Russian Resupply Crash Could Mean Leaving ISS Empty 291
astroengine writes "In the wake of the Russian Progress vehicle crash shortly after launch on Aug. 24, a chain of events has been set into motion that could result in the decision not to fly astronauts into orbit. If this happens, the ISS will be temporarily mothballed before the end of the year to avoid landing astronauts during the harsh Kazakh winter."
Oh if only (Score:5, Funny)
Oh if only some other nation had something spaceworthy... Like a shuttle or so...
Re:Oh if only (Score:5, Insightful)
However, private space is about to have 2 different cargo systems ready shortly. In addition, it is possible that either ATV or HTV can be speed up. However, my gut feeling says that Russia will launch within a month, successfully. Issues solved for this issue.
What is needed is not the cargo, but human launchers ASAP. Now, a number of neo-cons have been pushing to give 10's of billion MORE Than the 20 billion that it appears that it will take. They claim that it would then be done quicker. HOWEVER, the current timeline for the 70 tonne rocket says that it will be ready in 2022. Adding the 10 billion MAY shave a couple of years off that. Hey, being optimistic, you might get it out the door in 2018. IOW, this is a typical neo-cons scenario of pump/dump money into a project that can not be afforded but they want for a jobs bill for themselves.
OTH, CCDev is expected to have 3-4 crafts by 2015 (starting in late 2013/early 2014). Of course, that assume the 3/4 billion from the next CCDev bid. However the same ppl from above are working hard to block this. HOWEVER, it is possible that jumping the amount from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since I have been working at KSC during this whole mess I'll give my perspectIve. Bush did set the end date for the last shuttle launch. He then outlined the VSE and Griffen came up with the Constellation program. The problem is Bush's lack of leadership in getting the funding to get it done. It would have taken maybe 5 billion more a year which we would rather spend in Mideast wars.
When Obama came in he had a choice. Get more funding to get constellation going, restart the shuttle components production to
Re: (Score:3)
As you say, the money was spent in wars. I doubt obama could have stopped those with the flick of a switch once they had been started ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Since I have been working at KSC during this whole mess I'll give my perspectIve. Bush did set the end date for the last shuttle launch. He then outlined the VSE and Griffen came up with the Constellation program. The problem is Bush's lack of leadership in getting the funding to get it done.
Uh, no.
The problem is that NASA designed a program that would cost far more than the government was willing to give them.
If they'd built a Dragon-style capsule and put it on top of an Atlas or Delta, they'd probably have it in operation by now. Instead they wanted to build a capsule the size of a hotel and two new launchers of their own to launch it. Since the Apollo era NASA has often acted as though they have an infinite budget and then whined when their expensive plans get cancelled because there's no money for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, the US is going into debt to the tune of over a trillion dollars per year. We don't have a trillion dollars to spend on fancy spacecraft, or on unnecessary wars overseas. The solution is to get rid of both, not use one area of waste as an excuse to expand another area of waste. I'm fine with having a military that is large enough to keep somebody from launching an invasion of South Carolina, and that doesn't have to cost nearly what we currently spend.
The problem with your argument is that EVERYBODY
Re:Oh if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh if only (Score:4, Interesting)
During the 2008 presidential election, Obama's campaign website contained a plan to cancel Constellation to pay for a national daycare program.
Someone must have told him not to run on an anti-space platform, because this particular plank was later removed. Furthermore, his national daycare program never got off the ground.
However, other expensive initiatives were indeed passed (healthcare, various bailouts), and Obama did follow through and cancel the current NASA shuttle replacement, until "the technology exists" in 10 or 15 years.
The subsequent uproar from senators and congressmen in affected districts, supporters of the American space program, the press, and the general public then forced the Obama Administration to backtrack a bit, and they restored parts of the program including the actual capsule and a modified launcher.
However it is clear that Obama has never been a big supporter of manned space efforts. Bush's vision was to replace the Shuttle fairly quickly, but unfortunately he shut down the shuttle before actually having a replacement in the wings. This gave Obama an opening to not only shut down the publicly funded manned program and give it over to the private sector, but he could blame Bush for the whole mess.
Re:Oh if only (Score:4, Funny)
Hey it is all good so what if Obama killed the man space program, he closed Guantanamo, repealed the patriot act, and got our troops out of Iraq.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The other goals of the 'vision' Bush had have not been accomplished (the ISS is finished construction, but that was in the cards without his 'vision'), so his plan basically amounted to cancelling the shuttle without anything domestic to replace it with.
Only because NASA couldn't develop a capsule in four years; which SpaceX are doing for far less than the amount of money that NASA were given.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if only some other nation had something spaceworthy... Like a shuttle or so...
It's bad enough when our own program fails, but to leave it to an outside program to fail really sucks since there is no insurance on the failure, just money gone
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if only some other nation had something spaceworthy... Like a shuttle or so...
Or pull something out of Area 51...
Well that was neat. (Score:3, Insightful)
And the era of human spacetravel came to an end. Not from discovery or war or any disaster. But simple greed. Greed that says using our resources to take what others have or wasting those resources for entertainment are more important than the spread of the species.
Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes.
So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe. Be it a germ, comet, meteor, pole shift, solar flare, gamma burst, supervolcano or the unwise use of technology itself.
Perhaps if another species arises on this planet it will be a little more intelligent and not keep all their stuff in one place.
It's ok tho. It seems to be a common mistake given the emptiness of the universe. So don't sweat it too much. Go have a beer and some fast food, sit down and watch tv. That's whats important after all.
well the old shuttle was getting old and the newer (Score:2)
well the old shuttle was getting old and the newer spaceX stuff is now ready yet also Constellation was not going to be ready by 2011 any ways. If not for the Columbia disaster we may still be useing the shuttles to day.
Re: (Score:2)
well the old shuttle was getting old and the newer spaceX stuff is now ready yet also Constellation was not going to be ready by 2011 any ways. If not for the Columbia disaster we may still be useing the shuttles to day.
Correction, the Constellation program wasn't really going to be ready until 2015 at the earliest, and the more realistic projection was that it wouldn't be ready until 2020. There was a wish that perhaps the Ares I might have been ready this year (2011) when it was originally proposed, but there were a number of engineering issues that came up in part because they had an extended number of sections in the solid rocket stack where vibrations from the rocket would make the vehicle unusable for any astronauts
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, once the technological singularity happens we'll spread to space. Well, not we, but 'it' will.
Re:Well that was neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe.
The problem with that logic is that space isn't salvation, it's the worst kind of global disaster 24/7 all year long with no air to breath and temperatures that will kill you in a matter of minutes.
If you somehow find a way to survive in space, you can just apply those same technologies to earth and will be save for any disaster imaginable.
Re: (Score:2)
So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe.
The problem with that logic is that space isn't salvation, it's the worst kind of global disaster 24/7 all year long with no air to breath and temperatures that will kill you in a matter of minutes.
If you somehow find a way to survive in space, you can just apply those same technologies to earth and will be save for any disaster imaginable.
That is exactly the point. For long term survival we need technologies that allows us to survive i otherwise hostile environments. Human colonization of space is a great way to research and prove such technologies. if the whole human population on Earth is dead when a planet wide disaster strikes, it wouldn't matter much whether or not we have a dozen survivors in space but a space colony almost ensures that that will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
For long term survival we need technologies that allows us to survive i otherwise hostile environments. Human colonization of space is a great way to research and prove such technologies.
Actually, you're wrong there. Blasting stuff off into space tremendously accelerates the degradation of the only environment we can live in. Look at the greenhouse-gas emissions from a shuttle launch sometime, let alone the environmental impact of the space program as a whole.
We'd be far better off working on 'research on
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The shuttle's main propulsion is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Its exhaust product is water vapor.
Exactly. If I remember correctly, about 80% of the 'greenhouse effect' on Earth comes from water vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is also a greenhouse gas. Still, by far and away the largest "carbon footprint" of most current rocket launches is the construction of the thing in the first place, from the mines that have to extract the minerals to make the body of the rocket to the petroleum used to create the rocket fuel (or at least power the electrical generating plants used to make the fuel). Not to mention the thousands of workers making these vehicles over the years and their driving to and from their place of employment ev
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and since the hydrogen used comes from natural gas, IIRC, the Shuttle does add the water to the environment. But the water isn't up in the atmosphere all of the time, and the quantity from a shuttle launch was probably a lot more benign than the amount of CO2 we've dumped up there in the same period of time.
The SRBs have pretty nasty exhausts, but I don't think they're greenhouse gases. It would've been nice, though, if they had gone with the LRB option instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Blasting stuff off into space tremendously accelerates the degradation of the only environment we can live in.
So what? If the degradation "accelerated or not" is insignificant, which is the current case, then we have better things to worry about. Such as elevating everyone from poverty.
Re:Well that was neat. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the crude observation that previous large-scale expansions of the environments into which humans can live or significant, new ways to travel have resulted in economic growth and some degree of scientific progress.
Space activities are also interesting because they potentially can disengage economic activity from Earth-side resources. That would greatly increase the resources available to human civilization as well as employ people and generate wealth.
Even now, we have things that are of some value such as various precious and platinum group metals which could be mined in space or solar power generation. So there is a path to becoming "worth it", namely, driving down the cost of space access to the point where the stuff that we already know has value can be done.
Despite the hideously inefficient nature of the ISS, it does explore some risks of space activities (not just manned) and useful technologies, hence, is helping to reduce the cost of future access to space.
Re: (Score:3)
Your computer, the internet, refrigeration, cell phones, GPS, it's all based on the space program. The first IC was created by Texas Instruments, with NASA's Apollo program as the customer. Refrigeration in self contained systems was the result of ICBM research (you know, those big ass things they launch satellites with?), gotta keep that cryogenic gas cool now. I think I'll just leave off here before I have some kind of s
Re: (Score:2)
...Which species survived better, the ones with thick armour/defence or the ones who were more agile?
Umm.. Both?
Your point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there's no human-meaningful temperature in vacuum. Or space for that matter, being close enough approximation of it.
...Radiation? Oh, wait.. We tried that already. Money gets in the way :)
Re: (Score:3)
#3, getting the hell off this rock
By comparison to anywhere else in reachable space, Earth is not only not a rock, it's a six-star Hilton where everyone gets the Rock Star Suite and 72 virgins.
You're welcome to trade anywhere on "this rock" for any of the hells out there. Want to breathe some hot sulphuric acid? I hear Venus is nice this time of year. Lethal doses of radiation? The moons of Jupiter await your landing. Carbon dioxide frost and instant depressurisation? Mars is just the ticket.
Space is not what you saw on Star Trek. There are
Re:Well that was neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're deluding yourself if you think a few months or a few years delay in manned spaceflight would make one whit of difference. We're at least a century, if not more, from being able to create a 'colony' off planet that could survive (let alone prosper) prosper absent massive and ongoing support from Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes
Sob. This tiny blue planet
Sob. The inevitable.
Yeah, the inevitable is that you seem to have stopped your Prozac again. You know, with a little care and foresight this 4 billion year old rock can take care of us for a couple of billion more years. It's a nice planet. You might want to step outside and enjoy it.
carl i thought you were dead man (Score:2)
good news for you though. marijuana is now legal in some states.
and we have this little robot scuttering all over mars!
The end? Hardly: (Score:3)
I haven't noticed the Chinese scaling back. Granted, they're not as far along.
I think they still count as part of humanity, so human space travel wouldn't come to an end even if both the US and Russians stopped.
I don't like the possibility of mothballing at all but I think you're being a little breathless.
Re: (Score:2)
Uggh, I hate the neo-puritan attitude that every second of life needs to be sent doing something "useful" and that anything done purely for happiness is evil.
SpaceX to the rescue? (Score:3)
According to a prior slashdot article [slashdot.org], SpaceX is slated for another demonstration launch late November, this time docking with the ISS. Yes, it is a demo flight so, yes, you can't trust it to succeed. Still, is there any reason they cant load up the Dragon capsule with [critically required items]?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the only remaining return Soyuz module apparently is not fit to function untill next spring. So it has to return earlier, if no replacement arrives before that point. The hazard of a landing under winter (darkness) condition means that it cannot return later than November. Leaving the ISS with no return vehicle after November.
So not, SpaceX can not come to the rescue....
Re: (Score:3)
So not, SpaceX can not come to the rescue....
The Dragon capsule is being designed with human spaceflight in mind. That said, the crewed version of the Dragon is still under development as the launch escape system is still being worked upon as well as a few additional flights are being requested to test the equipment before crews are using that spacecraft. On top of that, I don't believe that the Dragon has an independent capability of docking to an unmanned space station and requires at least somebody in the station to use the construction arm to po
Russia vs US spaceflight (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia has had fewer astronaut fatailities [wikipedia.org] than the United States, and all of the fatalities Russia has had have been less recent than any of the US's fatalities (those occurring in space, not on the ground). Although it would certainly be a tragedy if people died on a Russian spacecraft, please remember that the reason we now rely on Russian spacecraft is because people died on American spacecraft, and NASA responded by retiring all of the spacecraft involved in the human space program (without developing replacements).
Re: (Score:3)
Only because they put fewer people into a spacecraft than we do. They've lost two crews, we've lost two crews.
Re: (Score:3)
There were also six NASA astronauts [wikipedia.org] who died flying the T-38 aircraft while performing official duties on behalf of NASA, and IMHO should be counted with any list of deceased astronauts in the service of the United States. Furthermore, the three crews mentioned in the above vehicles totaled 17 people, which should matter as larger vehicles ought to be safer vehicles too.
While perhaps a bit morbid, there is a List of all flight and training deaths [wikipedia.org] of astronauts on the wiki if you really want to get the full
Re: (Score:3)
So what? That's an emotional argument, not an engineering one.
Yet, Russia has had an ongoing series of accidents and incidents with it's flights - and that with both the booster *and* the spacecraft. If a US craft behaved in the same way, there would be screams from all quarters to ground it, fire t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds good to you because you lack reading comprehension, basic critical thinking skills, and seemingly completely lack any background knowledge relative to the matter.. The OP didn't base his argument on the number of fatal accidents (which is the engineering measurement that determines the safety record), but
Re: (Score:3)
Yet, Russia has had an ongoing series of accidents and incidents with it's flights - and that with both the booster *and* the spacecraft. If a US craft behaved in the same way, there would be screams from all quarters to ground it, fire the managers, and consider canceling it. Here, you don't even seem aware that they have even occurred.
And that's pretty much what the Ru
Re: (Score:2)
You seem really, really impressed by all the smoke and mirrors the Russians have created - and utterly unaware that accidents and incidents continue to happen apace. They have yet to ground the Soyuz capsule despite those continuing incidents.
Go get informed yourself.
A Soyuz crew would have survived (Score:2)
The capsule is aerodynamically stable, so they'd only have to wait for it to come back down and open the parachute. It would have been cold in Siberia, true - but they wouldn't be dead. Unlike people in a fragile Space Shuttle with no means to escape or airport to land.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The shuttle accidents did not occur in space - the shuttles were still in the air, and thus aircraft. So, no American space craft have had accidents, and I believe the American aircraft safety record is actually quite good compared to the Soviets.
Re: (Score:2)
Astronauts have accepted the danger and know the risk.
Try that in any other business and see how long you can survive before the government close you down.
"Sure they have a one in fifty chance of dying every time they go on a business trip, but they've accepted the danger and know the risk."
Other options (Score:2)
Is it a requirement that they land their ships where they do? Couldn't they, at least as a limited emergency measure, land them in a more temperate climate? I'm sure the United States would be happy to provide whatever assistance needed to land them at some appropriate location here (assuming there isn't a more reasonable location in Europe or Asia).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that without the Soyuz, there's no official way to get astronauts home during the winter. The Dragon isn't officially man-rated yet. That doesn't mean it probably wouldn't work anyway, but nobody at NASA is going to jeopardize his career by officially relying upon a Dragon to safely get astronauts home until someone higher up has given it the official stamp of approval.
Of course, if the necessary training could be completed in time, Elon could probably solve that problem by announcing that he
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so they need the Soyuz to return cosmonauts from the ISS. Is there a compelling reason why they have to land them in Kazakhstan?
Since the Soyuz lands on solid ground, I would think there are numerous places with nicer climates where they could land instead. Does it really make more sense to abandon the ISS for the winter instead of temporarily picking a landing spot in a nicer climate?
And, I suspect your prediction will turn out to be correct.
Skylab 2 (squandered abundance) (Score:2)
Just dunk the damn thing.. Wall Street isn't interested anyway.
Astronauts? (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't NASA's call (Score:3)
First, please note that this is not about supplying the ISS, it's about getting the crew there. NASA is worried about the safety of Soyuz.
Also, note that the flight of the Soyuz is not dependent on NASA. NASA doesn't get that call, although they could yank their astronauts from the vehicle, they can't ground it.
So, there is little to no chance that the ISS will be abandoned. I predict the Russians will keep a crew there, regardless of NASA's decision.
lol, worried about safety (Score:2)
where have those NASA safety people been for the past 20 years? we lost 14+ astronauts because of those clowns, now they are telling us the Russians are unsafe?
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? I would not assume that this is all it appears to be. We may want the Russians to do something (improve some system on the Soyuz, say) and may be using this for leverage.
In (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia, ISS abandons YOU!!
Note that if the station is left unmanned, it will be the end of an 11-year run of humans continuously in space, starting with the October, 2000 arrival of the Expedition 1 crew at ISS.
By the way, the Chinese are still flying their man-rated Long March.
To all the "the shuttle program sucked!" (Score:2)
Keep that in mind before saying how "useless" "overfunded" "wasteful" the NASA Shuttle and Constellation programs were.
there is a simple solution here (Score:2)
Now, apparently Russia and NASA aren't going to do the simple route. But what's more important? Working the bugs out of a launch system or keep the primary customer, a space station with a multi-billion dollar replacement cost from splashing?
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS, and manned spaceflight in general, is a pointless waste of money. Not a troll, just a (well-justified) opinion.
Would you care to share this justification? I am quite curious.
Re:Is that bad? (Score:4)
Humans need life support, robot do not.
I do not agree with the GP, but this is the usual reason.
If we are going to colonize a new planet at some point we will need to know how to get humans to this new planet. Practicing in earth orbit for how to keep humans alive and healthy in low || 0 G environments is useful science. About the only way i can see to test long term effects is to actually do the tests in a real low G environment with real people.
Re: (Score:3)
. Practicing in earth orbit for how to keep humans alive and healthy in low || 0 G environments is useful science. About the only way i can see to test long term effects is to actually do the tests in a real low G environment with real people.
0G = bad stuff. If we were really interested in colonization and establishing a presence in space, we would have built a spinning space station with artificial gravity. That's the only way we'll be able to endure long stays in space.
Re: (Score:3)
A spinning space ship to make artificial gravity for humans is a tricky and very expensive task. It would probably need to be much larger than the one in the movie 2001. There are issues of motion sickness etc that would need to be worked out
However, General Relativity states that a spinning system can be the same as gravity. It is the constant change in direction that does the trick. The same as centrifuges here on Earth work.
Re:Is that bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
For more fun and to find out how it works, check out the Spin gravity calculator [artificial-gravity.com].
In a nutshell, if you can't built a space station half a mile in diameter, don't even bother thinking about it.
Cool page, but it doesn't really agree with you. Note its quote:
In brief, at 1.0 rpm even highly susceptible subjects were symptom-free, or nearly so. At 3.0 rpm subjects experienced symptoms but were not significantly handicapped. At 5.4 rpm, only subjects with low susceptibility performed well and by the second day were almost free from symptoms. At 10 rpm, however, adaptation presented a challenging but interesting problem. Even pilots without a history of air sickness did not fully adapt in a period of twelve days.
This suggests anywhere from 1-2 RPM could probably be workable, suggesting a practical radius of as little as 0.15 miles, or diameter of 0.3 miles (~241/482 meters). Further, this assumes 1g. It's highly unlikely that 1g is necessary.
Mars is one of the most likely targets for extended-duration missions, and has a surface gravity of 0.376g. So let's say 0.4g. This lowers the diameter to as little as 180 meters (~0.11 miles).
If you bring it up to 400 meters in diameter, or less than 1/4th of a mile, you can have 1 1/3rd RPM at better than Mars-equivalent gravity.
Finally, diameter/radius can be a deceptive way of looking at this, since a basic spinning station need not be circular. A first pass need be little more than a room attached to a counterweight with cables.
Re: (Score:2)
Practicing in earth orbit for how to keep humans alive and healthy in 0 G environments is useful science.
The day when we'll need to put humans in 0 G for any length of time is hundreds of years away...doctors in that year will laugh at these primitive experiments.
Right now the ISS is a giant Albatross around the neck of NASA.
Why not change people to adapt them to space? (Score:2)
Let's face it, people aren't very good for survival in space.
We can't take much radiation,
we can't take low G,
we must have air, food, water
we can't take low temperature (or high!)
we don't live long enough to get anywhere in one lifetime at attainable speeds
Space is just irrevocably hostile to human life as we are now.
If we weren't meat-bags anymore, but rather something more durable, say, solid state based on silicon, we'd be way better adapted for space. Yes, we'll be very different, but the galaxy will b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can. That's how you fix things. You have two bills to pay, a $5000 bill costing you 30% interest per year, or a $2000 bill costing you 2% interest per year. You have limited funds. Which bill do you pay off first...
While the above was an analogy, in the case of government (mis)spending, which program do you cancel/fix first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The one owed to the creditor with the biggest, numerous and most violent goons.
Re:Is that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ensuring the continuity of life on Earth is a waste of money?
Re:Is that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment and others like it remind me of some wisdom gleaned from xkcd:
"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."
Right now, our grasp of space exploration is still quite limited. In my opinion, the state of space exploration today is to its potential as alchemy was to modern chemistry. Nonetheless, alchemy represented the first baby steps toward real chemistry. I think that a lot of people recognize this and look at space exploration with the same disdain that they would an institute of alchemy. They key difference is that we don't do alchemy anymore because we outgrew it as it evolved into modern chemistry. Space exploration hasn't evolved into something useful and profitable yet but if we don't keep at it, it never will. (Note, I'm NOT equating space exploration with the ability to merely put things into orbit.)
Re: (Score:2)
Space exploration hasn't evolved into something useful and profitable yet but if we don't keep at it, it never will. (Note, I'm NOT equating space exploration with the ability to merely put things into orbit.)
There is nothing wrong with space exploration, in fact that is what we should do more of, but space exploration doesn't need humans, humans are nothing more then ballast that increases the cost and troubles. Just look at how far we have come. Human exploration has brought us to the moon, robotics probes on the other side are already flying outside the solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."
There's sooooooooo much work to be done before we can think about going out into space. The ISS is a joke is this is its purpose... ...and it's funny how the stated purpose of the ISS keeps changing, it's almost as if it's got no real reason to exist!
Me? I say the ISS has done everything useful that it's going to do. Time to turn it into a museum for rich kids (who'll advance science much more by trying to get there than the ISS ever will).
Re: (Score:2)
"Class M" is a fictional Star Trek term. I think what you meant to say is that there are no nearby planets in the habitable zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... terraforming Mars.
a) With the current state of the world that's hundreds of years away at best. It would cost "billions and billions".
b) Gravity on Mars is nothing like gravity on the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Class M" is a fictional Star Trek term. I think what you meant to say is that there are no nearby planets in the habitable zone
Mars is in the habitable zone. So is Venus. And seriously, is there anyone on this forum who doesn't know what Class M means?
Re: (Score:2)
"Class M" is a fictional Star Trek term. I think what you meant to say is that there are no nearby planets in the habitable zone.
It's likely that "Class M" is more widely recognized than the scientific term "habitable zone". Even on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no reason to think we'll be sending humans other stars anytime in the near future.
Before we can even think about it we need a whole new propulsion system. We could be working on that with the money we save by abandoning the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS, and manned spaceflight in general, is a pointless waste of money. Not a troll, just a (well-justified) opinion.
If it was against terrorism or for the children, you'd be all over it.
As to pointless, what about war?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of our civilization then?
Who said there has to be a point? Look at my dog, curled up by my feet. She's happy, and she doesn't worry about her life having some sort of point. She lives for the moment and enjoys every day of her life. And one day she'll drop dead. We all will. And then what was the point, if you spent your whole life worrying about things you can't fix? Take care of the stuff you CAN fix. Just wishing the stars to be closer will not bring them closer. And I'm too old to believe in magic anymore. You would need magic
Re: (Score:2)
>Who said there has to be a point?
This is one of the most insightful things I've read in a long time.
So many people are worried about their existence having a "point". We need to relax and enjoy life a bit more.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste of money? Is living out a meaningless existence without exploring our universe enough for you? What's the point of our civilization then? Are we seriously to sit here on earth and never even try to push the boundaries of what we're capable of?
a) How does the ISS help with that problem?
b) What's a realistic time frame for exploring the universe?
Re: (Score:2)
We've lost our ability to dream, to do, and to accomplish.
But we haven't lost our ability to turn everything into a emerald green glass parking lot.
So everyone better humor us for a while longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove bloated federal government, which WASTES more money than anything, and watch space flight/travel take off...so to speak.
The "government" produces NOTHING.
You channeling Ron Paul or Ann Rand?
Just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear Somalia and Afghanistan will be launching their 100% infidel-free capsule any millennium now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler died in the 1970's on a moon base, and our pathetic monkey public think this is as far as we've gone?
Oh Yeah? If he's so smart, why did he order a bunch of Boeing 787's? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
right I will never live on another planet, but what about my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren? how will they have anything to build on if we don't start now.
as for things we don't need... Wars, professional sports, insurance claims adjusters, people who can't see past the end of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
"open the pod-bay doors! open the pod-bay doors! Crap. Stupid ISS doesn't speak Chinese."
Re: (Score:3)
"open the pod-bay doors! open the pod-bay doors! Crap. Stupid ISS doesn't speak Chinese."
The funny thing is, the docking collar that the Chinese use is compatible with the ISS docking collar [wikipedia.org]. They technically could do it. I wonder if the International Maritime Salvage laws would apply in space?
Re: (Score:2)
> What's to stop the Chinese from boarding and effectively taking over an unmanned ISS? What could we do about it?
Refuse to give them the login password to the life support system?
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. We DO owe them, now don't we?
Penis length measurement ensues; we won't leave it because we know it will be in demand. L:)