Slashdot Log In
Space Station Partners Bicker Over Closure Date
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 26, 2007 03:04 PM
from the like-a-spoiled-child-on-to-the-next-toy dept.
from the like-a-spoiled-child-on-to-the-next-toy dept.
jcdick1 writes "The current partners in the ISS are in discussion regarding the closure date of the space station, even though it still has not been fully assembled. 'The United States insists it will pull out of the station at the end of 2015 while Russia wants its life prolonged, said European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain at an astronautics congress in Hyderabad, southern India. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has told space station partners that the US agency has no plans for "utilization and exploitation" of the science research lab for more than five years after it is completed, Dordain said.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Space Station Gyro Problem Dangerous? 60 comments
mysterystevenson writes "After bringing more mass than ever before up to the ISS, one of the gyros has failed. Gyros help maintain attitude position in space; the more mass needed to be controlled, the more force that is exerted on the gyros. Now there is the danger that the Shuttle may be bringing yet more mass and starting construction while turning off another gyro, which could cause a need for thrusters to maintain attitude. The assemblies are not all constructed to be able to withstand such force and in a bad situation there could be a collapse which could affect the Shuttle and the ISS as well. Worse case could be total loss; a wise idea might be to alter the construction schedule and address the Gyro and Gyro design problems, before going forward with the introduction of more mass."
[+]
Space Station Suffers Power Glitch 53 comments
TheSexican writes "As if the MRO's vision problems weren't enough, it seems that NASA has another problem on their hands as of late.
" The problem itself has been solved; one of the solar power array went off line, and had to be repaired, but is back up and working.
[+]
Hardware: ISS Goes Solar 176 comments
SumDog writes "The international space station's newest power source, a set of solar wings, made its debut yesterday. The solar array is part of a new 17.5-ton space station segment that was connected to the orbiting outpost during a spacewalk Monday."
[+]
Space Station Computers Partially Restored 158 comments
Raver32 writes with the news that a partial restoration
of computer control was established on the International Space Station (ISS) Thursday. Systems controlling critical elements like navigation and life-support failed on Wednesday. "Flight controllers were able to re-establish some communication with the computers overnight, with Russian engineers working Thursday to restore the rest of the system, NASA space station flight director Holly Ridings said. The U.S. space agency and Russian officials are still trying to determine the cause of a failure affecting multiple computers in the Russian network ... Since an earlier failure on Monday, thrusters on the space shuttle Atlantis have been fired periodically to help maintain the station's position. The Russian and U.S. space agencies said they could extend Atlantis's mission by one or two days to fix the problem. In the worst-case scenario, NASA said the ISS crew members -- two Russians and an American -- may be evacuated from the station."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I have an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
it's a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:it's a threat (Score:4, Interesting)
You are all making a major error in considering this in nationalist terms. The space agencies have a common interest in screwing as much money as possible out of as many governments as possible. It is the agencies versus their governments.
Meanwhile the motives of the governments are pretty murky. Each government has its own pro-ISS and anti-ISS factions. And amongst the pro-ISS factions there are a range of motives: pork for congressional districts, making sure that their country is not embarassed by withdrawing from existing commitments, etc.
The reason that such projects are international collaborations is not that they need the money so much as they need to create a situation where nobody can withdraw without breaking a commitment.
So the statement by the US can be seen as a signal that maybe the anti-ISS faction has gained the upper hand and wants to signal to the others 'hey lets snip this thing'. To which the Russian faction might be responding 'hell no we want to stay' or more likely 'how much is it worth to let you out of this'.
The ISS is an utter waste of time and money. The original purpose of the ISS was to have something for the Shuttle to visit. The purpose of the Shuttle was to build the station. Both are merely staging posts for a manned trip to Mars that is not going to happen. We can do so much more with unmanned probes.
Parent
Re:it's a threat (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe.
A bit of history. The ISS started life as "Space Station Freedom" -- an initiative of the Reagan administration started around 1984. It was to cost between 15 and 20 billion dollars and to be in orbit by 1995-1996. It was a US project. Around 1990 it became clear that Space Station Freedom was over weight, over budget, and quite possibly unbuildable. After a gazillion redesigns failed to improve the prospects, the Clinton administration sucked a bunch of suck^H^H^H^H international partners into the scheme, and renamed it the International Space Stations.
So far, the US has put something like $30 to $35 billion dollars into Space Station Freedom and the ISS in direct costs and another $25 billion into space shuttle costs directly related to the ISS. Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency have thrown some money into the pot, but not all that much. Russia -- the other major contributor -- threw in two existing MIR modules and a number of Soyuz flights.
You may think that the international aspect is important. I don't. This fiasco has Made In America stamped all over it except for the relatively inexpensive MIR modules contributed by Russia. In fact, without the US effort, the other participants would probably be basing their efforts on MIR, Russia would have earned some foreign exchange during the troubled years of the 1990s; the world -- primarily the US -- would be maybe $40 billion dollars richer; and the human race would have accomplished pretty much nothing much more cheaply.
***The ISS is an utter waste of time and money.
Agreed
***The original purpose of the ISS was to have something for the Shuttle to visit.***
The ISS (Space Station Freedom) didn't need a mission. We're talking the Reagan administration here. All gut feeling. No coherent planning. Reality need not apply. (Bush 1 and Clinton were quite a bit better. Bush 2 is even worse.)
***The purpose of the Shuttle was to build the station.***
The Shuttle program predates Space Station Freedom by a decade. It was intended to replace the expensive expendable launch vehicles of the 1960s with much less expensive reusable lanuch vehicles. Predicatably the costs were grossly underestimated and the launch frequency of the reusable vehicles was grossly overestimated. 'Taint cheaper. More accurate would be to say that the purpose of the shuttle has become to build and support the ISS. Without the ISS, the Shuttle might actually make some sense as a platform for experiments.
The good news is that the Shuttle is supposed to go away in a couple of years -- 2010 and be replaced by a super-duper low cost, reusable, launch vehicle called Orion in 2014. What are they going to use in the intervening 4 years? I haven't a clue. What will keep Orion from being a typical US manned spaceflight project -- over weight, over budget, late and lame? Again, no clue.
Parent
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
It's idiotic. Basically, the US made a committment to build it, then decided most of the way through that it had new toys it wanted to make. Rather than back out with it almost built and a large fortune spent on it, they're going to spend a small fortune to finish it so they're not breaking any committments, and then when it gets to the relatively cheap phase (maintenance), they're going to ditch it. It's the equivalent of me spending all my time and money building a house, and when it finally gets livable, burning it down so I can use the lot to make a tennis court. Idiotic.
As though we wouldn't do the exact same process with a moon base. It's like the ISS, only... on the moon! We have dirt to play with, plus 1/6th gravity, and for that benefit, it costs ten times more to get people and supplies there and back. Does anyone really think that we won't likewise get almost done with a moonbase and then decide that it's another "boondoggle" and abandon our efforts there, too? People make careers and make the history books by succeeding in their projects, not the projects of the generation before them. So we flap and wave like a flag in the wind.
Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs. Building it and letting it burn is a mockery of responsible planning. It also should be a wakeup call that we need new budgetary planning procedures in congress that lets all of the funding for a project be allocated in advance and placed in a trust, with congress and administrators only able to pull out of it if pre-specified milestones fail to be met. I.e., ISS would likely have been cancelled long ago when it failed to meet financial and time milestones, but if it had made it this long, the maintenence funding would already be in place.
Parent
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs.
Not by a long shot. Exactly what earth-shattering research are they goning to do? More high school science experiments?
Parent
don't leave! (Score:5, Funny)
You know, by setting a firm timetable like that, you're only emboldening the Russians.
Stay the Course! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stay the Course! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the other partners in the ISS will have something to say as well, especially as their bits haven't arrived yet and the time allowed to do research has been curtailed due to the cancelling of the "lifeboat" crew return vehicle about 7 years ago, meaning that you can't have a full compliment of crew on the station.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the assumption that the ISS should have been built in the first place. Allow me to reassure you, it should not have. The original plan for Space Station Freedom was as a LEO rendezvous point for lunar-bound astronauts. The shuttle was the first stage, the station was the second stage, and a lunar-transfer vehicle would have been the third stage. (Actually, the shuttle was originally only supposed to be transportation. The heavy lifting was supposed to be done by the Saturn V. Instead, Nixon demanded that the Shuttle do both. But I digress.)
When Congress saw the price tag, however, they balked. They told NASA that they needed additional international funding if they the support of congress. So NASA talked with a few other countries (including the now democratic Russia) about getting the funding they needed. Russia told NASA that they would only get money and support if the station was located in an orbit that was easier for Russian spacecraft to reach. Of course, that same orbit made the station worthless (fuel-wise) as a lunar-staging point.
There's more to the story after that, but suffice it to say that the station shouldn't exist. It was a political boondoggle that never truly met anyone's needs. It mostly just hangs there showing the flag. Once the space shuttle is retired, there will be no way of properly maintaining the ISS. If new vehicles aren't developed to reboost the ISS regularly (e.g. robotic boosters) the ISS will simply fall into the atmosphere and burn up.
Now before you decide to interject with, "But we've already payed hundreds of millions to built it! It must be useful for something!" allow me to point you to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:No Denero. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is is possible to have a discussion on slashdot without bashing the President? You hate him, I get it. You tout any bad news that you hear and put a negative spin on any good news so that it is bad (the economy is a good example). I did not see Iraq anywhere in the summary, WTF is point of bringing it up. Maybe you should be posting on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost or something where that type of partisanship is acceptable.
Besides, this has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with NASA making plans beyond the space station. With the budget required to maintain the space station, NASA has little room for other adventures, such as a permanent base on the moon or a manned mission to Mars.
IMHO, we need to turn the space station into a spaceship assembly plant where parts of space ships can be assembled so we can launch a much larger ship than what we can lift into orbit all at once.
Parent
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
You got the second part wrong. If you put the same managers whom ran the shuttle and station into the ground (literally) in charge of an unmanned probe, they'll "optimize" the probe to save money by removing all the scientific instruments, and launch in the wrong, yet more convenient, orbit, then remove funding to receive the signals if it gets there anyway. In fact the station and shuttle programs should be kept around to attract all the pointy haired bosses away from the useful scientific programs...
The station is nothing but a list of "could haves". Could have put it in a good orbit to use as a waystation for interplanetary flight, but that cost too much, so we got an awful orbit to appease the USSR. Could have had a large enough habitation module to staff large numbers of problem solvers rather than a tiny handful of robotic procedural astronauts, but that cost too much, so no scientists or engineers can fit onboard. Could have put useful scientific instruments on the station, but that cost too much, so all we got is a stethoscope and not a heck of a lot else. Could have put some fascinating communications stuff up there, but that cost too much, so we got nothing. Could have made it a continuing program of expansion and R&D and evolve the current station into something we currently can't imagine instead of a one shot stunt, but that cost too much. By the time everything that could be cut was cut, there was nothing left but pork contracts for subcontractors.
We need a "real" station and a "real" launcher program, but the folks currently in charge will not provide it, so don't throw more good money after bad, junk those programs while we're ahead.
Parent
So glad we spent all that money on it :/ (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISS isn't worth the cost. Think of the probes and orbital observatories NASA could've built using the ISS budget. Those things give us far more insight into the universe. Hell, some of the early ISS literature proclaimed the station would pay for through the leasing of "microgravity manufacturing" compartments to various companies...please.
No one should be surprised about this; the project was a waste before it even started.
Five Years Lifespan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I (993327) have never felt so accepted in all my life. These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Parent
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure?
Parent
Re:my 2 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
* A lunar transport ship should never need to re-enter the atmosphere. Why would you want to drag re-entry heat shields all the way out to the moon?
* A lunar transport ship would save each supply launch the cost of building (and then discarding) another system to soft-land on the moon.
* Scheduling the docking of a lunar transport with shuttle/progress rocket lifts would be very difficult. If you could, instead, stage the supplies at a station, that would make the scheduling of the lunar transport runs and the supply launches more (not completely) independent.
* If you eventually end up with more than one destination (L5? Please?), you don't have to have separate launches to supply each, just launch one set of supplies and split them up in orbit for each destination.
Parent