Space Station Partners Bicker Over Closure Date 222
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.'"
I have an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
it's a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt that Russia sends up a capsule and has everybody check the outside of it once docked. Kind of counter productive.
"Hey, those Yanks are coming again. When they get here, stop what you doing and let's inspect their hull."
I hope that mankind (meaning free as in beer) benefits from all the research done on the station and not the host countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is much research going on the ISS. IIRC, they would need a couple more astronauts there to be able to do it and also operate the station and current plans do not allow for them.
OTOH, there is a ton of research going on on Earth about how to keep the astronauts happy and healthy in the ISS.
A space station may be one day a nice place to assemble multi-payload vehicl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more like having organized the party, invited all its friends, and paid some of the costs, the US -- having finally figured out that the orbiting junk heap is pretty much worthless scientifically -- is strolling off and leaving the party guests to figure out how to pay the band and the caterer. Unless of course they want to call off the party themselves.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is a lot to learn from unmanned probes there is a lot more to learn from getting people there. It's nice to know what kind of rocks are on Mars, but what use is that information if we are not planning, building and populating some form of human habitat or settlement. Probes are great to satisfy the gee-wiz part of science but to be useful someone has to be able to
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So... let's say the Space Shuttle and the ISS has cost us $50 billion dollars over the last 20-years. Shit let's say it's $100 billion dollars. Now
Re: (Score:2)
It has only 5 years of useful lifetime?
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.
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?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Somebody will buy it (Score:2, Funny)
ISS hotel... Nice...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Branson? (Score:2)
By the time the contributing nations get ready to bail on the ISS, maybe Branson will have his space tourism business started. It might make for the next logical step in that enterprise. Then again, it would be one heck of a remodel job for the ISS.
And here's a precedent. (Score:3, Informative)
don't leave! (Score:5, Funny)
You know, by setting a firm timetable like that, you're only emboldening the Russians.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stay the Course! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stay the Course! (Score:5, Funny)
oil in orbit (Score:2)
Solar Power Satellite [wikipedia.org]
Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Why are people so surprised at this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The orbit bit turned out to be a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the term you're looking for is "dinosaur farm". And yes, some of us who were advocating for Shuttle alternatives as long as twenty years ago (shortly post-Challenger) were saying that it might still be worth keeping the Shuttle project around just for this purpose.
What we didn't realize is that even confined to the farm, those damned dinosaurs would ea
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the shuttle was operational long before the ISS was planned. In fact, it was operational before the far more ambitious NASA "Space Station Freedom" was planned. So, it simply doesn't make sense to say the design of both the shuttle and station were downsized until their only purposes were to exist for eachother: there weren't any concrete plans f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course without the Shuttle's boost, I'm not sure how long the ISS can even maintain its current orbit.
Don't bet on it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course without the Shuttle's boost, I'm not sure how long the ISS can even maintain its current orbit.
Indefinitely. Just keep sending propellant to the station with Protons.Re: (Score:2)
But the Russians are the one's with the most likely ability to relocate the ISS to a higher orbit with their space yo-yo. Just because their tether didn't unwind smoothly this time doesn't mean that it won't work in the near future.
Automated Transfer Vehicle (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia needed foreign investment in their space sector after the USSR went belly up and didn't really care what they were paid for.
And the ESA saw it as a relatively cheap way to establish a kinda-sorta-sometimes manned presence in space with the positive PR effects bu
It will not be retired for at least 20 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense. NASA is a vessel used by congress to shuttle federal money back into the states in the form of design and assembly projects. The ISS is only interesting in the sense that it is still being designed/built. Once it is done, there won't be any money to give to the states, so it will have outlived its useful purpose.
This is why th
Re: (Score:2)
Undoubtedly they are. Anybody with a shred of rationality would have canned this stunted overbudget white elephant well over a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, it'll take until 2010 to finish the station then NASA will use it only for five years before pulling out. With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?
It gets worse. The Space Shuttle is going to be retired in 2010 (upon completion of the ISS) and Orion won't start service to the ISS until late 2014. In the meantime they'll depend on the russians for moving people and cargo.
Yes, I am serious. Look it up yourself. Only governments can come up with these kind of plans.
Re: (Score:2)
I vote they put up a few billion in the form of prizes rather than giving a select few a huge amount of funding. let them fight over it and you'll get a lot of innovation, give it to them and you get NASA style stagnation.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If NASA's annual budget had not increased by over a billion dollars since the war in Iraq started, you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And they could be spent on education, or roads, or bridges, or public bathrooms, or whatever. But you know what? They wouldn't be. Saying what you COULD do with the money is meaningless unless you actually plan
it's because he's blowing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Just not this president.
Re: (Score:2)
...far far away! (Score:2, Interesting)
You might have been able to put a man on the moon, but you're not able to finance a constant presence in space...Kennedy must be rotating in his grave!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the U.S. does decide to spend money on space, it'll be financed by Saudi Arabia and China, just like the Iraq war is being financed.
Face it: The U.S. is broke.
Negotiation tactics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pooooorkkk innnn spaaaace! (Score:3, Informative)
The shuttle / ISS have done only harm to the space program.
(Go read _The Hubble Wars_ if you want to see how bad it was in the 80s. And it only got worse from there).
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We could surely have built a few of these [slashdot.org]...
No Oil in Earth Orbit (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Five Years Lifespan (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Scotty can refit the space station in 5 years once Excelsior technology is ready to be integrated to make things interesting enough to make a full length Discovery film!!! Oh wait, our friend is gone... Someone go and get him. He's over by the Dyson's
The US are just beaing logical (Score:2, Informative)
Plasma Crystal Experiments (Score:2)
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Permanent_Mission_in_Russia/SEMSBDYEM4E_0.html [esa.int]
Microsoft May Buy It (Score:2)
"Run IIS on ISS", the sky is not the limit for your web apps!"
They have money to burn.
Independent companies... (Score:2)
Perhaps one of the budding private spacefaring entities will step in at that point. Maybe an announcement like this is a way to quietly urge them in that direction...
Frankly, (Score:3, Insightful)
Without cheaper, easier propulsion, and without the ability to get larger loads into space, there's really no point in it. We can keep playing with satellites and the like, but we'll never gain any economic benefits out of going to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. The extra weight needed to transport humans is really unnecessary.
Mankind needs to get over its fear of nuclear power. A hybrid fusion/fission Orion design would not release significant amounts of fallout into the atmosphere (especially compared to all the nuclear explosive testing done in the 50s), and who knows; perhaps after we lifted a few hundred thousand tons of equipment into orbit (and perhaps to the moon) we'll be able to build most of what we need in space, where fallout doesn't matter.
Without significant advances in propulsion technology, or a resurrection of Project Orion, there's no point to manned space exploration. We should redirect these billions to propulsion technology, or just take it out of the doomed space program altogether.
Correction (Score:2)
The largest orion designs were for space craft upwards of a million tons. That we change our very notion of space exploration, and we could have done it with 1960s technology.
The world has always been broke. (Score:2, Informative)
Science magazine had it right (Score:2)
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pride not profit ... (Score:3, Interesting)
For Russia I think it is more a matter of national pride than future profit. With the collapse of the soviet union and communism several generations have little to look back upon with pride. The soviet space program is about the only prideful accomplishment that can be embraced and the current Russian space program is what remains of soviet program.
And
Re:Wasteful Government Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-Nex6
No, you dont. Remember, we went to the moon well before we had ANY space station in orbit, several times.
Tm
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, once you pay to get building materials and previsions off of this rock, living on the moon shouldn't be too expensive.
So would you rather have a so-so moon colony and a space station or a really serious
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We could just forget the orbiting station, build a base on the Moon, then work towards Mars. We'd probably need some sort of halfway point between the Moon and Mars, but that's totally different from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are looking for quantifiable benifit, it is hard to justify any space exploration. How much is studying yeast grow in space worth to your economy? Well if it shows something interesting, and it can be reproduced on earth, or is worth the cost of bre
Re: (Score:2)
The simple explanation is that in terms of science, the ISS isn't worth squat, and never has been. As a concept, a space station sounds cool and worthy enough to pay big politically connected contractors oodles of tax money to build the utterly pointless thing. This is uncomfortable to admit, hence the brief lifespan, rather than just dropping it in the ocean immediately upon completion. But with typical delays, that's probably what will happen anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I very much want SpaceX to succeed, but it's doubtful they will be ready to deliver large cargo to ISS by 2010.