Slashdot Mirror


ISS Completes 100,000th Orbit of Earth (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: The International Space Station, the space laboratory that showcases cooperation between Russia and the United States, on Monday orbited Earth for the 100,000th time, Russian mission control said. Traveling at an altitude of about 250 miles (400 kilometers) and a speed of about 17,500 miles (28,000 kilometers) per hour, the space station circles the Earth once every 90 minutes. The ISS has now traveled 2.6 billion miles "or about the distance of 10 round trips to Mars," NASA said on the station's official Twitter feed. From two modules, it has grown to 15 modules, occupying a space the size of a football pitch and represents around $100 billion in investment. "Such a long lifespan of the ISS proves that mankind has the necessary technologies for constant presence in orbit, that we have the potential for further space exploration," said Matyushin.

103 comments

  1. Travelled... nowhere? by sid+crimson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I get what they mean... but after reaching orbit, the ISS hasn't travelled any farther in orbit than I've travelled on my treadmill.

    1. Re: Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends upon your point of reference.

    2. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the ISS hasn't travelled any farther in orbit than I've travelled on my treadmill.

      Do you imagine that it's in geosynchronous orbit? Like some comms satellites are? I assure you, it's not. I've looked up. I've seen it go by. From where I sit, it is most definitely traveling.

      Do you mean it goes around the Earth and ends up back where it started? That's true of most travelers. The ends-up-back-where-they-started bit, at least. Fewer will actually go all the way around the world to achieve that, but I don't think anyone would accept a claim that Phileas Fogg never traveled anywhere.

      Do you mean it's not traveling because it's falling? I'm sorry, but if you're up high enough and moving fast enough to fall all the way around the world, I think you're traveling. If I'm riding a bicycle downhill, I may essentially be falling, and not need to pedal at all, but I think most people would consider me to be traveling.)

    3. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is still impressive. Just a few years ago, all ISS controlled was a few towns in northern Iraq and Syria, and now they are putting satellites in orbit.
       

    4. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Funny

      Congratulations on your 2.6th billion mile of treadmill. Perhaps soon you will be slim enough to make it out of the basement door and up the stairs?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    5. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by quenda · · Score: 2

      Do you mean it goes around the Earth and ends up back where it started? That's true of most travelers.

      Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.
      The ISS is effectively parked. (parked in an awesome spot.) Sure it is moving relative to the centre of the earth, but so is the car on blocks. 24 hour circuit vs 90 minutes.

    6. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.

      I come home after every vacation. I had no idea that I wasn't really traveling anywhere.

    7. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Parked? It's a good way to inform kids about both freefall and how there is friction in low earth orbit. It drops down frequently and needs a boost up frequently. Surely you are old enough to remember shuttle launches if not Apollo so should know better.

    8. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current car has 96,000 miles on it, but it's still in my driveway most of the time.

    9. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just by sitting down in my office chair, I'm traveling along with the earth without applying any force... same way the ISS is ``traveling''.

    10. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It helps if you reference the whole quote. Here, lemme help you:

      I get what they mean... but after reaching orbit, the ISS hasn't travelled any farther in orbit than I've travelled on my treadmill.

      Do you imagine that it's in geosynchronous orbit? Like some comms satellites are? I assure you, it's not. I've looked up. I've seen it go by. From where I sit, it is most definitely traveling.

      Do you mean it goes around the Earth and ends up back where it started? That's true of most travelers. The ends-up-back-where-they-started bit, at least. Fewer will actually go all the way around the world to achieve that, but I don't think anyone would accept a claim that Phileas Fogg never traveled anywhere.

      Do you mean it's not traveling because it's falling? I'm sorry, but if you're up high enough and moving fast enough to fall all the way around the world, I think you're traveling. If I'm riding a bicycle downhill, I may essentially be falling, and not need to pedal at all, but I think most people would consider me to be traveling.)

      What part of "I get what they mean..." don't you understand?

      Do you not get the joke?

    11. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, their space station is about to explode as soon as it goes over a civilian population.

    12. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When my dog runs around in circles, people say he's fast, that he's moving, but nobody has yet indicated that he's "traveled" anywhere.

    13. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Coren22 · · Score: 0

      When I fly to other countries and return home, people have said I have traveled, even if I ended up inches from where I started.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      If you take a long flight, and weather closes the remote airport, and you land at your takeoff airport, did you "travel" anywhere?

    15. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Sure I get the (attempted) joke, but it doesn't help answer my question: what does he mean when he says its not moving? I honestly cannot see any perspective where that claim makes sense. The ISS isn't moving under its own power, but neither is a rock launched with a catapult. But the rock is, nonetheless, traveling. Launch it hard enough, it can come down miles away. Launch it even harder, and its ballistic trajectory will miss the Earth completely. Which is what the ISS does. So, a ballistic trajectory is traveling, and traveling farther the harder you're pushed, unless you're pushed so hard you miss the Earth, when, all of a sudden, your motion no longer counts as traveling because you're going too fast? That doesn't make any sense to me.

      I can understand why a geosynch orbit might not be considered traveling, even though a geosynch satellite is moving way faster than the ISS. That at least makes some sense, and would make the joke make sense, but the ISS is in LEO, not geosynch, so it's traveling by any definition of traveling I can come up with.

    16. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.

      It's not traveling very far, but it's certainly traveling around the perimeter of the park. Given enough time, it would certainly add up to many miles of travel. Heck, when I went to get coffee recently, I traveled to the kitchen. Hardly a voyage I'm going to brag about to my friends, but it was still travel. And the ISS isn't going around the park; it's going all the way around the world. That's travel by pretty much any definition.

      Sure it is moving relative to the centre of the earth

      It's not just moving relative to the center of the Earth. It's moving relative to the surface of the Earth. Which is pretty much the bog-standard definition of travel. Especially if the distance you move covers the entire globe!

      so is the car on blocks.

      That's why I asked if OP though the ISS was in geosynchronous orbit. The car on blocks isn't traveling relative to the surface of the Earth. The ISS is! In fact, it's not even in an equatorial orbit, so not only is it traveling east/west, it's also traveling north/south.

      A satellite in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit could be seen as a reasonable analogy to your car on blocks, but the ISS is not!

    17. Re:Travelled... nowhere? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      So applying force is the key? If I hurl a rock with a gigantic catapult, and it goes hundreds of miles, it's not traveling, because no force is being applied after it leaves the catapult? Or does only half the distance it moves count as travel, because the second half is simply falling?

      If I ride my bicycle over a mountain, does only half of the journey count as travel, because I coasted the second half of the trip? If I rode my bike from Denver to LA, would I have traveled a shorter distance than if I'd gone the other way, because so much more of it was downhill?

      The ISS happens to be traveling in a path that, aside from the initial launch, is pretty much all downhill, but claiming that it's not actually traveling because of that makes about as much sense as the claim about Denver->LA.

  2. American math by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Funny

    >> size of a football pitch

    So...about 40 yards then? I think I saw a quarterback throw that far once.

    1. Re:American math by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently a "football pitch" is foreign for "soccer field."

    2. Re:American math by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Apparently a "football pitch" is foreign for "soccer field."

      On the other hand... More people probably play Soccer all around the world than (American) Football - the latter, ironically, having little foot and ball interaction.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:American math by Livius · · Score: 1

      "football pitch" is foreign for "soccer field."

      You have that backwards.

    4. Re:American math by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In olden days, any sport not played on horseback was called a foot sport, so it doesn't need much foot and ball contact, just be played on foot instead of horse.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:American math by martinfb · · Score: 1

      You are correct. A 'pitch' is COMMONLY known as a field. Readers paying attention would see that this news is from a Russian source. As we all know, American football' happens only in the USA. Everywhere else 'football' is soccer, including in Russia. And, by the way, soccer is FAR more popular than 'American football'. So, then, those not getting the 'football pitch' reference are in a quite small minority; perhaps some of whom are also likely narcissistic and arrogant. Yet, I digress from here!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    6. Re:American math by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      I dunno man, Russia sounds pretty foreign to me.

  3. Track it here by willoughby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to check out the current location, this website is pretty good...

    http://www.isstracker.com/

    1. Re:Track it here by clovis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA will send you a txt message on the days that the ISS will be passing overhead at dawn or dusk.
      It's way cool to actually see it going over and to think about the people up there.
      https://spotthestation.nasa.go...

      But this is my favorite. It's downward looking webcams from the ISS.

      http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/

    2. Re:Track it here by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      If you like seeing this bright spot flying through the sky, you'll love seeing the whole actual ISS structure (basically like this : H) through a telescope.
      I wasn't sure it would be possible, but I tried it with my small dobsonian, and saw it for a few seconds. Tracking is a bit of a PITA, so it helps a lot to have someone else roughly track it via the finder scope, while you adjust focus and keep the ISS exactly in the middle of the eyepiece.
      It's a wonderful experience, even for non-geeks. My family and neighbourhood kids enjoyed it a lot.

      Sorry for the slashvertisement, but this telescope is affordable, very good, and very suitable for ISS tracking :
      http://www.telescope.com/Teles...
      Some friends with bigger telescopes and equatorial go-to mount bought it just to be able to see the ISS.

    3. Re:Track it here by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the suggestion. Do you find that Dobsonian telescopes are easy for beginners to figure out? I am interested in this type of stuff, but by no means an expert in the field.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Track it here by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      It's probably the most beginner-friendly telescope there is.
      They're cheap, they're super-easy to aim (like a cannon, basically), you don't have to align it to the North Star, you don't have to lock/unlock screws while moving.
      The mirror is big enough to see all the planets, double-stars and some galaxies/clusters/nebulaes, even in light-polluted areas. I could look at Jupiter/Moon/Saturn/ISS every night and not get tired of it. It's a wonderful experience to see the great red storm or Io's shadow on Jupiter. It's nowhere near as detailed as on NASA pictures, but it's very enjoyable to see it directly.
      My daughter enjoys it too, and can track the moon by her own (she's 5).
      I was a complete beginner a year ago, and learned a lot just using this telescope outside, and looking at Stellarium every now and then. I still have much to learn.
      http://www.skyandtelescope.com... is a great todo-list.
      What's funny is that for this price, you cannot get any decent optical tube or any decent tripod. With a dobsonian, you get both, and they're more than good enough for many astronomical needs.

  4. Or put another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The ISS has now travelled 2.6 billion miles 'or about the distance of 10 round trips to Mars' "

    Or for comparison, a single one-way trip to Neptune. Or 0.01016% of the way to Alpha Centauri.

    1. Re:Or put another way by cdsparrow · · Score: 2

      Or 1.3849x10^48 libraries-of-congress...

    2. Re:Or put another way by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      But Mars is the next place we want to travel too. If only we can get enough public interest in it. But due to having no leadership in the world and no good alternative in the pipeline I expect we will just say on earth and in low orbit until that asteroid hits.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Or put another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or for comparison, one MILLION dollars per orbit.

  5. the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The real question is why the ISS matters at all. It's been an excessively expensive project to complete, curtailing NASA's ability to fund other missions. The orbit is highly inclined so it's less expensive for Russian spacecraft to reach it than it is for American spacecraft. A lot of the time is spent doing maintenance and construction instead of scientific research. While the US has found some research that can be conducted on the ISS, it's very limited with respect to the shuttle missions. The shuttles were extremely successful, though quite outdated at the end of their life cycles. The ISS really hasn't been that successful, but its costs have hindered NASA from carrying out other research and missions. Why does the ISS matter? Aside from exploring the long-term effects of spaceflight, very little.of value has come from the ISS, a particularly important point when taking into account the massive costs.

    1. Re:the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bingo !!

      The Apollo program was only 100 billion and considerably more significant.

    2. Re:the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On January 21, 2017, when Donald J. Trump (born Drumpf) raises his hand with the small little fingers to be sworn into office, he will be handed the nuclear codes. Later that day, after he had a yuuuuge and glamorous party, he will send a rocket to the chinese mainland, and when the rocket hits, he'll tweet "now pay me for the ICBM or I'll SEND ANOTHER ONE". Yes, he's supposed to be presidential and use diplomats, but he'll do it anyway. The chinese will of course only know one reaction to that: retaliation. They'll send almost all their nuclear arsenal into the air, heading to the american mainland, pointing at the trump tower building in New york, as well as the white house or the bay area. Everything that matters. This then leads to a chain reaction of nuclear retaliation strikes which at the end renders every little bit of this earth deadly.

      While this judgement day happens, there is one place on earth which won't be sent an ICBM: the ISS. On that day, the ISS will unveil its actual mission: to call the interplanetary 911 service, which will send new humans to repopulate earth in some few hundred years when radiation levels are normal again.

    3. Re:the real question by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The little research that has come out of it is not worth 100B and could have been done other ways. Mir did human occupation longevity studies, for example, and was smaller and cheaper.

      Scientists were hoping zero-G materials experiments would prove fruitful, but so far not much. Perhaps we'll get lucky and something interesting will be found. But so far, it's an F-35 program in space.

    4. Re:the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      A short list of things the ISS is doing for humanity in general:
      1. The practicalities of human habitation in space, something that cannot be reproduced on earth.
      2. Construction techniques on earth and in space
      3. All that tech developed that NASA licenses to anyone who asks
      4. A detailed look at how gravity influences any number of physical processes both in and out of vacuum
      5. Probably the best cover of Space Oddity ever made
      6. Showing the world concrete proof that they can accomplish great things if they work together (oh, except for China, but they take it as a challenge of equals instead of a condescending geopolitical stance which is nice at least)
      7. An orbital launch platform for commercial microsats
      8. A rationale for the commercial space industry to exist in any capacity beyond satellite launches
      9. The secure knowledge that someone will be around to witness the end of the world and appreciate it

    5. Re:the real question by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Never forget what we traded it for. Three times more energetic than the LHC.

    6. Re:the real question by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      OK, but not really worth $100 billion.

    7. Re:the real question by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are you comparing it to? How would you have spent the money differently? Personally even if it was just the research on long term exposure to microgravity I would have said it was worth it.

      The research around Osteoporosis that was conducted on the ISS can't be replicated anywhere else.

    8. Re:the real question by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >OK, but not really worth $100 billion.

      But the Iraq war was worth 1.7 Trillion dollars and counting ? Afghanistan was worth the 1 trillion bill it had run up in 2014 already ? I imagine it's a bit higher now.

      For comparison - Bush never actually counted the wars against the deficit (worst accounting ever) - Obama did, figuring if America spends money on this stuff it ought to be written down somewhere. Think about that. It means the wars alone make up a third of the deficite increase written up during his terms (ironically, representing money the guy before him actually spent but didn't write down).

      Nearly three trillion dollars spent killing brown people. Another trillion odd paying all the other soldiers and military staff and defense projects and the rest of a killing machine 13 times larger than anybody else has (because twice as large while just as effective would not be as good for hawkish politician's egos and their friend's pocketbooks).
      What has the military cost, in total, since the ISS was launched ? I can't find a clear figure but even in 1998 when the ISS was first launched the military budget for the year was 399 Billion - FOUR TIMES what the ISS has cost us in TOTAL.

      I would argue that if we can afford to spend apparently about half the global GDP on trying to kill each other over 20 years - we can damn well afford to spend a hundred billion on developing the techniques and technologies for long term space exploration - which is the ISS's single most valuable research contribution.

      You can't just say "X" is a big number, whether a number is big depends on context. In the context of government spending and priorities, the ISS is near the top of the list of the BEST things ever done with your tax money.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:the real question by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Well, um, they just produced some promotional fluff for snapchat... And before that there was that astronaut who did a David Bowie cover and some youtube videos: In Space!

      Clearly a worthy investment.

    10. Re:the real question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      But the Iraq war was worth 1.7 Trillion dollars and counting ? Afghanistan was worth the 1 trillion bill it had run up in 2014 already ? I imagine it's a bit higher now.

      Nothing says +10 Insightful than what you just wrote. Not much more to add but well played, sir - well played.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      none of you idiots know they have run several experiments on crystal growth in microgravity? Crystals, like in the basic structure of silicon and germanium, get it?

      Imagine chips much purer and larger. imagine. We have no idea what that might bring us. You idiots: in your minds, we shouldn't have bothered to sharpen the first goddamned stick, right?

      idiots

      and it works better than on the ground, too: " Space-grown BARS crystals showed higher order at the molecular level and a more complete X-ray diffraction data set, and ML-I crystals yielded data that refined its structure. Most significant, high-quality Thermus flavus 5S RNA crystals yielded improved X-ray data to help complete the RNA segment structure. "

      protein crystals for medicine

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/252.html

      mineral crystals

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/291.html

      you fucking idiots

    12. Re:the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global military spending is pegged at roughly $1.5 Trillion per year. A base size Orion could be built (at least based on 1968 estimates, probably much cheaper now) for about $2.5 Trillion and get to Alpha Centauri in a little over 100 years. We could literally have people on their way to a neighboring solar system if we could stop killing/preparing to kill each other for 2 years. Even a massive Orion (10 Million tons) would only cost about $25 Trillion or about 17 years of military spending. Its unfathomable what we could have accomplished over the past over the past 100 years (since WWI) if we chose to devote our resources to more meaningful endeavors and not international pissing matches.

    13. Re:the real question by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      My contention is not that the ISS has done no science; just that it's done an awfully mediocre amount of science for its price. Yes, they haven't wasted all the time they've spent up there; but for something that ranks as one of the most expensive research devices ever constructed, the ISS' list of accomplishments is kind of thin. I'm all for research funding; but I'm also all for spending it on the projects that deliver more science for your dollar. $100 billion worth of space station hasn't done a terribly encouraging job.

  6. Just $1.5 million per orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste. Just think of what we could have learned with that money had we spent it on science instead of subsidizing defense contractors.

    1. Re:Just $1.5 million per orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I already thought about it, and the answer is not much.

      100 billion over 17 years is peanuts to the USA.

      According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_the_United_States#Cost_and_finances)
      The total cost of higher education was 289 billion on 2002, over 17 years that would be 4,900 billion. We all know that costs have risen much faster than inflation, but let's use the low number.
      If you gave all the ISS funding to higher education, that would take it from 4,900 to 5,000 billion. shrug.
      Want to spend it just on science?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending
      The US spends 470 billion a year on that, or about 8,000 billion over the last 17 years.
      Cancel the ISS and that would bring the total to 8,100 billion.

      Americans spent about 1.5 trillion on beer over those 17 years.
      170 billion on romance novels.

      here's some more:
      http://mentalfloss.com/article/31222/numbers-how-americans-spend-their-money

    2. Re:Just $1.5 million per orbit by ebers · · Score: 1

      I thought about it too. Your post misleads because you compare ISS cost to the total public and private R&D spending of the US. Most of that isn't science. That's things like Charmin engineering a softer pleat of toilet paper. $100 billion over 17 years is approximately the money spent on the National Science Foundation over that time. We could have doubled the NSF budget for the last 17 years. That would have been something. NSF budget history: http://proposalexponent.com/NS...

    3. Re:Just $1.5 million per orbit by clovis · · Score: 1

      I didn't mislead.
      It was exactly my intent was to put in perspective the total amount of money spent on the ISS funding by comparing it to the total amount of other things we spend money on. I showed that the ISS cost is small compared to the total spending on higher education, science, (or as you correctly pointed out, R&D), beer, romance novels, or various trivialities.

      We're a big country. It's not an either/or situation. We can do many things at once.

  7. Scientists theorize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scientists theorize the ISS made 100,000 orbits faster than expected due to an unusually high gravitational pull around the USA midwest. In other news, fast food chains are reporting amazing sales of the 1.5 pound cheezeburger in the midwest....

  8. Money by tsa · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we hadn't spent so much money on pointless wars we'd be on our way to the next solar system by now.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Money by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      If we hadn't spent so much money on pointless wars ...

      Some people would be richer, some others would be poorer, but nothing big would have changed Space wise.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Money by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If we hadn't spent so much money on pointless wars we'd be on our way to the next solar system by now.

      Without the potential of rockets to be missiles, I doubt we'd have even landed on the moon. The Apollo program was riding on a long and bloody history from the Nazi V1/V2 missiles hitting London during WWII to the threat of nuclear armageddon with ICBMs, all funded by the military. And NASA was a way to continue funneling money into missiles after the Cuban missile crisis while nominally being for civilian purposes. Anyone who think JFK just wanted to put a man on the moon because it's hard the way people climb Mount Everest just because it's hard is hopelessly naive. Same with the funding for Reagan's "Star Wars" program. And while the ISS is an example of international cooperation, rocket technology is still mostly classified and restricted by ITAR. Same with all the spy satellites and so on, the military is all over the space industry.

      Apart from that, Voyager 1 has gone 0,05% of the way in 39 years and it used all the big planets to slingshot itself out of the solar system. We might have been on Mars now with another Apollo program. But no, we couldn't have gone to another star. It's like saying we could go to the moon with a long enough line of horses pulling the wagon, it'll take some entirely new propulsion technology to cross interstellar space. That or technology that can last tens of thousands of years, which would be an equally great challenge. It's a bit like saying that if we just redirected the military budget to medicine, we'd discover immortality. And then we'd have all of time to work out the rest. There's no real reason to think it'd be that easy though.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE don't attempt to make comparisons between the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program and Star Wars/SDI.

      M/G/A were true engineering projects, the largest full-regression test I've ever seen or will see. The only part of the first moon landing that hadn't been done in real time before that mission was the last 50,000 foot descent. Everything else had been tested and done successfully. Was it political as well? You damn betcha; the Cold War was no joke. But it was also intended to jumpstart America technologically and economically, and it did.

      Star Wars/SDI was a massive money-spinning boondoggle for the politically connected, MIC, and the rich from it's inception. Most SW/SDI testing was rigged. Those are two facts, and if you don't like it, get over it. I am a hardware/software engineer and have been since before SW/SDI. That program was never going to work, it could never be tested enough to prove reliability, and "completing" it would have sucked up more huge amounts of America's economy only to be utterly defeated by Bad Guys (tm) slinging a little gravel into opposing orbits (doesn't take much when it's traveling at orbital velocity; kinetic energy, you know...). Untold trillions to deploy a failed system versus cheaply lofting not even a ton of stone to kill it. Think about that.

      My HW/SW/Mech E/Chem E engineering buddies and I -- you know, stupid, lazy, Communist, traitorous ones who worked for mom and pop shops like Raytheon and Mitre and GE Jet Engines and General Dynamics and Bath Iron Works and did trivial things like build the guidance system for the MX missile (he was my housemate; the reality of the consequences of his work literally drove him nuts, folks) -- would sit around and laugh as we poked holes in what they claimed they were doing/going to do with SW/SDI. Especially when they tried to "demonstrate" some of the tech to justify the idiocy and it was either outright fail or so stupidly obviously simplified and rigged for success*. Our best joke in my opinion was, "Oops, a missile got through and took out New York City! We traced it to a software bug." "Get the SW engineer to fix it." "Can't; the only one who understands the code lived in New York City..." I use this joke as a cautionary tale about good code comments.

      Not much significant technology has come from SDI/SW besides some (repeat SOME) improvement in laser size and reliability. It turns out that Lasers!!! In Space!!!! are REALLY HARD TO DO despite the "pie in the sky we're all safe now" wet-dreaming of GOP legislative shills, military and MIC careerists, or Ronald "incoherent and confused"** Reagan living in fantasies based on a movie he did about death rays (I kid you not; cf "Murder in the Air").

      And remember: one barrel of gravel in a contra-orbit would trash the entire SW/SDI orbital rig. Keep in mind that we almost lost the shuttle once to a tiny fleck of paint (it burnt through more than half the windscreen depth; STS-7) and Endeavour had a 5 mm hole punched right through a metal part on the cargo door). Damage from space junk is already happening; this is not theory.

      Going to the moon made massive leaps in materials (metals, plastics, ceramics, fuels), computers (IC-based computers, software breakthroughs we now take for granted like load shedding when the device is overworked), mathematics, human factors, networks, telecom, satellites. I could go on forever; go look up the NASA spin-off technology page.

      Star Wars did nothing but make a lot of people rich and create a chunk of the massive debt St. Reagan the Senile and his acolytes imposed on the country in the name of fiscal conservatism. Yeah, they did.

      Star Wars was a scam. Going to the moon brought you much of the technology you now take for granted. See the difference now?

      * placing the laser about 4 feet from the side of the booster to be "destroyed" was among my favorites. Making the target warheads easier to find by putting radio beacons on them comes in a close second (they did that after three tests in a row completely failed to intercept).

      ** Tower Commission Report commenting on Reagan's behavior; NOTE THIS REPORT WAS PUBLISHED IN EARLY 1987.

    4. Re:Money by powerlord · · Score: 1

      All depends.

      If enough of those who got Richer were interested, then it might have happened faster. No guarantees though.

      Take a look at the major European colonial efforts. Most were funded by either the Crown or rich Merchant conglomerates.

      Now look at our current space efforts that are either funded by governments, and in the case of private sector, similar Rich people who's itch it scratches.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  9. Fly me to the mars by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    it's done the equivalent of 10 trips to Mars since 1998, so why not send it to mars ? People have proven they can live in it for years at a time, it can obviously take a shove from a rocket. Just fuel up a few rockets and have them meet it along the way with provisions and an extra nudge to move it along.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Fly me to the mars by Sique · · Score: 2

      Because it's a dang more complicated to get each part of ISS separately to a speed of 8 km/s (orbital velocity), than the whole ISS mounted together to a speed of 11.2 km/s (escape velocity) - and that's only to get the ISS out of the gravity field of the Earth. To actually get it to Mars, you need a speed of 34.1 km/s. Imagine the size of the boosters necessary! (And imagine the effort to get them including the fuel up to the ISS orbit).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Fly me to the mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Outside of the protection of Earth's magnetic fields, everyone on-board would get killed by the radiation.

      And you say years at a time. No one has lived in space for 2 years straight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records). The record for the ISS is only 340.4 days (And 437.7 for Mir).

      Also, there is the whole energy problem. Ex: just because you go around earth once a day doesn't mean you could get to the moon easily. Getting back would also be much harder since you have to ship the return rockets to mars.

      But assuming you solved those problems (which would cost many billions of dollars) yes you could do it, but for the same money we could do so many more useful things hear on earth, or in space with lighter robots.

    3. Re:Fly me to the mars by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      you only need big-ass boosters to blast yourself off the ground and into orbit. Once in orbit you can use little thrusters, no problem. Time is not your enemy anymore, even small acceleration will get you anywhere in the solar system. Assuming of course that you can keep the small acceleration going for a long time (which would require large amounts of fuel)

    4. Re:Fly me to the mars by geekmux · · Score: 1

      you only need big-ass boosters to blast yourself off the ground and into orbit. Once in orbit you can use little thrusters, no problem. Time is not your enemy anymore, even small acceleration will get you anywhere in the solar system...

      Just FYI, we still measure anything outside of our own solar system in light years .

      It is because of time that humans cannot even fathom real space travel, and even moving at half the speed of light would still take years to reach habitable planets. That's assuming those humans still have their sanity when they arrive.

      Believe me, time is still our enemy.

    5. Re:Fly me to the mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is NOT in any way suited for a trip to Mars - The ISS is well shielded from radiation but is really protected by the Earth's magnetosphere - if you pushed it out of that protection and on the way to Mars the majority of the electronic components and the astronauts themselves would have been exposed to radiation doses that would gaurantee TITSUP (total inability to support usual performance).

    6. Re:Fly me to the mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People have proven they can live in it for years at a time,"

      With constant resupply from Earth. For fuck's sake, are you this colossally stupid? You shouldn't be commenting on this.

    7. Re:Fly me to the mars by geantvert · · Score: 4, Informative

      This XKCD picture explains it all in a very intuitive way: https://xkcd.com/681/

      The ISS is on the "low earth orbit" line in the detailed view of the Earth well (on the right).

      Using the same analogy, image that you are at the bottom a 100m deep well. It is should be easy for you to walk in circles for 1000m (so horizontally). However, to exit the well you have to GO UP for 100m. That's is a lot more difficult.
       

    8. Re:Fly me to the mars by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That's assuming those humans still have their sanity when they arrive.

      Believe me, time is still our enemy.

      That's assuming the had it when they left.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Fly me to the mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the problem about all the cargo missions full of supplies that it gets every few months.

      At least it wouldn't need regular orbital boosts.

    10. Re:Fly me to the mars by geekmux · · Score: 1

      That's assuming those humans still have their sanity when they arrive.

      Believe me, time is still our enemy.

      That's assuming the had it when they left.

      Given the amount of volunteers that came forth to jump on a rocket for a one-way expedition to Mars, it appears the question of sanity more centers around the concept of staying on this rock.

      just sayin'...

    11. Re:Fly me to the mars by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of volunteers that came forth to jump on a rocket for a one-way expedition to Mars, it appears the question of sanity more centers around the concept of staying on this rock.

      just sayin'...

      Sanity, defined as the deep abiding far of the unknown, and wish fir stasis, and the desire to live as long as possible by being as safe as possible is way overrated. But it is the norm for many.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. ISIS orbits? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I first read it as "ISIS Completes 100,000th Orbit of Earth". I was thinking, "well that's a good place for them."

    1. Re:ISIS orbits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it that way at first, too, and did a double-take. When the hell did they get to space? Maybe that's how Star Wars began.

    2. Re:ISIS orbits? by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Especially since ISIS articles show up here more than ISS articles. Maybe we just have lysdexia. Funny anyways though!!!

  11. EU, Japan? by avgapon · · Score: 1

    I think that EU and Japan space agencies have also made non-negligible contributions.

  12. Why Can't we cooperate more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish that we could cooperate more. Russians and Americans have basically the same values, religion, etc. We really should be great friends. The current situation is just a huge misunderstanding on both sides.

    Anyway, off to Saint Petersburg tomorrow.

    1. Re: Why Can't we cooperate more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except muslims are now taking over russia

  13. Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was cool in the 90s and early 00s but now it's old hat stuff. As a European kid it was very inspiring. The US was that benevolent power with Shuttles and Hubble and cool stuff, joining hands with other nations to build the biggest abd highest tech station ever, then ITER and who knows what. A nice "end of history" it was, until the US decided to invade and attack countries at random and unleash hell on Earth that is.
    Now the US is the biggest threat to world peace and security, and all that soft power from big space projects has been pissed away. I wish you could keep your terrorist wars and "treaties" where they belong. Fuck the EU, those corporate shills, and fuck NATO a.k.a. Al Qaeda's air force.
    There's no USSR anymore, but who needs it when there's the US? How does it feel now that you are the bad guys?
    I could go on and on but my point is I don't think any new SLS or asteroid stuff etc. will have the same impact it could have had.

    On the other hand you motivated a country as poor as backwater Africa and frequently described as the world's worst country to reach orbit, which makes me laugh. Also Russia collaborate with NATO countries anyway, with Soyouz rockets launched from French Guyana.

    1. Re:Boring by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yep... turns out the only thing worst than two power-mad empires battling for control of the world with their quasi-religious economic ideologies lifted to the point of cultlike unquestioning adherence... is ONE power-mad empire battling for control of the world with it's quasi-religious economic ideology lifted to the point of cultlike unquestioning adherence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  14. Ahem by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    The International Space Station, the space laboratory that showcases cooperation between Russia and the United States

    and Europe and Canada and Japan...

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They contributed very little. Mostly just sent their people up for a stay. Burns? Too bad.

    2. Re:Ahem by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They contributed very little.

      Yeah, only like entire modules, the robot arm, and the cupola. Just little tiny things like that.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. 4.6 miles per second by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.

    What park are you going to that is traveling 4.6 miles per second 300 miles above the Earth's surface? The ISS is a vehicle, not a park. If you want an analogy it's like taking a rocket to a jet that is already flying around the globe, making an in-flight transfer and then spending several months in the plane while it flies around the world. Just because you aren't standing on terra-firma doesn't mean it isn't traveling.

    The ISS is effectively parked. (parked in an awesome spot.) Sure it is moving relative to the centre of the earth, but so is the car on blocks. 24 hour circuit vs 90 minutes.

    The ISS is moving relative to every part of the earth at a ludicrous velocity. Your car on blocks is fixed to a point on the Earth's surface. You seriously can't see the difference?

    1. Re:4.6 miles per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving relative to every part of the earth at a ludicrous velocity is impressive in human terms, but not impressive when you're looking at the scale of the solar system. The parent's point is that traveling 2.6 billion miles without going farther than 3,960 + 250 miles from the center of the Earth is like traveling 600,000 miles without going farther than 1 mile from your home. It is indeed the same as jogging laps in your local park, in proportions.

    2. Re:4.6 miles per second by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, the park that I go to is traveling about 124 miles per second 25,000 light years above the center of the galaxy.

      It sort of depends on your point of view. To use a car analogy, the vehicles racing at the Indianapolis 500 travel 500 miles, even if they end up back at the same point they started at.

  16. "About the distance of 10 round trips to mars" by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    The whole describing-distance-traveled-in-round-trips-to-mars strategy gets much more pathetic when you realize that all that glorious travel is occurring in an orbit so low it barely clears the atmosphere; rather than actually going anywhere interesting.
    br. If we just want to mash numbers together; it's be about as meaningful to add up the distance covered by American commuters over the last decade and describe that in terms of the most appropriate interplanetary voyage.

    1. Re:"About the distance of 10 round trips to mars" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The whole describing-distance-traveled-in-round-trips-to-mars strategy gets much more pathetic when you realize that all that glorious travel is occurring in an orbit so low it barely clears the atmosphere; rather than actually going anywhere interesting.

      Amazing the things that piss people off. So do you get as pissed when the number of plastic bottles used in a year covers some number of times around the earth? Or the old New York to San Diego length comparisons of some thing or another?

      It's merely putting things in perspective.

      Do you get as spun up about the time dilation effects on the people inside the ISS?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:"About the distance of 10 round trips to mars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we just want to mash numbers together; it's be about as meaningful to add up the distance covered by American commuters over the last decade and describe that in terms of the most appropriate interplanetary voyage.

      Easy, it's about the same as the distance to Alpha Centauri.

  17. What is this nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows the earth is flat.

  18. Humans... by tomxor · · Score: 1

    yet again arbitrarily celebrating base 10, i never get this.

    1. Re:Humans... by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      yet again arbitrarily celebrating base 10, i never get this.

      How many fingers do you have ?

    2. Re:Humans... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      What species are you?

    3. Re:Humans... by james_shoemaker · · Score: 1

      > How many fingers do you have?

          The numbers of digits on your primary manipulators is a silly way to chose a number base.

    4. Re:Humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11, that is, 3.

  19. It's like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    celebrating the 1,000,000th revolution of my truck tires.

  20. $100 Billion... 100,000 orbits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's $1M per orbit, or about $25 for every kilometer of ground-distance travelled, or about 2.5c per meter.

  21. Dwerb by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    I don't see why this is news. It's not like it's a nice round number or anything, and even if it was it's no more or less significant than any other lap.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is that and factors and powers of 10 are reasonably composite. 6 is nicely composite too, but we use that sufficiently for angular measure. There are 10 commandments...

  23. That takes me back... by downright · · Score: 1

    to a winning game of "graviton" on CERL's PLATO IV novanet system. Awe crap... now I need to renew my avatar addiction.

  24. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure I get the (attempted) joke, but it doesn't help answer my question: what does he mean when he says its not moving?

    No. Obviously you don't get the joke. The part where he says it's not moving is the joke . Either that, or you were just really struck hard by the need to act like a pedantic asshole.

    My money is on the latter.