertaking all that was. Yes, we can look back from where we are now and say it was easy. But for them, it meant death, therefore it was impossible.

      It's the same thing today. We're lacking the knowledge to go in live in a new habitat. But our ancestors 5, 10, or 100 thousand years from now will look back and say it was easy.

      And I bet a hundred thousand years ago, there was anti-space-nutter type guy trolling the tribal council saying it was crazy to chase the herds north. It would be certain death. Let's stay here where we can eat leaves and bugs year round.

    28. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      So, if technology breaks down completely, humans will still be able to survive. That's a little different than anywhere else in the solar system, right ?

      We can still die at a moments notice.

      Even if all of Mars was habitable, it would only add one quarter additional Earth surface. But it isn't. And the rest of the solar system is even less hospitable than Mars.

      I never proposed it as a solution for overpopulation. I never proposed a mass migration. Why do people keep assuming that?

    29. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      We'll just kill each other in space. Why do you think human nature would change as soon as they lift off the surface ?

    30. Re:Same as Columbus by itzly · · Score: 1

      Primitive humans would probably disagree.

      They were the ones that did it, using just the tools they made themselves. A little different than for instance the Apollo project that took a big chunk from an entire nation to put a few men on the moon. And that was easy, because they didn't attempt to stay there and try to live off the land.

    31. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It won't.

      But you claim that our nutty space religion ideas will bankrupt the world, yet all we want and more could be paid for many times over by the military budget of the United States.

    32. Re:Same as Columbus by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      No. It took millions of cavemen thousands of years to reach the point where they could do that. A tribe putting together an expedition to follow a herd north would be just as costly on the tribe, and the consequences far more dire than it was for the US. I could probably argue it was a larger undertaking for them than Apollo was the US.

    33. Re:Same as Columbus by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Or a nature of gravity is understood.

      <quote>... until something like a space elevator comes along....</quote>

    34. Re:Same as Columbus by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      Even if all of Mars was habitable, it would only add one quarter additional Earth surface. But it isn't. And the rest of the solar system is even less hospitable than Mars.

      That's why in the long run, we've got to get out of the solar system and plant colonies somewhere else. Mars isn't an interesting end destination, but getting to Mars would help pave the way to start sending colonies out to all those exoplanets we keep discovering, and hoping one of them is habitable.

      This may actually be impossible. I've been working up a novel whose premise was a completely believable last ditch survival shot at colonizing the stars with as little new technology as possible. What if some dinosaur killer event is going to happen in the present time, and we've got to just get it done? My novel stalled out, because I'm going to have to invent far more magic than I wanted to make this remotely believable. The problems are immensely daunting, and we're nowhere close to being able to solve them.

      We might never solve them. If we don't, our extinction is 100% guaranteed unless some friendly space faring neighbors give us a lift off of this rock. We won't go extinct in the foreseeable future, probably, but it's inevitable that we will go extinct eventually.

      Much as we are hard wired to kill our neighbors, fuck their women, and take all their shit, we are hard wired to survive. We want to live forever, which is why we have invented so many religions that allow us to pretend that we get to do just that. To anyone who truly understands the inevitability of the sun going red giant and scorching our home planet, remaining entirely on this one rock runs counter to the innate human survival instinct, and the innate raping and plundering instinct. Thinking about how to get us off this rock isn't a flight of fantasy, it's a compulsion, and the most critically important problem we need to solve in the long run to ensure our version of eternity for ourselves.

      Do we accept extinction, or do we figure out how to get this done? Personally, I don't want to accept extinction. A very small minority of us have enough foresight to agree, while the vast majority are playing shuffleboard on the poop deck of the Titanic saying the sun will be around forever and ever, and anyway, Jesus will save us, so why invest in all this crazy space fantasy when we could be spending money on yachts and luxury cars instead?

    35. Re:Same as Columbus by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Humanity, possibly, but not humans.

      Cramming 7 billion people onto this rock requires a huge amount of technology. If it fails then we are still screwed. How many rivers in the US (or the world) are under artificial management rather than their natural flows? What happens if the technology producing that fails? What about agriculture? How many of those 7 billion would survive if agriculture had to continue without technology (water managment, oil-driven labour)?

      We are are still on a small cramped rock that would kill us at a moment's notice if our tech-based life support fails. Don't let the air fool you.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    36. Re:Same as Columbus by smallfries · · Score: 1

      So your point is that it would be hard?

      Gosh, what news, better give up on that then.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. really? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I think that 100 years from now, 500 years from now, people will look back on this as the initial baby steps that we took going into the solar system," Virts told a pre-launch press conference. "In the same way that we look back on Columbus and the other explorers 500 years ago, this is the way people will look at this time in history."

    More like the first time someone took a dugout log out to sea, paddled around within sight of shore, then came back again.

    1. Re:really? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I agree that the historical significance is over rated.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the difficulty of what we did back in the 50s and 60s. You don't need an airtight suit just to go out on your little dinghy, or millions of litres of rocket fuel igniting under you to get there. It's baby steps compared to what will one day be possible, but not exactly showing a lack of effort. That started in the mid 70s.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. A Russian, an American and an Italian all walk... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    A Russian, an American and an Italian all walk into a space station.

    As soon as the shuttle that dropped them off reenters the atmosphere they discover that a fire has started in the living quarters. They crawl into the module with the escape capsules but discover that there are only two of the one-man crafts available. The Russian immediately dives through a door shouting "for the motherland!" The brave American offers the last capsule to the Italian, but the Italian politely refuses. He says, "Nah, let's both take one - I only wish we could be here when the Ruskie gets out of the shitter."

  4. Re:Too expensive by multisync · · Score: 2

    Nations with an actual space program should stop subsidizing these losers

    So Russia should stop shuttling US astronauts to and from ISS?

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  5. The 60's by rfengr · · Score: 1

    No, I think 100 years from now the 60's would be the birth of the space program, and that mankind has been fucking-off for the last 40 years. Sorry, I watched 2001 the other night. That's what it could have been like.

    1. Re:The 60's by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Slacking, you say? During that time we have only been sending probes to every planet, plus Pluto, asteroids and now a comet. So far, manned programs have been a vestigial part of space exploration as a whole. Now that manned programs are going private, astronauts will be able to assume levels of personal risk that have not been possible since Apollo.

    2. Re:The 60's by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Pictures of astronauts will be as quaint as black and white pictures of Victorian men with handlebar mustaches and top hats.

      I think what will happen is astronauts will become a mythical character of sorts like the pirate and the cowboy. Though pirates and cowboys did exist, they were nothing like what is portrayed by Johnny Depp and John Wayne. I believe in a hundred years many people will have mixture of fact and fiction of the spaceman. In fact I encounter people these days who get 1960s astronauts confused with fictional characters.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  6. Multi-National Crew by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Isn't that pretty much the rule for the ISS
    It is after all the International Space Station

  7. ISS is not forever by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    It may happen sooner than you think. There was a time when people thought Shuttle will fly forever (like the B52), in fact before 2003 Columbia crash there were upgrade plans to continue Shuttle fleet into 2030s. Then in 2004 VSE announced Shuttle will stop flying in 2010 though many were in denial. All of sudden no more Shuttle which some felt like they were caught with their pants down. "What? we gotta buy seats from the Russians? Elon doesn't have something ready now?" I feel this may happen with ISS. US will pull out and nothing will be there to go. However, lots of stuff can happen between then and now.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  8. It's hard to believe these people are educated by chaoskitty · · Score: 1

    Like Columbus? Does that mean they're planning genocide and exploitation of a race of people as slave labor?