Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISS Crew Install Cables For 2017 Arrival of Commercial Capsules

Posted by timothy on from the in-meters-they're-even-longer dept.

The Associated Press, as carried by the San Francisco Chronicle, reports that NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Terry Virts have attached more than 300 feet of cable to the exterior of the International Space Station in a series of three planned spacewalks; in total, the wiring job they're undertaking will involve 764 feet of power and data cables. The extensive rewiring is needed to prepare for NASA’s next phase 260 miles up: the 2017 arrival of the first commercial spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts to the orbiting lab. NASA is paying Boeing and SpaceX to build the capsules and fly them from Cape Canaveral, which hasn’t seen a manned launch since the shuttles retired in 2011. Instead, Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price. The first of two docking ports for the Boeing and SpaceX vessels — still under development — is due to arrive in June. Even more spacewalks will be needed to set everything up. Mission Control left two cables — or about 24 feet worth — for the next spacewalk coming up Wednesday. Four hundred feet of additional cable will be installed next Sunday on spacewalk No. 3.

67 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. So how about the core Russian module? by TWX · · Score: 2

    I've read rumors that Russia is getting antsy to reuse the core block for ISS for its own station some day, and that they don't allow non-Russians into the Russian parts of the station without escort. If there's substance to this rumor, is there a plan in the works to have a replacement module so that humanity's most expensive construct ever doesn't become so much floating orbital debris?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Informative

      They made a formal announcement that they'll be disconnecting from the US half of the ISS at the end of 2013 after approximately 10 years of talking about it. And now they're courting the Chinese, the Japanese and the ESA to go in with them on their own ISS, leaving the ISS with... The US and South Korea.
       
      It's not a rumor, it's "when". They have a webcam setup showing construction of their new spaceport built to support the "new" spacestation in it's new orbit. They plan on doing their first launch by the end of the year.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by wiggles · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't see this project moving forward. For one, Russia is broke. Their economy is in tatters. For two, I don't see the Japanese or Europeans siding with the Russians on much of anything; there's too much bad blood there. The Russians have burned just about every diplomatic bridge they have right now - they're stuck being buddies with thugs and failed states because nobody else will return Putin's phone call.

    3. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and they still beat the US in the space race in every respect (excluding landing a man on the moon).

      This is quite a stretch. The USSR (not Russia) launched the first satellite and the first man in space, but in terms of meaningful achievements, they a bit behind. Some examples:

      * USSR did sent the first satellite (Sputnik), but the first satellite to make important scientific discovery (Van Allen belts) was American.
      * While USSR basked in the media limelight of the 1st satellite, the US quietly did the following: first solar observatory, first weather satellite, first navsat, first commercial satellite, first satellite to go to geosynchronous orbit and be useful.
      * USSR sent the first dog, man, woman in space in the same capsule armed with the same pencil for 6 years. The US focused seriously on the practical steps of getting people above LEO: first steerable spaceflight, first rendezvous and docking in space, etc.
      * While the first attempts to send probes to other planets do belong to the Soviet Union, the US managed to send the first probes which survived the trip and actually send data back.
      * Outside of a few of their Mars and (especially) Venus probes, the USSR was always far, far behind in planetary missions. Planets beyond Mars, asteroids were always out of the reach of the USSR space program.

      All this is very unfortunate, because the people who worked for the USSR space program (again, not Russia's) were absolutely brilliant and came up with a lot of cool hacks to overcome their myopic political leadership and the backwardness of the USSR economy. Sadly, the latter ensured that USSR fell behind badly and fast after the initial surprise in the late 50s/early 60s.

      As for Russia, its only successful missions are the launches using the leftovers of the USSR space program.

    4. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by TWX · · Score: 1

      It doesn't hurt (the Russians, that is) that they sent all of their defective NK-33 engines to us, instead using an entirely different engine for manned spaceflight.

      To this point, it appears that SpaceX is the only rocket supplier that has managed to build engines that both can be shutdown instantly when an at-ignition problem is discovered, and can selectively shutdown during the launch sequence to deactivate a problematic engine without destroying the craft. It's only a matter of time before someone other than the Russians are able to deliver and retrieve crews.

      If SpaceX manages to get its reusable rocket working, I expect that they'll use new rockets for manned flights and high importance cargo flights, and refurbished rockets for unmanned, lower importance flights. Reducing the cost to orbit should do a lot to make reaching space affordable, relatively speaking, so that greater human use of space can become more routine. It'll also force other companies to figure out how to make reusable rockets if they want to compete, and multiple players is almost always good for a market.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      China is eager to build a space station with Russia. And, they have money.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      The NK-33 rockets are fully tested before they're flown, I don't want to sound like a Russian apologist, but NASA's preliminary report says that the Orbital flight is their own fault, finding evidence of dessicant and spare parts(!!!) in the fuel tank that were later ingested by the turbopump. If you stick metal action figures in the cylinders of your car how many miles do you expect the engine to last running at 80,000 rpm?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re: So how about the core Russian module? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You had me until you said Russia had the most reliable manned launches. The USA has put over 700 people into orbit Russia is barely above 200. The numbers are public.

      The last time I did the math Russia and the USA both had a 1.5 deaths for every 100 people flown into space ratio. So no Russia isn't more reliable or less risky.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia and Oceania is our ally.

      Eastasia always been at war with Oceania and Eurasia is our ally.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They made a formal announcement that they'll be disconnecting from the US half of the ISS at the end of 2013 after approximately 10 years of talking about it.

      So this "formal announcement" joins the last dozen or so "formal announcements"?
       
      Seriously, how can anyone watch the Russian space program over any span of time and remain credulous enough to take their "formal announcements" at face value? They haven't even been able to build and launch 90% of the ISS modules they've "formally announced".

    10. Re: So how about the core Russian module? by stooo · · Score: 1

      Russian spaceflights (people/flight) : 293 (including the currently in space Soyuz TMA-15M)
      USA : 892

      Russian : 4 in flight fatalities (1,3%)
      USA : 14 in flight fatalities (1,56%)

      Russian : 120 manned launches, 2 fatal failures in flight (1,66%)
      USA : 161 manned launches, 2 fatal failures in flight (1,24%)

      --
      aaaaaaa
    11. Re:So how about the core Russian module? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, there have been two different incidents with the NK-33 in 2014. Explaining away the other incident (on a test stand - ironically, the Antares-flown unit was probably a spare for the tested one) might require some mental gymnastics.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Russian steep price by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Sumarry says:

    Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price

    How much is it more expensive than private industry? Boeing and SpaceX are not philanthropists, they will do the job for profit.

    1. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That was pretty much the question I was going to ask.

      By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one. When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit. And sadly, that secondary goal usually becomes the primary one, with the original primary goal taking a back seat and becoming the necessary evil to achieve the actual goal of profit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Russian steep price by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to take into account the private sector efficiency, which is usually obtained through negative externalities: crushing workers, polluting...

      Of course someone will tell me that public sector pollute as much because laws allow it, and has lazy and unproductive workers...

    3. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone has lazy and unproductive workers. Why should any worker give half a fuck about his company if he can clearly see that even the CEOs are trying their best to milk it for all it's worth and then move on to the next corporation to pump and dump?

      There is no work ethic left. On no level of the work force. What I see today in our economy reminds me in a stunningly way of what went down in the former communist countries. Same shit. Same mismanagement with the same disillusioned workforce, with everyone trying his best to waste as little energy as possible doing work, knowing that if he put in more all that would be his reward is more workload shifted onto him. Mostly because it just doesn't friggin' matter whether you try to work hard or whether you slack. Your chances for promotion are zero, your chances to get fired are not influenced at all by how you work. So why bother with anything?

      There is simply no identification with your workplace anymore, and no faith in the ones steering the company's course.

      And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Russian steep price by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

      Exactly. This is why capitalism collapsed in 1989, when in the "Moscow Consensus", the world decided that the Soviets and Cubans had a better economic model, and, gosh darn-it, central planning was just so much more efficient.

    5. Re:Russian steep price by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

      Not at all. The public sector tends not to care about costs, since they take the money more or less by force (implied force, if nothing else), and they have little to no threat of competition to force overheads to remain low. And of course one government providing a service for money to another government also has the motive of profit, making this situation more or less the worst of all possible worlds. In a theoretical optimum world, public sector would be by definition cheaper. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, which isn't always quite so nice (a tiny snag that many political philosophers/economists/et al often overlook).

      In this case, for example, SpaceX is attempting to lower costs through a practical reusable design, whereas the Space Shuttle (in practice) ended up raising them considerably, despite being reusable, due to a number of ridiculous design constraints enforced on it by various government interests.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Russian steep price by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price

      How much is it more expensive than private industry?

      "Price" in this case may be an imprecise word. The monetary cost may not be all that bad compared to SpaceX or Boeing. (It may even be favorable, for all I know.) However, it does carry serious risk to have only one supplier that can get you to the ISS. Sometimes the public and private sector properly take the (potential) costs of risk into account. This is what the insurance industry does - putting a monetary cost (price) on risk. Other times people get blindsided by something that, in retrospect, they couldn't afford. Sometimes the risk is not quantifiable - can you put a price on the strategic risk of Russia getting one over on NASA (and, by extension, the USA)?

      In other words: risk can be very, very expensive, whether it is included in a pricetag or not.

    7. Re:Russian steep price by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

      There are huge parts of public sector that operate far enough from unqualified politicians to maintain the ability to actually work. But I guess the situation depends on the countries.

    8. Re:Russian steep price by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      Do you think the US government builds all its own equipment? Private companies build NASA's equipment, from spacesuits to rockets. A company like SpaceX or Boeing or Lockheed-Martin don't just sell this equipment at cost, they certainly make a profit on it.

    9. Re:Russian steep price by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Awesome, another one who thinks clearly and sees reality for what it is. How do you avoid depression?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    10. Re:Russian steep price by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Russia charges NASA about $73 million per astronaut, that includes Soyuz training, russian lessons, splashdown survival training, and of course the actual launch. That's per astronaut. We typically rotate through six astronauts a year on a staggered schedule.
       
      SpaceX is going to be capable of sending seven astronauts for under $100 million. That's about $15 million per seat or 20% of what the Russians are charging. It could potentially get as low as $60 million per launch which comes out to 8.5 million per launch which would be 12% what we're paying now.
       
      If/when SpaceX could successfully land and reuse the booster cores for $20 million per launch, it gets down to $2.8 million per seat. That's 20+ years away perhaps.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re:Russian steep price by itzly · · Score: 1

      What about we motivate you by giving you a promotion, and put as many as four people right underneath you ?

    12. Re:Russian steep price by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The soviet system had many problems, and I am glad I did not live in it, but central planning have some merit. Spatial projects could never come true without it.

    13. Re:Russian steep price by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      "Ukraine is ours. Deal with it."

      It is more like "Crimea is ours. Deal with it". Obviously Russia never intended to take over Ukraine, as their army could be in Kiev in less than a week if they wanted to perform a real invasion. We talk about Ukraine, a failed state, versus Russia, a major nuclear power.

      But of course, invading western Ukraine, where a lot of people hate russians, would mean dealing with a fierce resistance after the military victory. This is probably the reason why they did not do it. Invading Crimea, which mostly contained russians, made sense, invading Ukraine does not.

    14. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Buproprion and 6-APB.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That may work for some, but only shifts and multiplies the problem. Now you motivate one person by demotivating 4 others.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      New technologies and innovation is hard to do and expensive.

      Patents are cheaper.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Russian steep price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The communist system faltered before the capitalist will because it's easier to see through. Behind the smokes and mirrors, it's the same system, the promise is just a different one and it's easier to debunk.

      The communist promise is "if we all work hard today, we'll all be living in paradise tomorrow". The problem is that people are lazy and they immediately go "hmm. If I don't work hard, it won't matter since everyone else is and we'll all profit from it". Of course this falls flat on the face if everyone does it. And, you guessed it, everyone did exactly that. Also, since "everyone" is such a big thing in communism, it's hard to lie when it comes to progress. Because you see that you ain't better off despite the promise that everyone will be better off if we work hard. Worse, you see that there are some people who are better off than you but how is that possible when EVERYONE should be doing better? So people were easily able to see through the ruse.

      Capitalism is more insidious. The capitalist promise is "if YOU work hard today, YOU will be living in paradise tomorrow". That's a lot more personal and also a lot harder to debunk. Because you have to work hard, and if you don't prosper then the system can simply tell you that you didn't work hard enough because, look over there, there's some successful person. The system works, see, he worked harder than you (probably, you can't really test that in any way) and he prospered.

      But people start to see through this ruse, too. Because the capitalist system is a lot like the lottery, in many ways. First of all, the promise and the fine print is the same: Anyone can get rich. But not everyone. And the problem is that it doesn't matter diddly jack what you do, just like with the lottery where it doesn't matter what numbers you pick. Sure, there are people who allegedly have a "system" and who think that whatever the numbers showed yesterday means something for the pick today, but essentially, it's random luck. How much you work has essentially the same meaning to the capitalist system as how many tickets you buy means in the lottery. Yes, it may increase your chances. But in such a insignificant way that you can as well not do it.

      In the end, both systems are identical. You have an "aristocracy", in the communist system it's "the party", in the capitalist system it's the good ol' boys club that distributes board positions among themselves. Below that you have the peasants who get to work for the whole shit. And in between, every couple of years, you get asked if you're still happy with the system with no real chance to say no.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Russian steep price by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is going to be capable of sending seven astronauts for under $100 million. That's about $15 million per seat or 20% of what the Russians are charging.

      Last numbers I saw, the Commercial Crew program was expecting to cost the government ~$58M per astronaut (plus assorted cargo), with a payload of five astronauts plus cargo per launch.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Russian steep price by Kjella · · Score: 1

      When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit.

      See this is where you're wrong, it's not the public sector that wants it. The politicians want it, so they write a check for the FBI or IRS or EPA and give them tasks like "prevent crime", "collect taxes" or "protect the environment". Nobody wants to downsize their own job, that's true both in the private and public sector. But in the public sector your boss and his boss typically isn't looking to downsize your job either, why would anyone from the smallest branch office manager all the way to the head of the FBI work to increase efficiency and reduce headcount? Just work at a pace that tells your seniors that every man is needed, don't overachieve and you'll have a comfy budget and content employees. All that happens if you push for efficiency is that you get a smaller budget and less happy employees.

      And this is where the incentive model fail. If you want the FBI do to more, give them more funding. If you fund them less, they'll do less. If you want them to do more with less, well there's really no good way to do that. They're counting on the public backlash "You're not doing enough to fight crime" that the politicians will have no choice but to increase the budget again, if they actually improved their value per dollar that'd prove they were inefficient before and it's not in the interest of the bureaucracy to do that. So you can be sure that when you cut funding, you will see a proportional cut in services delivered no matter how much pork was in the budget to begin with.

      The profit motive in the private industry on the other hand tends to follow the chain of command down. Each product line, each service, each manager feels the push from the level above them to be profitable. Be efficient. Be cost effective. If you're not performing, you're a problem. The whole corporate structure is geared towards lowering costs to create the most profit. Granted it has its shortcomings as they're generally overly concerned with short term profit and their bonus rather than the long term viability of the company, but the private sector's goals align far better with the stockholders than the public sector's goals align with the politicians.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re:Russian steep price by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Everyone has lazy and unproductive workers. Why should any worker give half a fuck about his company if he can clearly see that even the CEOs are trying their best to milk it for all it's worth and then move on to the next corporation to pump and dump?

      There is no work ethic left. On no level of the work force. What I see today in our economy reminds me in a stunningly way of what went down in the former communist countries. Same shit. Same mismanagement with the same disillusioned workforce, with everyone trying his best to waste as little energy as possible doing work, knowing that if he put in more all that would be his reward is more workload shifted onto him. Mostly because it just doesn't friggin' matter whether you try to work hard or whether you slack. Your chances for promotion are zero, your chances to get fired are not influenced at all by how you work. So why bother with anything?

      There is simply no identification with your workplace anymore, and no faith in the ones steering the company's course.

      And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

      can you find a good reason to bother treating your employees well? what's to say they won't just do what you're doing right now?

    21. Re:Russian steep price by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Governments and corporations have different motivations (assuming competence on both sides). As you point out, private industry has a profit motive, but that isn't necessarily their only or highest motivation. Government isn't usually looking to profit, but they usually require higher levels of accountability and consultation with the general public, which takes a long time and isn't always cheap.

    22. Re:Russian steep price by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

      Then explain the cost difference between the Senate-mandated SLS design and the SpaceX-developed Falcon Heavy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Re:Wireless by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    bexause it's difficult to transmit electricity over a vacuum gap.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  4. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Nice try blaming "neocons" for your own Luddism, but it's because the left decided we didn't need space exploration any more and is making the government abandon the field to private industry. Those who put up the money will take the risks now, so let them reap any reward.

  5. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    By that logic we would most certainly not have DVD players today. Or nuclear reactors.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Fwipp · · Score: 2, Informative

    The left is cutting NASA's budgets?
    http://www.space.com/22023-nas...

  7. Fact Check.. Ahem. by See+Attached · · Score: 3, Informative

    Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... It was formally scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010 in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration.[20] Unless maybe GHWB was a closet Left-sider? So. whats the vision he had? Dumping our leadership position?

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    1. Re: Fact Check.. Ahem. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Anyone who disagrees with current republican party if a lefty.

      Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected by today's republicans. He would be to liberal.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  8. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by plopez · · Score: 1

    That transcontinental railroad thing has paid for itself many times over. That cheap crappy stuff you get in Wal-Mart just doesn't teleport itself to the store you know.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  9. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by plopez · · Score: 2

    Thank God Kennedy was a Republican!

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  10. Who's paying for the labor? by plopez · · Score: 1

    What is the billable rate for an [Astro|Cosmo]naut? I would think well over $1k/hr, what with enormous over head e.g. mission control. Who is paying for the time? The private companies or is the private sectort yet again getting a free ride on the back of the taxpayer?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Who's paying for the labor? by plopez · · Score: 1

      No, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the 'privatization' crowd. They want to have th eprivate sector solve all problems as long as they can externalize the cost.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  11. why is this needed? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

    Can anyone explain why this is needed? why are more connections/a different type of docking port needed to support crewed pods than cargo pods? why can't they use the same docking ports the shuttle used?

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    1. Re:why is this needed? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I don't understand it either especially since one of the capsules being used to ferry astronauts will be the Dragon which already connects fine with the ISS.

    2. Re:why is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the old ports use a mechanical capture mechanism that will soon exceed its planned lifetime. The new ports will use an electromagnetic soft capture mechanism which is much more durable.

      http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/astronauts-spacewalk-re-wire-iss-commercial-crew/

    3. Re:why is this needed? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link.

      So as usual /. links to a crappy news article rather than a source with real information.........

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:why is this needed? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's not just that. To my understanding, the cargo versions also don't use docking ports since none of the docking ports is large enough (max. 0.8m) to transfer really large cargo items. The drawback is that none of the berthing ports (which have a much more useful 1.27 m diameter) can be connected to or disconnected from with an uncooperating and/or unmanned station, so it's lousy for people stuff (lifeboat escape, connecting to station without crew etc.).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  12. have attached more than 300 feet of cable... by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we need cable TV in every suite for those high paying commercial customers.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  13. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    This year's Republican budget would cut NASA by $300 million over last year, not large in proportion to its funding, as part of an overall attempt to slow down the crazy federal spending of the last few years. It is the Greens who have longer-term plans for, basically, eliminating manned programs entirely:

    "The Green Party advocates a reduction of human-staffed space flight due to the high cost and risk for human life and the availability of automated technology that can perform necessary functions in space-based research." This stance is in line with the general attitude of such people to any technology above stone axes.

    --Platform, Green Party

  14. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    On the whole range of technology issues, the Greatest Generation Democrats of JFK's day were totally unlike today's Marin County Mothers Against Everything. Apollo was thought of as the crowning achievement of the New Deal, right up there with Atoms for Peace and the Green Revolution (the kind that meant high-tech agriculture).

  15. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by strack · · Score: 1

    Oh you can fuck right off. Time after time ive seen republicans side with the big launch contractors, like boeing and lockmart, to maintain the status quo of not much progress in launch systems, and bilking the taxpayer for as much money as possible, while spacex is bringing value and getting reusability up and running, and getting neocon resistance all the way.

  16. The shuttle ports (PMAs) have mechanical docking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    latches, that need something massing close to the mass of the shuttle to engage properly.
    They are also in inconvenient locations, and they need to be able to dock two crew capable vehicles at the station at all times to serve as life boats.
    There are currently always 2 Soyuz capsules docked to the Station except during crew change. Each Soyuz can carry three crew members, and 2 docked Soyuz give them the ability to evacuate the entire 6 man crew in an emergency.

    The new crew capsules are capable of carrying between 4 and 7 crew members depending on configuration, and that will allow them to expand the full time station crew to the full compliment of 7. But they'll need to be able to have 2 docked at all times (probably a Russian Soyuz for the Russian Crew Members and a Dragon or Boeing capsule for the US + International Crew.

    The Current Dragon capsule flies close to the Station, and is then grappled with the CanadArm2 and maneuvered into docking with one of the Common Berthing Ports. Dragon Cargo flights next year will be bring up two new Common Berthing Ports to be installed for the new crew vehicles. I believe the Dragon v2 and Boeing Crew vehicles will engage in piloted/automated docking, rather than needing to be grappled with CanadArm2. There are also issues with clearance around some of the open ports, which is why they'll be reconfiguring the station (including moving the Leonardo MPLM Module to another port, and moving the PMA off the Bow Port where the Shuttle used to dock. They space walk they did today was around the PMA (Pressurized Mating Adapter) on the Bow port.

  17. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The only significant research I've seen from ISS is the long-term effects of weightlessness on human crews. This may be important for Mars missions.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    That transcontinental railroad was built entirely by private industry.

    No government money involved, in case you were unaware. Well, except for the money paid TO governnment for the railroad right of ways, of course.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  19. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    Ohhhhh you're mixing up "not sending humans into orbit to chill out" with "not doing useful space research"

    Seriously, humans cost *so* much to get up there. It cost us over $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) to go to the moon. The ISS has (coincidentally) also cost about $150 billion so far.

    Opportunity and Spirit cost us less than a billion. Sending Cassini to orbit Saturn was about $3 billion.

    Do you think the ISS has provided 50x the value of Cassini? As much value as we could have gotten from 300 rovers?

  20. Re: Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this by Redbehrend · · Score: 1

    Space-x is changing the industry for good. They are only dealing with Boeing because it was required by NASA. Now these companies are more scared then ever with new private companies popping up doing the same more effectively. Hopefully they change their tune... These companies forget the god their principle KISS in science and engineering. Lol BTW I don't hate them I just dislike that their interest is all based on contacts even if they hurt us.

  21. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Not by itself, but the value of the ISS is in finding out how long-term exposure to microgravity affects humans doing everyday tasks. When we do apply humans in high-value space activities, this knowledge will be vital.

  22. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by plopez · · Score: 1

    *Ahem*
    It eas funded through gov't bonds and the railroads were given a right of way as well as the checker board of every other section for 10 miles both north and south of the corridor. It turned out that the minerals under the checkerboard; oil, gas, and coal mostly with a few others like trona in some palces; were, and still are, worth a huge fortune. In fact UPRR made more money selling coal in the often treeless Western US than it did on freight for many years.

    The private sector had years to create a railroad, only government intervention in the arket place made it a reality.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  23. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by plopez · · Score: 1

    Not the ones I know. They want to fund education, have a new scholarship programs for veterans, invest in basic non-military RnD etc. I think you have been brainwashed.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  24. Re:Wireless by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    1.0 for vacuum, 1.00059 for air at 1 standard atmosphere at 293K. I wouldn't say anywhere near "almost identical".

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  25. Re:Wireless by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    I wonder what you think electicity tastes like? The fuck kind of sense does your rhetoric make?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  26. Re:Why do the tax payers have to pay for all this? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    which means private business will be allowed to get very rich wasting public money doing things which could be done by employees paid directly by the state.

    Which explains why the Shuttle was so cheap...oh, wait!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  27. Re:Wireless by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    In vacuum, you just send an electron beam! ;-)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  28. Re:Wireless by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    yeeeeah... just don't stick your tongue in there.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel