The International Space Station Turns 15 (time.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The International Space Station Turns 15 (time.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 2, 2015 @12:16PM from the happy-birthday dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Today marks the 15th birthday of the International Space Station (ISS). Since Nov. 2, 2000 the ISS has hosted more than 220 people from more than a dozen countries. Time reports: "The ISS was little more than three pressurized modules, some supplies and a couple of solar wings to help keep it powered on the day the first crew climbed aboard. Today, the station is a flying piece of cosmic infrastructure the size of a football field, containing 15 pressurized modules, which afford the astronauts as much habitable space as a six-bedroom home. It weighs 1 million pounds (454,000 kg), runs on 3.3 million lines of software code and required 115 launches just to carry all of its components up to orbit."

69 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 12:22 · Score: 0, Troll

If there was actual demand for space, private industry would fill the void.
1. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 12:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/galactic-gold-rush-private-spending-on-space-is-headed-for-a-new-record
  It looks like the void is being filled rather sufficiently...
2. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Rei · 2015-11-02 12:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I love how Slashdot is a hotbed for people arguing that:
  A) People who think that ISS, a permanent human presence orbiting our planet, is a huge financial boondoggle that we never should have done; and
  B) Establishing a permanent human presence on the surface of Mars will be cheap and we should have done it long ago.
  
  --
  "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
3. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by bobbied · 2015-11-02 13:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ho boy... The fight is on.. You are wise to observe this, but I'm not so sure it's wise to bring it up..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
4. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like the void is being filled rather sufficiently...
  The "gold rush" is mostly a grab for NASA dollars.
5. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 13:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  LOL, like that ever stopped private enterprise when there's money to be made. You can invoke any number of bogeymen that you want, the simple fact is that if it wasn't for the government in the first place, creating an artificial market, no one would be interested in space.
6. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by aberglas · 2015-11-02 13:45 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  No, I would suggest that most slash dotters would think they are both a colossal waste of money that should have been spent on real science. How many probes could we have sent to Mars? The Webb tellescope. Europa. The list goes on.
  The put people in orbit game was over with Mir and Skylab. Putting more and more people in orbit is just a waste. There is also no point in sending people to Mars, robots rule in space. And it is not going to happen any time soon, so at least no money is being wasted on it.
7. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by TimSSG · 2015-11-02 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  I love how Slashdot is a hotbed for people arguing that:
  A) People who think that ISS, a permanent human presence orbiting our planet, is a huge financial boondoggle that we never should have done; and
  B) Establishing a permanent human presence on the surface of Mars will be cheap and we should have done it long ago.
  C) Why do we NOT have a real space station like the 50's and 60's Sci-Fi books had on the covers?
  Tim S.
8. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  If there was actual demand for space, private industry would fill the void.
  -10 points for Unsupported syllogism.
9. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 17:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  International Space Station is one of the best projects to happen in Space since space race ended. Most people think that the astronauts just float aimlessly in a big tube. However there are so much stuff to do, that every minute is accounted for and more astronauts required to do all scientific experiments planned.
  The biggest problem was and is costs of going to space. NASA should have targeted this as soon as their budget started to shrink post Apollo. Instead they stretched the timelines and cancelled some programs.
  Why with time Shuttle prices went up instead of down? If they couldn't make it cheap and fully reusable initially, why it was not improved over the following decades? Every flight should have had a couple of small changes to make it better and cheaper, use new stuff at the same time as old if you are not sure of its safety for couple of flights then remove old stuff.
10. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 19:00 · Score: 0
  
  Robots will soon take over all jobs on earth (according to slashdot), but will never be a match for people jobs in space. Because only humans know what to look for that interests humans. Or something like that.
  And if there were no people in space, there would be no need for space toilets. And how are people ever expected to move into space, or even Mars if there are no toilets? How can you explain that? You can't.
11. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 22:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well... I have seen these two phrases are but written from different people, where the first is usually written by "Tea-Party" nutters who want such resources be spent on weapons to ensure american supremacy over the world, while the second sentence normally It is written by those who know that while NASA struggled to build the Hubble, the CIA commissioned more than 6 Hubbles analogs to spy on the world and received a blank check for it without question (so, money is not really the problem).
  
  Posting anonymously because recently Slashdot was raided by extreme right-wings nutters and I am not willing to be trying to argue with such retards.
12. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by delt0r · 2015-11-03 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  No it is not. I has produced less science than i have. And i didn't spend billions and billions to do it. ISS was, is and always will be a massive waste of money.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
13. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Foobar+of+Borg · 2015-11-03 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  If there was actual demand for space, private industry would fill the void.
  I think there is a joke about your mother there, but I'll just leave it alone...
  
  --
  Similar to the upcoming US election results
14. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by khallow · 2015-11-03 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  International Space Station is one of the best projects to happen in Space since space race ended.
  That just indicates what a waste of effort most space activities have been since 1980 (such as completely failing to address for the entire life of NASA your "biggest problem").
  
  Why with time Shuttle prices went up instead of down? If they couldn't make it cheap and fully reusable initially, why it was not improved over the following decades?
  It was improved over time. But slight improvements over time don't trump low launch frequency.
15. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by khallow · 2015-11-03 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Spying on Earth is more than six times as valuable as a slightly better view of the universe. Sorry, that is just the way it is.
  
  And it's worth noting that for what was actually spent on Hubble's repairs, they could have launched two or three identical replacements (depending on whether they used the Shuttle or not). So the Hubble was considered by NASA to be less valuable than a technology demonstration of repair in orbit.
16. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by blue9steel · 2015-11-03 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. It's taught us a huge amount about how to keep technology running in a weightless vacuum. That knowledge will be quite useful in building follow on systems.
17. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by delt0r · 2015-11-03 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  No it hasn't. Unless your idea of keep things running is to spend billions and billions for ZERO return. It has taught new meanings to white elephant. BTW we have had satellites and mars rovers do just fine on much smaller budgets.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
18. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  There certainly is demand. The costs are just too high for 99.9% of the population to afford it.
19. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by blue9steel · 2015-11-03 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  ZERO return is hyperbole and false. Now, has the investment been worth the expenditure, that's a more nuanced question and it's possible that other investments of that same amount might have had better results.
20. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by delt0r · 2015-11-03 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Citation required. Show that it is non zero. Show the data. You may find it very hard to find. Outside puff pieces and youtube PR, they have done shit.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
21. Re:Yet another government boondoggle by blue9steel · 2015-11-04 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, that's easy: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
Quinceañera by Roblimo · 2015-11-02 12:24 · Score: 2

It's getting a Quinceañera, right?
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
1. Re:Quinceañera by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Why? So you can feel up little girls under their skirts?
  Sick fucking pedo.
2. Re:Quinceañera by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-11-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's getting a Quinceañera, right? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
  Heck - I didn't know the ISS was female!
  It would be cute to see it all dressed up in a gown tho'.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Gravity by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · 2015-11-02 12:39 · Score: 1

Ah, so Gravity wasn't canon then?
Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 12:53 · Score: 0

Weren't they going to crash the ISS into the atmosphere to dispose of it at one point? That would have been incredibly stupid.
1. Re:Longevity by bobbied · 2015-11-02 13:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Weren't they going to crash the ISS into the atmosphere to dispose of it at one point? That would have been incredibly stupid.
  Nope, eventually that will be it's fate.... I believe that the current project only goes out to 2025 which puts the re-entry in 10 years or so unless it's been extended.
  Skylab did, Mir did, the ISS will too...
  We may be able to deorbit parts of it and revamp the station by replacing modules as they become too old to be supportable, but I'm guessing that eventually it's going to be easier to just start over.. The question really is HOW LONG will it take for the funding to dry up, the station to become unsupportable from age or the international coalition that controls the station dissolves. IMHO - I'm guessing that the collation will break up about the same time as funding goes away and that will happen sometime in the next 10 years, if some technical fault doesn't cause irreparable damage and render the ISS uninhabitable before then.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  "eventually that will be it's fate."
  Can you crash that extra apostrophe into the atmosphere to dispose of it?
3. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  You want to dispose of the atmosphere?
4. Re:Longevity by CanadianMacFan · 2015-11-02 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  It ends in 2020 but they are trying to extend it to 2024.
5. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  You don't understand subordinate clauses?
6. Re:Longevity by InfiniteLoopCounter · 2015-11-02 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Although Skylab and Mir crashed to Earth, why don't we look to secure the orbit of the ISS with better technology?
  Sure, to take the ISS from low Earth orbit to something significantly higher up requiring less orbit corrections might be extremely difficult due having to pass the inner Van Allen radiation belt and structural concerns with large numbers of fast moving particles. Instead though (and I haven't looked at the feasibility), couldn't we put hinged solar sails, an ion thrust drive, or something like this with computer control to stop the ISS from falling to Earth? Seems like it would be worth preserving for future generations.
7. Re:Longevity by SharpFang · 2015-11-02 19:24 · Score: 2
  
  It will need to be scrapped. There are parts that are about impossible to replace, that decay over time and once they fail the astronauts would die. There are problems - like growing molds/bacteria - that are about impossible to get rid of now, with the station not built with removal of them in mind. There are scientific experiments that ran their course and no longer needed, and ones that can't be done on the ISS. The station is a zoo of docking port standards, with lots of adapters to connect incompatible modules. It's a sink of resources, instead of being a supply station for departing missions. It is undermanned at all times, as there's only one Soyuz escape capsule so it can't operate with the full crew. These are all significant shortcomings that can be addressed in a next space station.
  It doesn't mean it needs to be disposed of whole. There's a lot of systems that will be good for another fifty years. Massive outer structures that cost a fortune to be brought to orbit and that simply don't have anything in them that could fail. They can be reused in a new space station.
  Last mission to Salyut 7 was to pick up everything that would be of use on brand new then Mir. Simply, useful equipment was reused in a newer, bigger space station. So don't think about crashing ISS as "a great loss". Think of it as "a thorough upgrade".
  By the way, still not all modules are in place... The Nauka module - a Russian laboratory, and NEM-1 - a support/habitat/power/storage module to supplement Nauka - are still missing.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
8. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  You don't understand that 1 pronoun + 2 antecedent nouns = ambiguity?
9. Re:Longevity by hackertourist · 2015-11-02 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Orbital height isn't the main problem. The station has parts that deteriorate and would be very difficult to replace. E.g. seals between the initial modules. These are necessary to keep the station airtight, and replacing them would mean disassembling half the station.
10. Re:Longevity by AmiMoJo · 2015-11-02 22:16 · Score: 2
  
  Well, NASA might de-orbit bits of the ISS, but the Russians have already said that they will be taking their parts, which is quite a significant proportion of the whole, and building them into a new station.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  That's why context is important.
12. Re:Longevity by shortscruffydave · 2015-11-03 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Weren't they going to crash the ISS into the atmosphere to dispose of it at one point? That would have been incredibly stupid.
  Nope, eventually that will be it's fate.... I believe that the current project only goes out to 2025 which puts the re-entry in 10 years or so unless it's been extended.
  If we're serious about missions to Mars (and potentially elsewhere) then I think that we need to keep ISS running. Not to do so kind of sends out the wrong message....here's something that's within a few dozen hours of travel time of Earth but we can't maintain it. We're sending you an order of magnitude further away...cross your fingers that you won't need any help.
13. Re:Longevity by shortscruffydave · 2015-11-03 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  seals between the initial modules. These are necessary to keep the station airtight, and replacing them would mean disassembling half the station.
  isn't that what duct tape is for?
14. Re:Longevity by bobbied · 2015-11-03 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Mir #2... Yep, I've heard that the Russians have indicated they want to do this and I don't suppose we could stop them.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
15. Re:Longevity by bobbied · 2015-11-03 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Everything wears out. In space, it happens faster than you might imagine. Mir was deorbited for a reason. It was old, obsolete, ailing, expensive and dangerous. The ISS will go down the same path.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
16. Re:Longevity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  "There are parts that are about impossible to replace"
  Impossible. They have a 3D printer on board. This is a magical game-changer.
17. Re:Longevity by SharpFang · 2015-11-03 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  And they can print washers of soft, radiation-proof rubber capable of surviving ~160K-300K temperature change without significant change in elasticity; forming an airtight seal despite dynamic stress of kilonewton order, resistant to exposure to hydrazine and its reaction products, precise to 0.1mm, and about 1m in diameter?
  Because it's them getting most worn; hydrazine from jet engines and space radiation causing wear that makes them increasingly brittle. And they are installed in a way that doesn't really encourage replacing them on EVA. Never mind that replacing them requires temporarily splitting the station in half.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
In-case you want to say "Happy Birthday" by bobthesungeek76036 · 2015-11-02 12:58 · Score: 3, Informative

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov...

--
Karma: Bad
Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by fahrbot-bot · 2015-11-02 13:22 · Score: 2

It weighs 1 million pounds (454,000 kg), ...

Or, at least, it did. Now it's in space.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by spauldo · 2015-11-02 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  It still does. That's why it orbits instead of just floating in one spot.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
2. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by clovis · 2015-11-02 16:08 · Score: 2
  
  It still does. That's why it orbits instead of just floating in one spot.
  sorta.
  It weighs a little less due than its weight at earth's surface due to being Earth's radius plus 400kM from Earth's center of mass. About 96%, I think.
  But, if it had zero weight, it would not hover but rather continue in a straight line in the original direction of launch, or in whatever direction it was headed when weight went to zero.
  And it certainly would not orbit, as spauldo pointed out.
  The media has long been saying it wrong. Objects in orbit are not in zero gravity, they're in freefall.
  If you doubt what I say, then check the time dilation relative to Earth's surface, and you'll see the difference is due to being 400kM farther from Earth's center of mass, but it isn't a as much as it would be if you were in zero gravity relative to earth.
  The media ges it wrong. Zero gravity is not the same as zero g.
3. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  True for pounds, but the gram measures mass instead of weight. 454,000 kg is 454,000 kg no matter the gravity.
4. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  That's because people understand "heavy" (not to be confused with weight OR mass)
  I lift a paint can, it's heavy (gravity acting on mass vs my puny muscles)
  If I threw the paint can at the horizon hard enough so that it just kept missing the ground (orbit) it's still "heavy" (gravity is still acting on mass, this time vs velocity)
  So, it's not WRONG per se
5. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but it's common for countries that use the metric system to use Kg as a unit of weight, incorrectly so. For some reason we don't normally use the correct Kilopond (or Kilogram-force) for weight, and people who don't remember their high school physics will look at you weird if you do.
  And you're also very likely to see it in most literature... something along the lines of "metric system uses Kg for weight" ...
  Correct: Kg for mass, Kp for weight
  Common usage: Kg for weight, Kp (blank stare)
6. Re:Massive? Sure. Heavy? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could use Newtons to get even more blank stares
HB to ISS and props to Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 13:27 · Score: 0

For keeping the International Space Station free from Microsoft's global spyware/botnet.
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2013/05/international-space-station-adopts-debian-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airlock.html
Do it. distrowatch.com
1. Re:HB to ISS and props to Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  They also use a systemd-free version
It has done great damage by amightywind · 2015-11-02 13:47 · Score: 1, Funny

ISS has done great damage to our space program. It is grossly expensive, and has starved funding for real exploration. Not to mention it forces us to share space with our sworn enemy Russia. I look forward to a Republican President and the launch of the SLS to set the program right and the restoration of a Cold War space program. End ISS now!

--
an ill wind that blows no good
1. Re:It has done great damage by rickb928 · 2015-11-02 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Please, someone mod this +1 Funny.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Seems older... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 14:14 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who thought it's been a fixture in the sky for much longer than just 15 years?
Or am I just getting so old that fifteen years seems like a short duration?
1. Re:Seems older... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  You probably remember the 1980s-90s and Scientific American (before it became an infomercial for crappy watches and cruises)...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Re:Seems older... by clovis · 2015-11-02 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who thought it's been a fixture in the sky for much longer than just 15 years?
  Or am I just getting so old that fifteen years seems like a short duration?
  No on 1 and yes on 2.
5 Years To Shoot Down by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 16:31 · Score: 0

Hay. Lets commander one of Obama Drones to shoot it down.
Ha ha
What u say. Save US taxpayers a bundle. And test the "Gravity Movie" in real time with a real human that can die.
Ha ha
I think the opposite by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 17:23 · Score: 0

I agree that the ISS was expensive to build, but, I argue that it was the Space Shuttle, which damaged our space program. What is needed, is research on human biology in outer space, growing food in outer space, and reusable atmospheric systems. There are now experimental lettuce farms on the ISS, reactors to convert carbon dioxide to methane, and efforts to pin down the health effects of being in space for a year. Hopefully, there will be pills to take care of most of the health problems in outer space.
Sig figs by stud9920 · 2015-11-02 19:44 · Score: 1

It weighs 1 million pounds (454,000 kg)
ghaaaaa! Not only are pounds medieval units shared with only Myanmar and Liberia, 1 million pounds is NOT 454,000 kg. While 1 million lb is only one significant figure, 454000 means at least 3, possibly more depending on the interpretation. The actual masses are 924,740 lb and 419,455 kg resp. These figures themselves have issues as propellant loss among other will make the last few digits variable. But the 454000 figure is way off.
1. Re:Sig figs by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  So it is within 10%. That is an ok estimation. You cannot expect reporters to keep the trail of significant digits, even on slashdot.
  Sure, this would be a problem if you were calculating thrusts on the ISS and used google to come up with the values :)
  You are not doing exactly that I hope?
2. Re:Sig figs by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm surprised you didn't also go pedantic on the word "weighs". While "weight" is not completely inappropriate with the word "pounds", in orbit (aka free-fall) the space station weighs approximately zero. The proper word is "mass".
You aren't thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 03:35 · Score: 0

$3 billion a year, >$100 billion over the lifetime of ISS for life sciences? For the money squandered on life sciences research the US could have built a large spinning space station to mitigrate the physiological problems associated with weightlessness. ISS is the grossest misallocation of capital of all time.
Sweet Sixteen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-03 10:41 · Score: 0

Maybe. Up next, a Sweet Sixteen party!
Seriously, the astronauts keep spilling sugar and honey all over the place. Lick an airlock and your sweet tooth will be satisfied for a minute or so. It's got an ant infestation as bad as Phase IV!