NASA Gets Smart 104
Shadrone writes "There is a article on CNN which discusses NASA thinking about sending up another U.S. module to serve as the main Service Module if Russia continues on its MIR first schedule." International cooperation sounds great on paper, but NASA got hosed - Russia took our money, then took some more, and NASA's finally giving up on them.
Nostalgia for an age that never existed. (Score:1)
A glimpse of an alternative reality, with spacestations, space tugs transferring cargo from streamlined space shuttles to nuclear shuttles between Earth, the Moon, and Mars.
I also recommend Stephen Baxter's three books on space travel. Voyage is an alternative history where Kennedy survives, the Shuttle is never made, but Mars takes precendence, with the first mission, captained by a woman, landing in 1986. It's a great book and would make a great movie. In Titan the Cassini probe returns a signal suggesting there may be life on Titan. After a second Shuttle crash, NASA is about to be wound up by an unfriendly creationist administration, so they gamble everything on one last hoorah, a hastily lashed up from shuttle and Apollo tech one way ten year mission to Titan. And in Moonseed Venus has exploded, and something, the Moonseed brought back by an Apollo is eating through the earth's crust. The only way to save Mankind is to move from the Earth to the Moon, terraforming the moon using the water at the poles...
These really are brilliant books, if you're interested in space travel and science fiction you should read them. Baxter applied to be an astronaut in 1991, but didn't get through. He does know NASA guys and the technology in these books is painstakingly researched with the help of NASA. (There's a brilliant quote on page 224. "If we'd been grown up about the risks, accepted our casualties, we'd be orbiting fucking Jupiter by now" - I suspect this may be drawn from life...) He knows this stuff, and that shows.
Go... Go buy them!
Re:Space Station: It's just Contractor Welfare (Score:1)
This pork-barrel spending crap has got to stop. It's not just NASA, it's everything. It wastes an unimaginable amount of money.
In terms of space, I think the best hope now would just be that private companies and non-profit groups promoting space exploration finally get somewhere - like Mars, for instance.
well, (Score:1)
but what I don't understand is,
I thought no one could "get smart"...wasn't there a tv show on for like 10 years (still running if you watch nic-at-night) about it? agent 86 and all ? what's the deal?
=)
-Peter
Re:On Russia (Score:1)
you know, most are happy with the propaganda they
hear.
Please do not blame the Russians (Score:1)
If you want to start a game of blame-of-the-week, please do not blame the Russians who took the money.
It was the US government who wanted to throw money to the Russians, thinking that money can buy everything.
Ir was the US government who practically threw money at the Russians, and if I were the Russians, of course I will take the money. I mean, who wouldn't?
Re:Respectful Disagreement (Score:1)
0g industries unfortunately did not live up to the hype. Not because something is wrong with a concept, but because it takes such an enormous time to wait for your turn to do an experiment. There is no evidence that ISS with its enormous cost will make such an experiment easier compared to current Shuttle. Can you imagine through how many layers of red tape you will have to cut before your experiment is approved for such expensive laboratory as ISS? Can you imagine how much time will it take? Meanwhile, test-correct-test again cycle on the Earth is much shorter and costs are much lower. This is why you can do thing on Earth now that were considered possible only in 0g.
And, BTW, ISS 0g enviroment is not likely to be that hot compared to free flying unmanned platforms.
Mars: there has been a huge progress in designing Mars missions. Check Zubrin Mars Direct or new Nasa reference plan (loosely based on Zubrin plan). It is much easier then seemed 10 years ago.
Finally, ISS is completely useless as staging area for Moon or Mars flights. Not only it will be in wrong orbit, it does not have any facilities (docking, fueling, etc...) for such a misssion.
Re:Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Re:Space Station (Score:1)
Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, right.. (Score:1)
My point was not about who can design a better engine. I am sure US has enough H1-B's and green cards to develop whatever they want. My point is that for the money paid, they got more than enough in return, and knowing NASA's own track record of delays (personally I have spent extra 2 years in grad school because of one of them - say about missed opportunities) all the current PR company is bullshit.
Re:Why the Russians are involved anyway (Score:1)
Me thinks, Russia should just screw that ISS affair and go try make some real money off its technology - not some crumbs from Goldin's table.
With all this Goldin's bullshit - did you ever pay attention what are the money involved? It is rudiculous - for all that hard earned knowledge Russian firms get few bucks. And that Goldin (NASA's boss) jerk is covering his ass blaming them.
delays.. Chandra was 2 years late.. Sattelite I got my thesis data from was 5(!) years late, sitting 3 months on the top of the booster in the end. Of course there are delays - especially if you want to screw people over using their current situation. If NASA paid honest money for what it got, it would have been done: projects like Sea Launch, or new engine for Lockheed's booster went just fine..Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
..will put them nicely into the raditation belts and kill all the crew in the next magnetic storm.
If you actually paid attention about Mars exploration projects you would notice that a great deal of attention is paid for radiation shielding from potential solar explotions.Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
so they didn't end up going crazy like the people on Mir.
Just where you got this bullshit from?
At Goddard SFC, I actually met one guy who have been there. He was the only normal person around.Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
As long as your out of the atmosphere it'll take a fraction of the fuel to get from here to there
It is MUCH cheaper to lift that extra fuel to low orbit. Consider - either two 20 ton launches to 300km, or two 3 ton launches to 36000km - for the same price. Say nothing, as I mentioned below, that you would not want to work for months inside radiation belts.. Believe me, you would not.Re: (Score:1)
Tempramental Rockets (Score:1)
In any case, this misses the point, because you need a rocket anyways to get up to your middle ground.
Re:Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Actually, the ISS is being built by several different countries. The US is by far the biggest contributor (in terms of both money and hardware), but the European Space Agency (run a bunch of different European countries, i can't remember off hand how many) is building a pressurized module or two, Japan is building a pressurized lab module, Canada is building a big robotic arm, even Brazil is contributing some money.
There are really two, maybe three reasons why Russia is being brought into this. Probably the biggest reason is simply to keep Russian rocket scientists employed in Russia rather then employed in Iraq or North Korea (or even India or Pakistan). The US (understandable) wants to keep orbital rocket technology away from as many countries as possible (orbital rockets = ICBM technology). The other is Russian experience in building and maintaining space stations, and in long duration human missions to them. The US has only built one space station before, Skylab, while the Russians have built 8 (Salyut 1 through 7, and Mir). Thirdly the Russians also have a lot of experience in launching heavy payloads (they currently have the largest rocket in active service (largest in that it can carry the heaviest loads into orbit): Energia (actually, i'm not sure this rocket is still in service, but a few years ago it was the largest, ... originally designed to boost the Soviet space shuttle clone into orbit, it was later adapted to launch pieces of Mir).
michael is an amateur (Score:1)
Re:On Russia (Score:1)
Dreamweaver
Re:On Russia (Score:1)
Personally i think it's about time. No offense and i hate to sound nationalist, but like you said russia's in no condition to be doing much of anything in space right now.. but i don't think that's a reason to hold up the whole station. Let the countries with the money for it pony up with the parts and russia can supply us what heavy lifting rockets it has already.
Dreamweaver
Re:On Russia (Score:1)
But, thanks to short sighted bearaucrats, and others, budgets are slashed, pointless wars are fought, etc. We need to get our sights set straight...
This planet is only going to last so long, and you think that solving problems with wars is going to solve it? No... might solve some, but ultimately not all.
How about telling factories to cut pollution? They'll still do it, and what's to stop other countries around the world from doing it. Granted it'll help, but not solve the problem.
And what are we doing with our money?
The FSB, in Russia, is requiring ISP's to implement black boxes, so they can watch every little bit of Internet traffic. (see today's Slashdot)
China is firewalling the whole country, and monitoring all transmissions in and out. (public knowledge)
US is, well, screwed up in general (and this from a citizen!). We have a country that cheers a president on who bops whatever girl in a skirt walks by (over 50% of the country wanted him to stay, and be a role model for our children, even after he did Monica). (Let's count: Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, etc... all these women that say he was with them, and he denies it on all but one, the one who had overwhelming proof. Who else thinks that it wasn't just this one he was with?)
Congress chucks all of NASA's funding, except for a small portion... where do you think most of it is going? I tend to think these rich Senators and congressmen didn't do as much work as the rest of us would for that kind of money. Then, there's the occasional "Let's tax the entire Internet, even if they're not in our country, for doing just about anything" bill proposal.
Maybe I'm thinking the wrong way, but the whole world has its priorities mixed up. Think outward, not inward.
Pieces and parts (Score:1)
Re:International is good... (Score:1)
The Russians have a lot of pride in Mir, and they have a lot to contribute to a successful space station. But if their participation is being reduced, then of course they will lose enthusiasm. Things rarely go as smoothly as one would hope, especially when you are breaking new ground. Of course delays always cost money. But in the end it will be worth it to take the time to work through the problems of the moment and do it the right way, with full Russian participation, so the citizens of all participating countries can be proud of this cooperative effort.
You must be kidding - was Re:Blame Reagan. (Score:1)
Re:Commercially Developed Space Facility (Score:1)
This would give me the feeling to have participated above average in something that I think is good and important. At least _I_ would pay for this. A participation in the ISS may even make commercial sense - but this is not really important.
The (to me) funny thing is that I am not given a chance to spend some extra $s for my techno-beliefs. Or am I?
To make this clear - I am not proposing private companies to invest in space exploration but to have the the NASA and equivalents offer shares in (otherwise underfunded?) projects.
Seen several months ago in Popular Science (Score:1)
I think...
The article mentioned use of an inflatable module to replace the Russian module if it was not available. The module's design allows it to be lightweight and easily transportable, you just put it in orbit and fill it with air.
Other uses of the module's design would be on a Mars or Moon mission for a temporary residence.
Re:Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Re:Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Re:International is good... (Score:1)
Agreed.
In the abstract that might be true. With the europeans in particular. But in this case, Reagan's original plan for a station was LARGER that the current station, and projections predict would have probably cost the american taxpayers less.
Even though the station is supposed to be completed by then. I don't think we can wait for them, as evidenced by NASA's response.
Good Decision (Score:1)
Whew, was afraid I would be a first post.
The idea of international cooperation was a good one in theory, but the Russians have no money, no resources. There is no sense in continuing to rely on them for the sake of international relations if it will impede the progress of science.
Notwithstanding screwups with the Mars missions, it is a (depressing) fact that if the space station is to succeed, the best chance of success is if the U.S. goes it mostly alone. I am happy to have the government spend my tax dollars for space exploration.
Re:michael is an amateur (Score:1)
Re:Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Their economy (Score:1)
The money being lost in an attempt to prop up their part of the ISS would probably serve better in building up the base of their economy to support a future space program.
NH
A sated man cannot understand a hungry man. (Score:1)
Sometimes tough love is the best kind of love for a dysfunctional family, which is what Russia is now.
Giving money to a thoroughly corrupt and criminal system is the same as giving a liquor store gift certificate to an alchoholic. It only empowers the evil.
Perhaps someday Russia will improve, but it won't be soon.
Old News (Score:1)
Russian participation is primarily to learn from the Russian's experience and keep the scientists working.(many have said in the interest they don't go work for other countries the US doesn't like very much)
Russia has always been a junior partner because they don't have any money to pay for anything. They aren't however a junior partner in the first four crews to go up to the station. The first four missions are already named and include 6 astronauts and 6 cosmonauts.
Problems with the service module are not because they are dedicating resources to MIR. Before this MIR stuff came out they were already a year behind schedule. Future participation may be troubled. But so what. So my point is NASA didn't get smart - they've always been smart. They're just figuring out if they need to follow through with thier contingency plan.
Late-Breaking News (Score:1)
Why Russia??? (Score:1)
Re:Space Station (Score:1)
Re:Space Station (Score:1)
Re:ISS == pointless (Score:1)
ION?!?!?! (Score:1)
for ion thrusters to work you need a whole lot of momentun in the desired direction and then you engage those thrusters. what they do is they "push" the space ship with the force of a sheet of paper droping on your desk, but at a constant rate for a loooong time. eventually, when you talk abou years of travel, you get a huge gain by reaching very fast speeds at very low acceleration very economically.
Why ISS does not suck (Score:1)
on Why the ISS:
Haven't you guys ever been involved in a research program? well then you know how it works. You're not sure what will come of it, but you know the potential for discovering or inventing the next world-changing new thang is biting your behind. So you set your mind to it, then you come across this HUGE roadblock: how do i convince the board to fund it??? then you start working on this ridiculous attempt at making it look profitable (and you know that's the only way to sell it to them dumbasses) and start coming up with these far fetched best case scenarios just to get people interested until they're convinced they want it. at that point you better hurry, cause you know you have NO arguments for the short term profit seekers to sustain your resarch and at the next budget discussion they'll look at you first for cuts. Sounds a lot like NASA / ISS / Congress doesn't it? Bottom line is, we don't know what good will come out of the ISS, we just konw a lot will, so please stop asking what for and start asking what next!
on What about the money:
Guys, for the world's only superpower, your NASA has been VERY dumb. can't blame them though, they're just a bunch of darn good scientists lacking just a liiiitle bit of comercial sense... You can't operate a multibillion dollar operation like NASA subject to budget ups and downs like that!!! my point is, if you really look at it, NASA has been the US's cash cow, you just don't realize it!... Most of the great things that came out of the US (except for Denise Richards, and even she has irish parents) are related one way or another to NASA's research. WTF aren't they making money out of it!!!! my guess is that NASA can become self sustained if it would profit from its own inventions/discoveries. And don't give me that that would hurt the economy, your companies are taking the result of these findings, slightly changing it and then patenting it anyways. Would they have started 30 years ago they would probably have a ring around the earth and A.C.Clarke's space elevator by now!
on why internatinoal
First of all now one could have predicted that Russia would be on such chaos when the USSR broke up, at that time everything looked like a Cisco TV comercial. Besides, they do know a lot from their MIR space program and anyone trying to undermine that is just wrong. Also, if the project is truly international (now that can come to question) then it's a whole lot harder to get it sliced and diced by congress, they were just being smart with your money.... wether it's the right way to do it or not, i think it was the ONLY way to do it, or do you think congress would have wrote the $50Billin check for the new Freedom all over again?!?!?! c'mon..
on the US module threat
Man, that threat is not aimed at Russia, it's not even a threat, that's just a stunt to keep taxpayers happy! don't you see it, the module is in the ISS schedule. the module was planned. the module is built (with some very few modifications planned) and the money to launch it is in the piggy bank. they just moved the launch date back 6 months after it was late 2 years. DUH! I bet the russian's already know about the announcement. all that does is say, well we're not REALLY wasting your money on overhead and personnel due to being late because of russia's problems, we're just moving money around.. BS.
on Mir vs ISS
If Britain came up with a plan to build a new and improved space shuttle, based on international participation with the US involvement, but Britain would be the leader and would call the shots, and there was a very small price of entrance: that the US would stop all resources going to the current space shuttle program so that it can dedicate itself to the new British project. what would you do???????? kudos to Goldin and the others for pulling off that huge diplomatic effort and getting as much as they have so far. The Mir works as much as the shuttles do, with some majer setbacks just like the Shuttle have had (Challenger, wiring problems), they're both pretty much old and in serious overtime and they only have money for one similar program at a time (just like NASA). you're both damn proud of your stuff too. You should be sending thank you notes. If you ask me, the US should have built it and sent it with russian's consulting and then sell it or rent it to them, but they had no way of knowing back then anyways.
So much for the conspiracy theories and the political grand schemes. it's usually a whole lot simpler and real than that.
now on with the flaming...
Nasa has it all wrong! (Score:1)
WTF?? #$%& USA Hegemony again! (Score:2)
Russia took our money, then took some more, and NASA's finally giving up on them.
WTF?? The USA is complaining when it leverages its own hegemony over the unipolar political landscape to crush whomever it wants? Slashdot needs to grow up and learn some journalistic intergrity here. Bias is not looked upon very kindly and your shareholders will realize it in a hearbeat. Try looking at the other side of the story. Jealous with Mother Russia's technological leadership in long-duration spaceflight, the USA decides to use its money and corrupt power to broker an end to the successful Mir program. How is Russia stealing money from the USA? If only we had less scruples, we could beat the USA at its own evil game. Perhaps if the USA spent as much money educating their children as they spend buying votes in Latin America, they will not need to peddle their influence elsewhere.
...and if problems are related... (Score:2)
Re:...and if problems are related... (Score:2)
I don't have the weight of our Service Module in front of me, but I don't think NASA would make such a hollow threat unless it were true and we had the capability to launch our SM.
Why not? It's not like they are going to actually launch it -- they will wait until Proton will be ready (it definitely will take less time than building a new module) and will demand that their module will be launched, even if at that time Russian one will be already in orbit. Not really useful technically but makes them look better politically.
The new (almuninum-lithium) Super Lightweight External Tank goes a long way to launching heavier payloads.
It definitely will be more expensive than Proton, and still unlikely will put shuttle into a different class of space vehicles. In addition to that there will be a problem, how to attach that thing to the shuttle and keep the whole thing balanced.
Re:On Russia (Score:2)
The point here isn't that we're expecting russia to do something we shouldn't, it's that russia has been stalling and stalling saying "Okay, okay, no problems comrade, just a little more time and we'll have the module ready. And how about a little more cash while we're at it?"
How often NASA itself manages to fit into originally planned cost and do everything without delays? And was there ever as heavy as this criticism of NASA for anything short of blatant mission failure?
Re:You must be kidding - was Re:Blame Reagan. (Score:2)
Don't blame Russian economy either -- I lived there, and it worked just fine until governmental control was dismantled (1988-91). The problem was entirely political -- government managed to piss off intellectual elite so much, and corruption was so widespread, that nothing short of complete reconstruction of political system ("reconstruction" => "perestroika" in Russian) seemed to be sufficient to keep the society together, yet economy worked fine just like it worked for decades. When political changes started, government simply screwed up too much to do any kind of transition to society that was supposed to be more free and democratic in both politics and economy -- at that moment economy started going downhill very fast and came to the current sorry state.
NASA: Give it up. (Score:2)
One way it could make sense would be if corporations fund it, in exchange for research of manufacturing in a low-G environment... Once the doors are opened, we would likely see consumer demand for these products, which would spur more private funding, etc.
Hopefully, NASA will wake up to the fact that the only people to have witnessed man's walk on the moon are all over thirty years old.. Could NASA put another man on the moon? Let's forget about manned Mars missions for a bit, and let's go back to the moon, it's a lot closer...
<rant>
And while I'm on the topic, I cringe every time any press release about Mars includes any comments to the fact that there 'may have been life' there. Who cares? Just trying to drum up NASA interest in the drooling media-sheep in the US...
</rant>
$150 million down the drain (Score:2)
Re:generalizing about "russians"? (Score:2)
Russia is hard to understand even for a Russian. No wonder everyone here says "Rossiya umom ne ponyat" (Russian cannot be understood by reason).
About downhills. "Khotelos kak luche a poluchilos kak vsegda". (Wanted the best but got the usual as always)
There is one such platoform. Russia and Ucrania had a big role on it. And it was built during the current state of affairs.
Sorry but is not maybe because corruption and graft have lowered downhill? Frankly things are much better now. With exception of a few big towns that seem to run the other way...
Man, this is Russia. To get into it you must be a Russian. Even if your father was a jew, your mother a german, your roots from China and you have lived among Papuasians. "To be a Russian you must become a Russian".
Yes there is corruption, crime, moneylaundering, the economy is in bad state and democracy is still far from being perfect. But Russia still lives. 17 of August 98 passed by and we are still living and running on. Chechnya is in its second war and this time we are going to kick these bandits outta here. Yeap everyone thought that cutting IMF credits would "reason" Russia but it is now that Russia is pushing the new phase of the Space Program.
Personally I live much better than 10 years ago. And many of my colleagues have noted a serious lifwe improvement since 1995. My living conditions are not the same as in America. But they are not worse or better. They are _different_. Please note this. We are _different_. we would be glad to work with you on ISS but it seems that politicians and some burrocrates are messing a lot around here. That is there main reason why ISS is not going further. Please understand, can you accept the command of someone that thinks "my country is a worldleader and yours a banana republic". Meanwhile you carry almost 20 years of round-the-clock space experience and no one has nearly such experience.
Frankly I know what will be ISS if such thing happens. A wholescale mess. In Siberia I have worked with a few westerners. One thing I remember. Panick in their eyes when, in the middle of a serious problem, someone cries "I have an idea". Yeah the crazy Russians decided once again to "go through the ass"...
Re:WTF?? #$%& USA Hegemony again! (Score:2)
I didn't see anyone claim that Russia is stealing money from the USA. They agreed to build a module for an international space station, we gave them funding, they missed their deadline, we gave them more funding. If they don't meet their next deadline, we won't give them more funding, and we will continue the project with our own back up module. In light of the fact that Russia continues to spend money on its own space station and doesn't seem commited to the ISS, isn't it reasonable to call them on it?
No one forced Russia to participate in the ISS. Do you think international cooperation is wrong?
Re:Yeah, right.. (Score:2)
They just never got anywhere
That's exactly my point. NASA/DOE and Co just had 4 crashes in a year, resorting to buying engines/boosters from competitors, while spitting PR bullshit on how Russia is setting back ISS. AFAIK, it was US people who were positevely insisting on skipping November window for launch after Proton crash. (Though Proton still has a better record than Delta's say nothing latest Titan)NASA bought shitload of know-how for peanuts - the money Russia got will not buy a toilet seat for shuttle -- and still spinning it as if Russians are only ones to blame for delays.
beause the Rusians haven't figured something out.
Why is then they were thinking on adopting Russian spacewalking suit design?Knowing a lot of guys from NASA, and some Russian engineers now working there this PR spinmastering makes me sick..
Re:A sated man cannot understand a hungry man. (Score:2)
(i) If the government can't keep its people fed, there will be revolution. Remember that; they have a century-old tradition of it in that part of the world. In case the younger generation should forget (unlikely), there are still a number of Russians alive who remember 1917.
(ii) If there is revolution it might put Russia and its neighbours back in the hands of the Communists but judging from recent events I'd say it's far more likely that the Nationalists would take over. There's a lot of racism in Russia, particularly anti-Semitism; what with the need for scapegoats and economic collapse It wouldn't be much different from the Nazi Germany of the 1930's.
(iii) If Moscow loses it's grip, the Federation would break up. Russia would probably invade some of its neighbours to take back what they see as rightly belonging to them.
(iv) Not only Russia but several present members of that Federation are nuclear states. If basic necessities were scarce, and the people desperate enough, and those states were at war with each other, those weapons might well get used. Apart from the radioactive contamination of the rest of Europe, there is a significant risk that other powers would get involved and that the conflict could not be contained.
(v) Even if Russia managed to survive all of that without starting a local nuclear war, it would necessarily be a much tougher, more militant, fiercely Nationalist Russia than we see now. A Russia once again in total control of the region's resources, and just as much of a threat to the West as the old 1960's USSR if not much more so.
(vi) Apart from all of that, if Russia doesn't ally itself to the West in the long term then we always run the risk that they will ally themselves with China, with potentially disastrous results for the West.
If the only way to avoid these risks is to pump money into Russia until their democracy matures and they manage to get their economic act together, then so be it. We have no choice really. The Russians know it, too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:International is good... (Score:2)
This is an interesting argument. Can you provide specific references to back it up?
Two important points:
1. We can't count on congressional budgeting for anything, much less an "American Only" space station. Without international political pressures and the political dimension in general, do you really think it likely that congress would have continued to provide funding for a project which was certain to go over budget from day one? (This is, after all, the first time we've done this, and the first time anyone has done something like this on this scale. I don't know anyone who expected it not to run into unexpected glitches and cost overruns.)
2. The political dimension should not be dismissed so quickly simply because we all, justifiably, feel a great deal of contempt for politicians. In addition to building an important scientific platform we are building social and political infrastructure and institutions to facilitate internation cooperation which I think can be expected to lead to cooperation in other areas once the IIS is a success. In a time where Austria, birthplace of Hitler, has chosen (democratically, no less!) to move back to the extreme right, when Yugoslavia has torn itself apart in genocidal madness reminiscent of World War II, when Russia stands in political and economic turmoil the consequences of which are known to know on, etc. etc. we need all of the stabalizing factors in the international milieu we can get. The ISS is a small, but physchologically (and politically) very important. Of course, the UN, which we've finally begun paying our dues to again, is a much bigger and more important component, but that is a tirade for another day.
The political arc of ISS (Score:2)
ISS is first and foremost a politically-based program that is underwritten by Congress for reasons other than advancing science. It may well help advance science in certain ways, but it explicitly will not help us get to Mars, except in generating more reams of data on weightless living.
What ISS is, mainly, is a prototype international PROJECT that only incidentally happens to be an engineering feat at 212 nautical miles above sea level.
The Interim Control Module was first proposed a long time ago, and initial construction took place last year (converting some prior classified project's equipment that had never been launched). The schedule was revised many times to allow for the ICM launch if the Russian control module wasn't ready by N; N has come and gone and been reset a couple of times since then, for both US and Russian reasons (shuttle wiring, Proton launch failure).
NASA, all things being equal, would readily launch the ICM in a New York minute if it would keep the ISS project funded and running. Unfortunately, the decisions about such things are really made at a very high political level, and launching the ICM would be a major embarassment for Russia. The White House doesn't want that, so the ICM will <b>only</b> be launched if there's <b>no other way</b> to prevent the existing pieces (Zarya, Node I) from de-orbiting on their own.
NASA was always smart about this; their hands were tied. If you'd like to know more about how the ISS came to be a US/Russian/European/Japanese project, I suggest reading Brian Burroughs's _Dragonfly_ (about the Shuttle-Mir astronauts, including the fire and collision).
----
ISS == pointless (Score:2)
Re:ISS == pointless (Score:2)
International is good... (Score:2)
It does not make sense to NOT use the resources of the many other highly advanced space agencies (inclding Russia, Japan, and Europe) and their supporting economies to build a large platform orbiting the earth. If the US did it alone it would be smaller, less diverse, and while still invaluable, ultimitely a burden on the US economy.
The problem with the ISC and Russia is not anything technical, it is Russia's lack of economic and political stability. It will be some time before those issues resolve themselves, but I'm sure they will. I think that within the next 5-10 years Russia wil be strong both internally and economically and will be a valuable partner.
It will help when MIR finally hits the Deck too...
So does anyone know what is wrong with the Proton rockets?
Re:...and if problems are related... (Score:2)
I like the thought that NASA might go ahead and toss their unit up anyway. It would be nice to have backup services in place.
Re:michael is an amateur (Score:2)
I'll do my best to keep up this level of amateurishness and boneheadedness in the future. Thanks for your input.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:...and if problems are related... (Score:2)
See http://www.pbs.org/spacestation/ for details on a pbs special which aired a few weeks back about the international space station and this exact problem.
Doug
Re:Yeah, right.. (Score:2)
Keep in mind NASA is still running the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has lead the way in ummm... wait a sec they don't don't do jet propulstion research but they did do lots of other cool things like perl.
A Saturn V launch was a damn impressive sight.
In the end, who really cares if we finish it? (Score:2)
That would help the space program, and have a chance at being worth the money.
There are dangers though... (Score:2)
Space Station (Score:2)
It makes me angry.
Re:...and if problems are related... (Score:2)
I don't have the weight of our Service Module in front of me, but I don't think NASA would make such a hollow threat unless it were true and we had the capability to launch our SM.
The new (almuninum-lithium) Super Lightweight External Tank goes a long way to launching heavier payloads.
Count on it being true.
generalizing about "russians"? (Score:2)
it seems (from somes russians i've had the pleasure of meeting) that russia is kinda in a state of economic upheaval, with many power factions, some of which are nothing but corrupt organized criminals.
it wouldn't suprise me if the people doing the organizing had the best of intentions, but it went downhill from there.
isn't there multinational effort to launch sattelites froma floating platform in the pacific? based in long beach or therabouts? that project went well, but i think it was organized and built before the current state of Russia.
one person i respect very much used to visit russia twice yearly, but stopped two years ago; he could no longer stand the corruption and graft everywhere.
it's a shame to see such a wondrous nation fall so low, but "mother russia" has a long history of these cycles.
maybe a nice thread would be "How does a country recover when it sinks into chaos and corruption, as the United States did a few times in the earlier part of this century? What can be done to help them? These are people we're talking about, a lot of good people.
Why ISS sucks (Score:3)
(Besides he became the first time-traveller
That Russian Space Project is suffering a lot of drawbacks is a fact. And that Mir has to be sent to ground sooner or later is also a fact.
However when NASA is playing a lot of negativisms all over that state of Russian cosmonautics, when Russians only hear that they have crap, dissidency and corruption, when they only hear ISS rulez and Mir sucks, then they start seriously thinking.
Frankly the problem is not only money. It is more a political problem than financial. Yes there is crap, dissidency and corruption. But there is a piece of metal and electronics that's still working after 15 years and Russians are damn proud of it. Because after the all mess that is passed through the thing still works. And Russians should be damn proud for it. Because after all attempts made by other countries have FAILED. Note: FAILED. And one reason for ISS was the fact US had big troubles to proceed it on their own. Remember where project "Freedom" was ending into when people arised ISS idea.
I am pretty sure that Russians could have ended ISS module long ago. Among all the crap, dissidency and corruption they have. However when some distinguished American citizens made a lot f silly comments about ISS and specially about some "foggy" leading role of the US on it, then it is natural that there is no money for ISS. Russians are not rich but also not stupid. They will not make a favur to the US and then get kicked of Space while Mir is laying 2 kilometers under water.
Note that the last of the least on ISS started when these "foggy" comments appeared on mass media and when all over we heard about how Mir sucks to the bottom of the heart. Naturally Russian started thinking. And now they made a choice. Resources dedicated to ISS are being redirected to Mir. Why? Because they are not willing to build "Freedom" station to US. They cooperated with the US as long as ISS was a cooperation enterprise among several countries. It is no more.
If anyone thinks that Russians are in this way buuilding their own grave then beware. These guys have surprised everyone everytime. Just in case remember that Mir II is still on the ground... I wouldn't be very surprised if suddenly they took it, made a wholescale refurbisment and sent it to Space. They are smart to deal with resources.
Yeah, right.. (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, right.. (Score:3)
What about the RL10 and SSME?
NASA and the USAF have not invested enough money in new ELVs and engines. That said, the Delta and Atlas-Centaur have excellent success rates. The Russian engines are attractive because they invested the time and money in developing improved liquid fuel engines, where the US military has concentrated on solid fuel technology.
Re:...and if problems are related... (Score:3)
Incedently, the ICM is not an original piece of hardware. It is based on a US military satellite despensing upper stage. The ICM modifications have been under development the at least a year now.
An on Proton's weight lifting ability: My source says a modern proton can throw 22,000 kg. to a 185 km orbit, whereas a shuttle can throw 24,400 kg. to a 204 km orbit... So weight isn't really a problem. As always with the shuttle, volume is the real limiter.
Commercially Developed Space Facility (Score:3)
More Stories (Score:3)
Washing ton Post [washingtonpost.com]
BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
Why the Russians are involved anyway (Score:3)
Problem is, the Russians are getting (justifiably? who knows) annoyed at the larger and larger role the US is playing in the ISS - they're being forced into the position of junior partner. Then they realise that they have a perfectly good (well, operational, at least) space station in orbit that's been there for god knows how long, and exactly why do they need the ISS in the first place?
Now that they've got corporate buyers interested in Mir, they'd rather go and do their own thing.
On Russia (Score:4)
As much as I respect my motherland, I must admit that the US is consistently underestimating just how f@$*ed up it is right now and will be over the next several decades.
Re:Space Station: It's just Contractor Welfare (Score:5)
This is wishful thinking on a number of fronts. First, the space station program pre-dates Ronald Reagan's first term by many years, so he gets no credit other than that due for taking a space program that was looking at the moon and Mars and trapping it in low earth orbit for the next 50 years.
Second, I had the dubious honor of being one of the first members of the first contract ever awarded for the construction of the station. I can tell you from long, painful, inside experience that the space station was never intended to be anything more than an aerospace contractor welfare program during the downsizing of the US military and the end of the Cold War.
The large aerospace companies, especially Boeing and Lockheed, staffed these contracts to the gills with all of their cast-off, marginal, low talent employees in the early stages because the only work product was a mountain of documentation and anybody can create documents by the pound. All their talented people were still on lucrative military contracts.
Later, when it was time to bend real metal to make the station, NASA found that these programs were now all being run by these marginal bo-bos that had been promoted to senior project management over the preceding years. Coupled with repeated cuts in NASA's budget by Congress, NASA was stuck trying to build the station with 3rd string management, no dollars, and no public support.
The only choice they had was to bring in ESA, NASDA, Canada, and later, Russia, to get the thing built. It was never driven by some lofty ideal of "international cooperation." It was simple economics. We needed to suck cash out of the International partners to be able to maintain the level of contractor staffing and inefficiency that had been created around the station program in its first five years.
You can take it to the bank that no contract was ever scaled back below its original award amount, no prime contractor was ever fired, and no award fees were cut nor penalties assessed when the original launch date for the first station components ended up slipping from 1991 to 1998. A seven year slip with a 250% cost overrun has to get funded somehow. Thanks Europe, Canada, and Japan!!!
In this whole game, Russia was the only nod to an actual attempt at "international relations". If we hadn't paid money to all those ex-Soviet rocket scientists, they'd be working for hard currency in some bunker in Iraq or North Korea, building indigenous ICBM technology for countries that could give a rat's ass about international treaties against lobbing a nuke into NYC. That we got access to their robust LEO launch technology was a nice plus, too, since the flying the shuttle only 8 times a year meant that we could never construct, much less resupply, the completed station ourselves.
Don't throw too many rocks at the poor Russians for dropping the ball. You should squarely place ALL of the blame on NASA and Congress. The latter made the project 100's of times more difficult by gutting the budget and demanding pork barrel deals that moved key station tasks to 46 different states instead of keeping the work centralized. The former ensured a fiasco by mismanaging its contractors, allowing an outrageously inefficient distribution of work to over 150 individual contractors in 46 states and 15 foreign countries, and never articulating a clear vision of the station's value to the US people.
So, explain to me again how doing ourselves would have worked...?
Respectful Disagreement (Score:5)
The benefits of the space station are minimal compared to the cost to build it.
No offense, Joseph, but this is the same arguement that's been raised since Apollo 11 got home. The basic fact is that we don't have the slightest inkling what could come out of the ISS, especially with the interest in using it as a R&D platform. If the earth-bound Apollo program gave us microcircuitry, tennis shoes, and several insights in both astronomy and medicine, such as reliable CAT scans and better treatments for stroke victims, what might a space-based program develop that we never expected? With the increased freedom of 0g, and the large amount of postulated technology that needs only the correct research environment, especially with building materiels and pharmecuticals, the ISS could bring home a hell of a lot more bacon than a few shots of the martian plateaus.
Now, I am not knocking the Mars programs, and dearly wish to see a man walk upon Mars in my lifetime, but realistically, we need stepping stones, and the ISS is one big step. On the issue of the Mars or other intersystem probes, wouldn't it be nice to have a place to launch them from that didn't involve extrememly tempramental rockets? (If memory serves, 5 payloads were lost last year when Titan III boosters exploded? And I think 2 of those were commercial?)
Could NASA put another man on the Moon?
Probably. But if we want regular missions and expansion, once again the ISS or something similar would be a good waystation/resupply point. Especially with the growth of several movements who want to see a permanent presence on the moon in the next 15-20 years. (That's something that seems to wax and wane every few years, hopefully it will stay high this time.)
Finally, yes, NASA has been harping about Martian life, but the fact that they've been getting more interest from the public lately, even with their screw-ups, is a good thing. When was the last time you saw Newsweek do a NASA cover piece before their spread on the Mars Lander the week we lost contact? Personally, aside from a MIR issue, I can't remember one since Challenger. The fact is, NASA needs more public support if it's going to have a prayer of getting more funding, and if mentioning the possibilty of 100,000,000 year old fungi on Mars and Pyramids at Cydonia Planitia is what gets them that funding, then that's what they have to do to accomplish all these wonderful dreams we have for them.