Houston, We have a Space Station! 151
This submission just came in:
flufffy writes: "Another module, the Russian Zvezda ("Star"), has just joined the two existing ISS modules up in orbit. The station is now plenty big enough to be seen from the Earth's surface. But where exactly should you look? NASA's SkyWatch, available here, shows you. After you've download the small 300k app., it asks you for your Lat/Long and the satellite you're interested in (including shuttle re-entries), before calculating when and where you can see it next. You can print out the data as a sky chart, with constellations marked! As the ISS seems to be around the equator at the moment, it's low in the southern sky for U.S. skywatchers. Still, the program showed me where to look to the south of Sagitarrius, at about 1 a.m. on the morning of July 26th. This is really cool, and will only get more fun as the ISS gets larger and more visible."
Get your facts straight (Score:1)
Last time I went through the Hab module mock-up, the steel tubes that the ceiling was attached to had edges so sharp that you would cut your scalp open if you bumped into them with more than minimal force. And then there were the covers over the electric lights. They had no holes for air circulation. Great for cauterizing that scalp wound.
Could these details be fixed? Sure. But they point to a critical lack of attention to practical details, and that is something else.
Re:New Led Zeppelin Album!! (Score:1)
Somebody moderate this up. This is slightly on topic - of flying things destined to go down in flames! :)
Funny you should mention the moon.... (Score:1)
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Slashdot moderators attempt to silence dissent. (Score:1)
If it disagrees with the Slashdot Party Line, it gets a down-mod, right? Right. Predictable. As predictable as gravity.
NASA is a dinosaur. They achieved some small things decades ago, but now they're a hopeless mess. Even many of the scientists involved share this view, and they've seen it up close.
NASA must not be treated as a sacred cown, immune to criticism. The only hope for improvement is if we openly and honestly admit our failings and attempt to remedy them.
Censorship is not the answer. Censorship only hides the problem temporarily. Is that what Richard Feynman was trying to do when he was on the Challenger review board? No. No, Feynman had the guts to find the facts and make them public. And it may have hurt at first, but in the long run it was good for NASA and good for space exploration because the truth is always worth hearing. Problems were fixed because of what Feynman did. They wanted him to shut up, but he did the right thing.
Will you follow his example?
Just worked it out... (Score:1)
Zarya's jets controlled the final minutes of the approach for docking, as the ISS closed on Zvezda at a glacial rate of two-tenths of a meter per second.
Did anyone else realise that this is about 10 miles an hour? Who'd like to park their car at that speed...
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
That's all fine and good, but... Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving...
Robots in Space [imdb.com] makes for a bad movie. As interesting as space exploration is for people like you and me, it's too hard to justify the funding if John Q. Public is not interested.
Duct Tape. (Score:1)
Gosh... (Score:1)
Even with the Zarya-FGB-Unity assembly, there is still tons of potential problems, accidents and funding issues that could prevent the station from being useful in any way. This is aside from the "usefulness" issues that the baselined (current) ISS would have for science uses at assembly complete, like the less-than-exemplary microgravity environment it will have.
It's Zvezda-FGB/Zarya-Unity. Correction Re:Gosh... (Score:1)
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:1)
BTW, you have no concept of how the DoD is suppose to do budgeting.
Do you know about the NRO? How did they pay for their facility near Dulles?
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:1)
COTS is good. BTW, COTS means cats on the stove.:)
Re:[OT] Better than duct tape... (Score:1)
Surely you don't mean that friction tape literally sticks to nothing but itself...
Do you?
And where do we get this stuff?
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:1)
This is a step towards Mars! (Score:1)
Also, the space ship would be assembled there... or at least, we can make eperiments to determine which components/materials to use on it.
It's a great step, although it's just the beginning
I nominate Michael! (Score:1)
I for one have been holding my breath since 1998.
I nominate michael to be one of the first astronauts on the station. He's been practicing since 1998!
Micro$oft(R) Windoze NT(TM)
(C) Copyright 1985-1996 Micro$oft Corp.
C:\>uptime
What a great place! (Score:1)
Re:Still OT: $435 hammers and 400k$ staff members. (Score:1)
Re:Just worked it out... (Score:1)
.2m/s * 3600s = 720m/h =
You weren't one of the team working on the Mars Pathfinder were you?
Re:you forgot (Score:1)
You also forgot... (Score:1)
7.) The "Description of what kind of Posts this article will be getting" karma-whore post.
Thank you, goodnight.
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:1)
When the gov buys a new airplane, ship, truck, whatever, they don't buy ten years worth of spare parts. Instead, they require that the supplier be able to produce same-quality spare parts for however long the original purchased item lasts.
To do this, vendors keep all of the manufacturing blueprints, documentation, assembly fixtures, test equipment etc., just so that ten years down the road, they can build a replacement left-handed widget thumper that is an absolute match for the original.
Problem is that to preserve all that documentation takes space. As in shelves and filing cabinets (capital equipment costs) in buildings (taxable real property) on land (taxable real estate) which must be monitored by security (employees). And all of these costs of keeping the part's documentation "alive" is a significant part of the high cost of spares.
It doesn't do any good to assume that, just because you can buy something today for $0.47, that you will be able to buy the identical part ten or fifteen years from now. And remember, the replacement parts must be identical. You can't go file-to-fit and paint-to-hide inside a nuclear submarine or a B-52.
Point is, it isn't so much that a hammer costs $45.00 as it is that an exact reproduction of a specially designed hammer of an exact weight with a specific length handle costs $45.00.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
After World War II, we brought German rocket engineers to the US as much to keep them out of unfriendly hands as for any possible work they could do for us.
If the Russian rocket scientists weren't working toward the peaceful exploration of space (or at least paddling around the shallows), they would have to find work elsewhere. Do you expect that they would want to stop being rocket scientists and go learn to be men's room attendants or potato farmers? Much more likely that, if they couldn't work in a Russian rocket program, they would be working on enhancements to SCUDs in one of the deserts of the north Africa or the Middle East. Working for bosses who are comfortable with the idea of a significant portion of the planet earth glowing radioactively in the dark.
Let's be happy that they are practicing their profession in a peaceful and honorable manner.
Re:Are they gonna let MIR burn up soon? (Score:1)
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
Perhaps your ideal is somewhere closer to
the last two Mars landers that have never
been heard from....?
There is no point in exploring space for
robots.
Robots neither care nor need to go. We do.
At best robots are like the dog trotting beside the Conestoga wagon. Serveing no purpose EXCEPT
by accompaning humans.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
do. Yet, in today's Russia, top notch scientists and mathemeticians are having a very hard time making a
decent living for their families.
A Billion dollars buys a lot of science if spent right."
Just what did you think the billion was spent on?
Less than $500 of scrap steel and plastic was
launched. The rest was spent here on earth.
Sometime science has to produce. This is production.
Re:will this get me moded up too (Score:1)
Mark Duell
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:1)
The International Space Station is the first logical step in getting to mars and experimenting with better ways of space propulsion.
With that said, we need a "base station" where we can drop off boxes of Legos so the Lego Engineers won't have to bring fresh Legos everytime they go into space and experiment. :-)
By building a reusable infrastructure, this should reduce the cost of our space exploration.
Re:Russia, Money, Gagarin (Score:1)
Russia put up alexander tupolev, son of 'the' tupolev who founded the tupolev design bureau about 3 days before gegarin. however, tupolev's orbiter landed in china, and the russians were embarrassed (this was at a time when china and russia were not getting along well. tupolev ended up spending several months in china.
the russians hurried up and popped gegarin up into space and when he landed in the right place, they publicized the hell out of it, while squashing the tupolev story.
this is all very nicely documented in a PBS documentary I saw about 3-4 months ago.
Re:[OT] Better than duct tape... (Score:1)
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:1)
So source the raw materials from a moon based mining operation - it'd be a lot cheaper to get that into earth orbit - of course, then you have the cost of setting up a moon based mining operation but that would probably be a good end in itself ..
J
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
Ok now for unmanned space exploration: Maybe you never want to get off this rock and see the rest of the solar system/universe, but don't demand that everyone else has to like that idea (me included). I'd rather go out and see and explore myself, instead of being a couch patatao and watch a robot do it (espcailly when collecting that rock sample can take the robot an hour). It may make alot more financial sense right now, but in the future it will be much more efficent to simply do it ourselves...
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
The reason that is the case is because telepresence (aka robotic romote control) does nto work well at stellar ranges. For instance when we sent that probe to mars it took about 15 minutes for one instruction to be passed from earth to the robot. Now if we were to send a small 2 or 4 person crew and support vehicle to say mars that would hover overhead and allow the robots to be droped down form it to be our hands and feet this would reduce the majority of problems like having to have only one propulsion system for multiple probes of the surface and real time telepresence.
I see big gains form this, but not quite yet only because we haven't done enough from space. I blame this on one of the most well loved presidents in history for choosing to ignore the initial space station design and instead choosing to go to the moon immediately with no intermitent step.
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:1)
Military procurement has advanced a long way recently since the government is consolidating, and also is allowing purchase of off-the-shelf equipment instead of writing 400-page MILSPECs and having all their crap custom-made just for them (and having a separate version for each branch of the service while they were at it).
Re:[OT] Better than duct tape... (Score:1)
-----
how'd you get that? (Score:1)
2/10 meter = 20cm
20/2.54 = 7.87 inches per second
7.87*60*60 = 28332 inches per hour
28332/12/5280 = 0.447 approx. miles per hour
and no, I wouldn't park my car at that speed. about 5-7 mph is plenty.
-----
Re:Shut up, you're not an American. Keep out of it (Score:1)
-----
Re:Yeah, the old lie: "Socialism DOES work!" (Score:1)
Have you ever even been to Europe, let alone lived there? I've lived in Germany for nearly a year, and while their government and society do have very liberal tendencies that might bother any good Republican, they are not socialist. Not as bad as Al Gore, at least.
As for Russia, I know and have spoken with many Russians about politics in the country. Overall, the country wants very much to have a working democratic free market society, however the transition from 80 years of communism is a *very* difficult one, and will take a very long time to complete. But believe me: they aren't dumb, and they are trying.
As for the computer systems in the space shuttle: give me one example of mid 70s computer technology that's modular? Furthermore, so what if the computers in the space shuttle are 20-25 years old? Why fix what's not broken?
-----
Russians thinking smart rather than throwing money (Score:1)
yup, my favourite story was about the USA spending all that time and money developing a high tech non-leaky non gravity dependent ball point pen so their astronauts could write in space. Meanwhile the USSR gave their guys chinograph pencils and wipe clean tablets . teehee.
I think due to financial necessity as well as being smart the Russians are rather good at coming up with clever hacks rather than solving problems by throwing large amounts of money at their headaches. Anyhow, they've an awful lot more experience of long term space missions so it would be silly not to use that hard won wisdom.
Hey, we're all on the same planet so who gives a damn about this nationality nonsense anyway... I'm so glad we've got an international space station, let's just get the best people together and forget about checking their passports to see if they can come on board :-)
Re:More information... (Score:1)
About time! (Score:1)
I'm not sure how we could have done better, though, since the alternative would be to open it up to private enterprise. Whoops - there goes public usefulness - they just want to screw you out of more money.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
No, this is wrong, when you have to build a closed loop life support system to keep people on mars alive for 6 months, you learn alot about the environment here on earth, you learn alot about using nature for waste management. When you see that people in space undegro the same degradation that older people do on earth, you learn from that, and you learn that maybe theres a way to stop that degradation. manned spaceflight is important for spinoffs, you dont need a life support system for a robot. Ultimately people want to explore space because they want to go there themselvees and thats a good enough reason for me.
Re:So you won't waste time reading all the comment (Score:1)
From the utterly-useless department:
Five days later, there's only 256 comments. (257, if you count this one.)
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:1)
Right?
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
Who cares. (Score:1)
Until we take care of our problems on the ground, I don't understand why we're spending $60 billion on a space station.
Just my $0.02
You can tell how desparate they are by the number of time they use the word "innovate" in their press releases.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
Actually, that brings up a question that I've been wondering about, but haven't known who to ask.
Granted, we've learned loads about the effects of microgravity from the sources you mention, but I've been wondering if that data tells the whole story. After all, Skylab and Mir weren't exactly palaces, so I wonder if the cramped quarters involved didn't skew the data just a little.
It can hardly be doubted that even here on Earth, living in small, cramped conditions with no access to wide open spaces, even if you do exercise, is hardly the same as having a fairly wide environment that you have to move about in, just look at your average /. poster. =)
But in all seriousness, does anyone believe that having some more space in, er, space would have some influence on the effects of microgravity? I'd really like to know.
Re:"Media" is PLURAL ALREADY you brainless animal! (Score:1)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:Russian meaning (Score:1)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:2)
Fine, I'll grant you that that's a possible reason for all of this.
I fail to see why this is a bad thing? After all, as an American citizen (presumably), you'd be one of the recipients of said Russian-built, rogue-nation launched rockets.
So, ISS and Mir and whatnot keep this from happening. Cool. That's good science, and good effective use of public funds, imho. So what's the problem?
However, in this thread, I believe you may have missed my earlier point which is simply this:
Better men than you or I have argued *for* space, and we're going to space, and the ISS is being built, and it's happening. Any attempt at arguing against it is really just masturbation - economies will be built based on the science performed, experiments in human scientific endeavours will be conducted, and rogue terrorist anti-US nations will be prevented from using tired and hungry Russian space scientists to build missiles to attack the American heartland.
In which case, we should all be celebrating the long overdue launch and docking of Zvezda, and be happy that the ISS is under way.
The best minds of many nations have given us this gift, and we ought to be moderately appreciative...
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:2)
Umm, yes, it is.
Science exists to serve the needs of humanity, to allow continued growth and expansion, and to build a better world for future generations.
If science, at a banal level, in some way prevents wars from happening (and wars are, by their very nature, enhanced entropy of humanities efforts), then it is serving its purpose. It may not be glamorous, it may be very banal, but don't nag it. It's at the very *least* a rise, and one shouldn't argue about whether a rise is big enough or not.
As to your other point, I don't disagree that we, the common folks, should think about things that have already been decided for us, and you are 100% correct that it is extremely dangerous thinking, so I don't take it as a flame.
But there's a nuance to that, and that is fundamental human trust. In this particular context, extremely good minds have tackled the issues of human space exploration, from both a science/humanities perspective, as well as a political one (and in this case, that's a very important consideration), and decided that we should go ahead and build the ISS.
I simply request that my fellow peers here on Slashdot, those of us who have an interest in space, attempt to look further than the average knee-jerk reaction to space exploration would allow, and see that there are "greater good" considerations in the ISS space program that are not obvious when an analysis is done based on mass-media filtration of facts regarding the program...
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:2)
Good try, but in fact the govermetn did buy a $400 hammer. What the over hymp everything media never mentions is that this hammer is ment to be used in an explosive enviroment, and has to be made of a Gaurentied not to spark metal. Because of the nature of that particular enviroment $400 for the hammer is accually reasonable.
Just like the $200 toilet seat isn't what they use on most toilets, but there are a few toilets that need a special design (the space shuttle comes to mind - you need to fit men and women, be comfortable, keep waste in the toilet - all in zero g.)
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Most of what we do in space is a mistake.
We need manned spaceflight - but we need MEANINGFUL manned spaceflight, planetary expeditions, colonies, that sort of thing, not just pointless shuttle flights designed to keep the budget for next year. I take that back - maybe we DO need to keep putting humans in space for no productive reason at all, because if we stop putting humans in space, the bureaucracy and apathy that drives (or fails to drive) our space program will pretty much guarantee that we will never return to space. Just like the moon.
Re:So you won't waste time reading all the comment (Score:2)
I shrug.
Heh.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
what about all the knowledge gained by running a re-usable spacecraft program? what about all the commercial sattelites delivered, providing basic things like GPS, Long Distance telephone relays, DSS systems? I use all three of those examples nearly every day! with the exception of gps, which is only usefull when I go boating. The infrastructure of the US and the entire world has been developed wonderfully by those extra 80+ shuttle missions.
I agree- our planetary satellite network is a wonderful thing. Imagine what it would have been like without the Space Shuttle getting in the way. Yes, you read that right. The Space Shuttle has been a tremendous detriment to the efficient deployment of satellite technology. The technology does exist, and has existed for quite some time, to put a satellite in orbit economically via unmanned booster rockets. NASA, however, made a definite descision to deliver payloads exclusively via the much more expensive and inefficient Space Shuttle, because they felt that only manned missions could command the necessary public support, despite the known economic and technological advantages of unmanned delivery. Thus, after the Challenger disaster, satellite and planetary probe launches just stopped, because there was no backup. Those wonderful systems you describe exist despite the Shuttle, not because of it.
Space travel is not healthy. You dissolve in a matter of days, finding equilibrium with the forces on your body. muscle tone plummets, all the way down to your core, your heart. How many other septugenarians have we observed under those conditions? is that knowledge worthless? Besides the fact that mr. Glenn is a bonafide Hero, an accomplished statesman, and a leader amongst his peers, he is amazingly brave to have requested the mission. And so is Nasa, too, cause it would have been disasterous if he'd died up there.
I am aware of the effects of microgravity on the human body. I am aware of the importance of understanding this phenomenon for the purposes of future space travel (note the word _travel_, as opposed to going in circles). However, I submit that, for the near future, the knowlegde gained from the Glenn mission is worthless, or nearly so- NASA has no plans to send septuaginarians to Mars, or indeed send them into space at all, unless they happen to be politically connected. The only worthwhile research in this area is on able-bodied adults of the sort likely to be engagin in space travel in the near future.
Even if you argue that the study of geriatric astonautics is worthwhile as pure science, which I can accept, the Glenn mission isn't science. Your question "How many other septugenarians have we observed under those conditions?" Is very apt. The answer, as you know, is "none." Even an 8th grader doing a science project can tell you that to be useful, an experiment must consist of more than one datum. Observations of a single subject are scientifically next to worthless. Your arguments as to the heroism and bravery of Glenn and NASA may or may not be true, but are entirely irrelevant.
And don't forget the zillions of zero-g experiments in medicine, material science, gravity/relativity, etc etc etc.
And never mind that most of them have earth-bound equivalents or are of dubious scientific import, or could be done just as well on the Shuttle. Again, I say show me the scientific results of the past 30 years of manned spaceflight, compared to the kinds of results similar amounts of money have produced in earthbound science. Ultimately, the clearest argument is the fact that no top-rate scientist in any field (who is not working on the ISS project) is willing to claim that the ISS is scientifically worthwhile, given the money spent.
It's easy to be a skeptic.
No, it's easy to be a believer. Take for example your claim about the "zillions of experiments" that could be done on ISS. Do you actually know of any, or did you just read that in the propaganda pieces NASA's been putting out (note, by the way, the lack of specific examples in their PR, because there are none). To be a skeptic you actually have to think for yourself. Until recently, I agreed with you, but the weight of evidence has forced me to take my new position. I would like to believe that the ISS is a scientific godsend and a triumph of the human spirit, but it just ain't so.
Sigh... (Score:2)
Let me preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of the space program in general terms.
The ISS is a huge waste of time, money, and national effort. After 3 decades of going in circles (literally) around the earth, the latest, greatest thing in space travel involves... going in more circles around the earth. The habitat is slightly larger, which I'm sure makes the astronauts very happy, and it's a nice, warm and fuzzy internationally cooperative project, but the fact is that it has no point, no purpose or meaning, from a scientific or even a human standpoint.
Everything that we could learn by going in circles, we have learned. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Soyuz, Mir, the Space Shuttle, and so on ad infinitum. Dozens of humans have orbited the earth thousands of times and spent countless man-hours on hundreds of projects and experiments, for decidedly marginal benefit. Early on, sure, we learned a lot, but the benefits have fallen off dramatically. Can you name one substantial scientific benefit gained in the last 10 years of manned space flight? The last 20? No fair citing something itself only relevant to space flight. No serious scientist argues that there will be more than marginal scientific benefit to the ISS, and most of what benefit there is could be realized by the Space Shuttle more cheaply.
Whereas many people see the glory of yet another semi-permanent human habitat in space, I see all the fleets of the Sojourners and Mars Rovers and planetary exploration robots (and perhaps manned flights) that could have been paid for with the billions being spent on this pointless propaganda piece. That one tiny battery-powered rover, the Sojourner, produced more meaningful science, and probably inspired more future scientists with the thrill of discovery, than 10 years of the Space Shuttle trips which the ISS is merely and elaboration of. And yet, NASA's Mars program is being substantially curtailed from its' already very limited budget, while billions of dollars are poured down the bottomless ISS pit.
The solar system is a spectacularly fascinating place. Any planetary scientist or astronomer could name a dozen extremely worthwhile space exploration projects that aren't getting worked on. How about taking a close look at Pluto, which we still know almost nothing about? How about a closer look at Europa, an excellent candidate for the presence of life? How about trying to land a probe on Venus capable of surviving more than a few hours?
With all of this astonishing diversity, and all of this incredible discovery waiting to happen, we are spending our time, energy, and money exploring the most throughoughly explored and utterly dull part of space- the part of it only a hundred miles above our heads.
For more info, I heartily reccomend Robert Park's excellent book, Voodoo Science.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
We did not spend that kind of money to develop the jet engine. The jet engine was a natural and (on this scale) economical extension of both public- and private-sector work, not the result of stuffing billions of dollars into a predesigned pipe dream. Real innovation and invention comes from many small projects, not one large, government-sponsored all-or-nothing monolith. And speaking of propulsion, which strikes you as a better research platform for studying space travel: A space probe that actually travels, or a space station that orbits?
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
I absolutely agree with you that given that it's going up we might as well make the best of it, and I welcome whatever scientific benefits derive from it. However, I do think we need to be aware that it was a mistake. The attitude that only manned spaceflight can capture the human imagination is a gross underestimation of the human spirit, as Sojourner proved. The space program holds immense promise if it can be wrested from the grasp those who see the human spirit only in manned-spaceflight
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
That's the great thing about unmanned spaceflight- it's cheap enough that it can be done without some bigwigs taking any initiative, as has to happen for a monstrosity like the ISS to be built.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:2)
Well it's not really science now is it? And no I don't really have a problem with basically paying off Russian scientists. I just think we should be paying them to do something a little more constructive.
However, in this thread, I believe you may have missed my earlier point which is simply this:
Better men than you or I have argued *for* space, and we're going to space, and the ISS is being built, and it's happening. Any attempt at arguing against it is really just masturbation
Actually I did read that. I just decided to skip over it. But since you insist. I'll respond.
<flame>
That is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS thinking. Lots of things that are were either either incredibly Wrong or doomed for failure from the outset have been argued by "great minds". (I'll let you plug in your own favorite establishment supported debace/Generally_Acknolledged_Bad_Thing(tm).)
The fact that saying "someone else thought we should do it, so we should do it" illustrates a completely lack of critical thinking. All advances in civilization have their basis in questioning the status quo. The fact that you're arguing against questioning the reasoning, shows that you're not very strong in your convictions.
</flame>
There I said it.
Here's a link about it from AOL.COM (Score:2)
I think that depends... (Score:2)
Re:Still OT: $435 hammers and 400k$ staff members. (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
As a professional scientist and a habitual devil's advocate I choose to keep a somewhat more open mind on the issue. For better or worse the ISS is quite possibly going to be built, so we may as well challenge ourselves to think creatively on how best to use the ISS facility to do some good science. Only so much can be gained by bemoaning the misappropriation of funds, and at this stage of the game it's not very constructive. (Killing the ISS now would only sour the public on the space program and would do little for your cause of solar system exploration).
A unique aspect of the ISS environment is the ability it confers to do extended experiments in high quality microgravity conditions. As an example, one area of basic science research that can benefit greatly from this kind of environment is dusty plasma research; in dusty plasmas an experimenter may observe directly liquids and solids (plasma crystals) and thereby obtain a better understanding of pervasive phenomena such as melting and fracturing. Gravity plays a dominant role in dusty plasma dynamics on Earth, and experiments conducted on parabolic flights have shown many intriguing results. John Goree of the University of Iowa and his collaborators have championed a facility for performing dusty plasma experiments on the ISS, and when I last spoke with John this was slated to be one of the first experiments to be performed on the ISS.
The dusty plasma experiment is just one of many possibilities for the ISS facility, and it is an example of a pure-science experiment that cannot be performed as well in terrestrial or shuttle conditions. Undoubtedly one can make a case that the money could be better spent elsewhere, but I think this is counterproductive. The ISS is such splendid pork-barrel politics that it has little chance of dying. Rather than drown ourselves in pessimism, we are better off considering the money as spent and figuring out other interesting, if somewhat extravagent, experiments to do on the ISS. We just have to be a bit clever and opportunistic.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:2)
You're forgetting oil and narcotics. But more importantly, unless a legitimate outlet is provided for all this rocket science, you'll start seeing more arms sales to rogue nations, and we don't need more of that at the moment.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:2)
How can you be for space exploration but against the ISS? This station could provide for an orbiting spacecraft manufacturing dock for possibly, *gasp* a manned mission to Mars.
Why are we wasting thousands of Russian minds on this inane task with absolutely no benefits to the Russian people or even to the state of human knowlege?
I'm looking at your mit.edu email address and shaking my head. While Russia isn't exactly one of the most ideal partners economically in this venture they have a lot of space program infrastructure, experience and knowledge that other countries simply do not. Thousands of experiemtns will be conducted on this ISS, are you going to tell me that every one of them will be useless and not bring us any valuable information about space at all? Also the afore-mentioned manufacturing capability, especially with the robotic arms the station will be equipt with. These will facillitate exploration (and I may be optimistic here, but even colonization) of the moon, mars, and other planets. With a viable orbiting space station these things just aren't possible.
-- iCEBaLM
Good for both US and Russia (Score:2)
It's good for the US, because we now have a permanent base in orbit. That means we can start testing the technologies for longer space flights that the shuttle couldn't. If we're going to go to Mars, we need to know more about reactions to weightlessness, micrometeroid protection, and other issues. The ISS also lets us increase the scientific workload in space - even a small telescope on the ISS would beat the best on Earth because of the freedom from atmospheric disortion and pollution. The ISS is the next logical step if we're to go anywhere in space.
Those who say that Russia is poor and shouldn't be in the space business - how many jobs does this create in the Russian aerospace field? You have engineers and scientists right down to toolmakers and welders who are employed because of this project. One of the few profitable things that the Russians have in their economy is aerospace. Energiya rocket boosters are very reliable and provide a considerable stream of income. The Russians are leading the charge in finding alternate sources of income, their lack of hard currency means that they have to search for outside investment. They're finding that by opening up things like Mir to commercial interests they may be able to keep it in orbit for a few years more. The Russians were the first to sell advertising in space - Pizza Hut had an ad on the booster that lifted Zvezda into orbit.
In the end, there are some very solid practical reasons why the ISS program is beneficial. Unlike most foreign aid we give to Russia, at least the ISS program creates jobs for Russians, as well as Americans. This attitude that anything related to scientific process steals resources away from the poor is completely wrong.
Why Russian got to build Service Module (Score:2)
One NASA engineer from Houston said during the interview that NASA version of life support system would be big and expensive while Russian had some smart ways to achieve same results with less time and money.
As we all know the gamble didn't pan out so well due to the Russian economic crisis. Service Module was funded by Russian goverment instead of contracted by NASA (a.k.a. American Tax dollar), so when Russian economy hit bottom, Service Module got delayed by lack of fund (among other reasons).
Just contribute what I know since there are some people here a little uptight about Russian involvement, reminded me of certain Republican congressmen and senators.
Re:Great, now we're funding the Russians? (Score:2)
1 - HOW DARE YOU?! NASA is certainly not made up of useless engineers. They are world acknowledged leaders in several areas of space science. Rockwell and Boeing et al. are others in the states, and Ariane and all the others around also lead in some fields, but don't suggest that NASA engineers couldn't get jobs elsewhere.
2 - The Russian contribution to the ISS and space research in general isn't always in funds. They also have brains there (something that can't always be said of ACs) and Russian engineers can produce just as good technology as anyone else's. The atmospheric recycling tech that Russia has is waaay better than NASAs, simply because the Russians have been pushing extended stay space stations for so long. They know how to do that sort of thing.
Re:[OT] Better than duct tape... (Score:2)
It was the dawn.... (Score:2)
It's a home away from home - for astronauts, cosmonauts and others who would be better off actually exploring.
Americans and Foreigners wrapped in two million, five hundred thousand tons of 386 workstations.
All Alone In The Night.
It can occasionally be a remotely interesting place, but it's our last, best hope for growing the most expensive geraniums the galaxy has ever seen.
This is the story of the first of the obsolete-by-the-time-they-are-done-10-years-late-
The year is 2000. The name of the place...The ISS
This was a parody of Babylon 5 (if you hadn't guessed already) which is Copyright © 1997 Warner Bros., Inc. All Rights Reserved. The origional work parodied was written by J. Michael Straczynski and can be found before every first season episode of B5.
This was done in good fun and is not an attempt at infringing on anyone's trademark's, etc, etc, etc.
tether (Score:2)
First AutoCAD Virus Found! [cadfu.com]
Here's a link for real time updates. (Score:2)
heres a link for real time location stats on the
ISS, Shuttle and Mir...
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.ht
-Shack
Overrated (Score:2)
We do? We know that everybody who can survive astronaut-type training can handle a few months of it. We know now that more than a few months of it is bad for you; bones deteriorate. The people who flew on Skylab and Mir established that long ago. More data is nice, but not worth billions of dollars.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that the pretty color pictures of the space station with the earth in the background [space.com] are fake, although they're presented as real. There's nothing up there in position to take those pictures. Those are rendered 3D models. The real pictures [nasa.gov] from the spacecraft camera used during docking don't show much, and they're black and white, so for PR purposes, fake images are used. Does this bother anybody?
Take a look at the figure.... (Score:2)
But enough quibbling over typos. Notice some interesting things:
1) The Japanese module with a vacuum-exposed platform and separate arm for playing space chess.
2) The Brazilian Window Observation Research Facility (WORF), and its associated modules, the Main Operational Gyroscope Housing (MOGH), Developmental Utility Research-Associated System (DURAS), and Greenhouse Over-watch Room and Optional Nacelle (GOWRON)
biased (Score:2)
Russian Space (Score:2)
Here is an interesting website:
Russian Space [russianspace.com]
Re:Great, now we're funding the Russians? (Score:2)
--
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Anyway, I would like to mention that the Shuttle was just as much a political tool as a scientific tool. I think you've all heard of the 'cold war'? well, the shuttle represents a significant leap beyond Russian capabilities at the time (pssh! even now more than ever!). The Soviets must've had a lot of concern over such a beast. There are many capabilities the shuttle could have, but (probably?) never demonstrated. for instance, simply stopping by and picking up soviet spy satellites. perhaps they've already done that? They could then return home and study the Soviet's 'state of the art' first hand, at leisure. How else could a spy satelite be retrieved and survive re-entry? Then there's the fear of a very maneuverable manned survellience craft buzzing around in orbit, well out of the range of even the best Soviet missiles. Cripes, it even flies upside down, with its bomb bay doors agape! And, holy cowski! it can stay up for 1-2 weeks, maybe a month at a time? Surely the shuttle is much more flexible than a satellite from the political/DOD POV.
These are the tactics that were used to break the Soviets on every technological and economical level. And orbital superiority is the biggest, most expensive playing field around.
Speaking of which, I thought of this all when you (gomer) said "...glenn
You strike me as a scientist Gomer, at least a pure science enthusiast, so you must realize by now that some rohdiculous majority of scientific attention is devoted to the task of obtaining grant dollars/funding. Where does the cash come from? the schools acquire it from A)foundations (sadly, mostly just willing to throw money away) and b)corp sponsorship (PR and R&D needs) and c)ov't (ultimately the voters). So, by my reckoning, and as much as you may hate it, the Heroism is perhaps the most usefull thing NASA can be striving for. Makes perfect sense to me, in that context...
Now nearly every nation can partake/contribute in some serious orbital science. Thanks in no small part to the shuttle and its role in breaking the deadlock of the cold war.
Or do we have enough datum already? What was that you were saying Gomer? One Glenn-based experiment is not sufficent, but the older (read crude measurements)results from mir and skylab are sufficient? Do we have enough datum or don't we?!? Is the problem of microgravity's effect on the human form solved yet?
:)Fudboy
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:2)
Not so. Anything you send to Mars from a space platform has first to be lifted from earth's surface to that platform - there is no real saving, and you add the complexity of on-orbit assembly and the engineering headaches of extra time in vacuum while you stop at the station.
Try Zubrin's The Case for Mars for some good arguments as to why the best way to Mars (for a first mission) is with a couple of 150-tonne loads from earth's surface.
The foregoing is not an argument against the ISS - it's a very useful piece of kit to have indeed - but to say it's useful for interplanetary exploration is simply wrong.
Now, for interplanetary commerce, you have a point. Ion-drive freighers serviced with surface-to-space-station lighters would be a very efficient method of handling that. The ISS would be more-or-less useless in that capacity, but the combined experience of Skylab, MIR and ISS will be critical to the Orbital Dockyard that does get built.
And, of course, the sooner we get the bugs worked out of the orbit cable the better.
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:2)
Well, yes, but then why not just launch straight from the moon? What do you gain by stopping part-way out at a space station, other than the "freighter advantage" I mentioned in my earleir post?
More information... (Score:2)
- vl
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:3)
Practically all the benefits (spinoffs and otherwise) you are talking about from the "Space Program" can come from unmanned exploration work as well. Much of the added cost and complexity of manned projects like the "Space Station" comes from the practical need to get failure probability down to near zero. None of us wants one of our comrades to lose his life up there. Yet this added cost and complexity *has few if any practical spinoffs* on Earth.
Space is probably about the only thing the Russians are good at, as an industrialized nation, right now
From a scientific perspective, this is truly sad. Russia has produced absolutely brilliant contributions to humanity in lots of fields. In my own area of research (probability and information theory) Russians like Kolmogorov, Dobrusin, and Pinsker have done seminal work which has advanced the frontiers of human knowledge. And you know what, this sort of work doesn't need Billions of dollars worth of equipment to do. Yet, in today's Russia, top notch scientists and mathemeticians are having a very hard time making a decent living for their families.
I would much rather that my country (the USA) support Russian science in more cost effective ways than this Space Station monstrosity. A Billion dollars buys a lot of science if spent right.
Make work waste of time and money (Score:3)
much as the next guy, but I can't believe
that we're wasting so many resources on
this useless thing. Robots are much more
cost effective. I'd rather have systematic
(unmanned) infrastructure in space for
exploration.
It's one thing for the U.S.A. with its
booming economy and basically working
society, but Russia is a basket-case!
Why are we wasting thousands of Russian
minds on this inane task with absolutely
no benefits to the Russian people or even
to the state of human knowlege?
Re:Sigh... (Score:3)
In the last 10 years Shuttle flights have been responsible for the Hubble Space Telescope - giving us a much clearer understanding of our universe and how we fit into it. The Hubble needed human servicing to have ever completed its mission.
I'll buy part of this one- Hubble has been a fantastically sucessful and important project, and it did need human servicing. However, it could easily have been launched aboard an unmanned vehicle, and the service missions account for only 2 or 3 out of the 80+ shuttle missions.
We've been able to study the effects of spaceflight on the human body, which mimic many of the changes in the aging process. If we're going into space, we need that kind of information.
I think the bankruptcy of this argument was proved when NASA attempted to actually put a scientific face on the bald-faced political horse-trading that put John Glenn on the Space Shuttle. These people actually claimed that there was scientific benefit to be had from the study of a single septugenarian selected for his political connections, rather than his suitability for scientific study. To give you an idea of the level of science that was taking place on that mission, they actually almost conducted a study of the effect of Melatonin on his adaptation to the shuttle's 90-minute 'day.' All very well and good, but you hardly need to go into space to simulate a 90 minute day. The same experiment could be done in a motel room by pulling the shades and putting a timer on the lightswitch, as Park points out in his aforementioned book. This experiment was canceled at the last minute- for medical reasons, not because of its total scientific worthlessness.
More generally, yes, we need to know about human adaptation to microgravity if we are to engage in long-term space travel. However, we've already learned most of what we need to from Mir and Skylab, and I sincerely doubt we will learn anything truly new from the ISS in this regard. When we start engaging in long-term space travel, it will almost certainly require artifical gravity, if the passengers are to be remotely functional when they arrive.
We've been able to monitor and observe earth-bound phenomena to an extent that has never before been possible, and would not have been possible with robotic craft.
I really don't buy this one. Robotic craft are more patient, more verasatile, more thorough, and far more clear-sighted and functional than any human observer. Essentially all of the scientifically meaningful terristrial observation has been done by automated systems, not humans. The only exception is the (admittedly spectacular) photography produced by the shuttle astronaouts, which have plenty of artistic, but little scientific merit. Even that could have been done (and possibly done better) by a satellite, if we really wanted to do it.
We've given people something to hope for. Sure, robotic missions are great and they bring us loads of scientific data at no human risk, but they lack something that the human imagination needs. No robotic explorer will ever overshadow Neil Armstrong first setting his foot down on a foreign body in space. Who cares about the Russian Luna and American Surveyor probes after that? The world's attention was focused on space because that was a human being out there.
But that's my point! There's no glory or triumph of the human spirit in the space station at all! It will capture the imagination of a few literate geeks for all of about 5 minutes. It's boldly going where dozens of people have gone before. Exactly how much attention gets paid to the latest shuttle launch? Compare that with the astonishing coverage of Sojourner's trip to Mars on the web and in the media, or the power of the single image the (unmanned) Hubble produced of the Eagle Nebula. Multiply that by the ISS's budget and you would have some real human excitement. Sure, give me a trip to Mars and you'll see some Armstrong-era excitement, but the ISS is one giant leap for a man, and one small step for mankind, and everybody knows it. It will be good for a few weeks of media excitement, and then will fade into the background as the shuttles do now.
The missions you list are indeed in various planning stages, but that doesn't alter the fact that much, much more could be done if NASA's planetary exploration had access to the kind of money the ISS is getting stuffed with. It also doesn't change the fact that after a couple of failures caused by the minimal Mars budget, that entire program has been delayed even further.
As for your point about the Venus probe, the costs of lifting such a probe out of Earth's gravity well pale in comparison to the cost of the ISS. The ISS will never pay itself back as a construction platform. To begin with, it is totally unsuited for construction work. All of the costs of manufacturing a probe on earth would be increased by (literally) orders of magnitude if that construction were done aboard the space station. Moreover, unless you're proposing asteroid mining (itself prohibitively expensive), nothing is being saved- you still have to lift the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well, and that cost only gets larger if you do it in several trips. The ISS saves you absolutely nothing in this regard.
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:3)
Space is probably about the only thing the Russians are good at, as an industrialized nation, right now, and so it follows that they are putting their heart and soul into continuing to lead and participate in human exploration of space. Russian pursuits of space programs are *vital* to the future economic stability of the Russian system, since it's among the few truly exportable industries that Russia has right now, having lost a great deal of her productive power due to Communist misguidance.
That you cannot see this, or are unwilling to be able to even *think* that scientists and great minds of this ilk have an accute awareness of the benefits for what they're doing, belies your pop-culture, spoon-fed, MTV instant fix upbringing.
Wait. I grew up being a big space fan, but now than I'm older I kind of wonder what's the point of a manned space program. I've been trying to justify for a long time; and I can't. I just don't see a compelling reason to send people into space.
Let's look at the common given reasons, and your reasons that the Russians are doing this. Then I'll give my own reason why the US is backing the Russian space program.
space manufacturing
Yea! You can build rockets in space. Yes, that would be a Good-Thing(tm) if there was a place to send the rocket to.
Now if you mean space based factories making goods for terrestrial based consumers, well then what can you build in space that you can't build on Earth. (It's going to have to be something unique, otherwise the shipping costs would be insane.) I'll tell you what they've found in the past 50 years. Microcrystals. Now these crystals are supposed to eventually maybe if we're lucky to some sort of uber-drug. However, I haven't heard of anydrug yet that uses them. If there was, Merck would have launched a factory.
medicine
Uhh gravity is good for bones. While this knowledge is important long duration space flight, it really doesn't have a direct terresstrial application, since the average person isn't exposed to a microgravity enviroment at all. Now if there was a place to go in that rocket we assembled in orbit then it would be useful to know what will happen to the crew. That is of course there was someplace to go.
electronics
Electronics suffers from the same problems that the other two do, except that it doesn't have a crew to apply to nor does gravity affect it in the slightest. So there goes the only two positives.
exploration
Sure, but a series of robotic landers do the same tasks that person can do (read: pick up rocks). Basically the only reason you'd want a team on-site as it were would be if you were doing a long term study, or where you need high dexterity (say archaelogy), but currently it's prohibitivly expensive to send a team for a long duration stay for something that doesn't effect the Earth life or public policy. (Compare a planetary expedition to an Antartic expedition. One is relativly cheap. One is provides information about the state of the habitat. The other is expensive, and deals with a completly independent system.)
Sure, I get all goose-pimply when I think of someone walking on another planet, but the more rational part of me looks at it like a trip to the Grand Canyon. "Gee sure is big isn't? *click* Okay, let's go back." Nothing is there.
Russian pursuits of space programs are *vital* to the future economic stability of the Russian system, since it's among the few truly exportable industries that Russia has right now
I'll grant you this one. But launching satelites isn't really a country supporting industry.
mining
(You didn't mention it, but it's typically given as the big payoff in investing in the space program.)
Astroids are rocks. Mostly iron. There also VERY FAR AWAY! Until we run out of terrestrially accessable iron and steel, the cost of lassoing one of those bad boys is going to be alot more than the actual profit you'd make off of the iron.
Until the price of terrestrial iron gets prohibitvly expensive, or an orbiting astroid of solid gold is discovered, there ain't going to be any astroid prospectors.
avoid catastrophe
Yes having the population spread out does make it harder to eradicate. However this is looking VERY far down the road.
Now I'm not saying Nasa is worthless. They do a lot of good work in areonautics resarch. They're THE government research lab when it comes to airplanes and rockets. They facilitate alot of work in studing the Earth. However most of this doesn't involve sending people into orbit. When it does, the crews are pretty much relagated to being space-mechanics.
I'm not even so selfish where everything needs a direct and immediate payoff. I'm all for studying cosmology and an astronomy, and Nasa facilitates that. It's just that I'd rather see Nasa spending it's resources on building an orbiting infrarometer, or installing a radio telescope on the far side of the moon (you could assemble it in orbit if need be, and then put it in geostationary orbit (However Nasa deemed the prefix planetary based during the last Mars lander mission. So according to them the word should be "lunarstationary" or some other nonsense.) along with an orbiting relay station. No long duration crews at all.), rather than sticking 6 people in an orbiting room and finding out what happens when they stop being nice and start being real.
So why did the US give so much money to the Russians?
Simple. The Russian economy is sucking ass right now. You've got a lot of hightly trained areospace engineers not being paid. The US is worried about ICBM technology falling into the hands of rogue nations. Now presented with the delimina of either paying the Russians to build a big orbiting can of people for no real purpose other than to furthering the "industry" of puting cans of people into orbit and some crap about "furthering international relations"; or have the Russians getting paid to put bombs on missles for everyone with 50 million dollars; which one do you the the US government would choose?
Moderators: It's not "flamebait", it's an irreverant rubtle. What's the difference? One has a kernel of thought, the other doesn't.
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:3)
If we are any bit serious as the human race to go out to the far reaches of the universe we have to start today.. Future generations would not pardon us if we sat quiet and content saying that anything we do will not yield results in our lifetime so why do it....
No we have always and should always stand on the shoulders of giants when we think and act.. to quote Newton !!!
Living in space as opposed to space jaunts are something which only the russians have managed and that too for a short period of a year or so.. I mean we should shortly have generations living there... its a colonial thing.. but we need to have that
So we should all lend our shoulders to the wheel...
-/ramas
You need some perspective... (Score:3)
The ISS promises a good deal more immediate benefits to humanity than some foolhardy manned stunt to Mars. As far as the rest of your diatribe, unfortunately science simply hasn't caught up to Trek special effects. As for AI, well, the work is being done at it's own pace in several different approaches by different people, there's no need of an Apollo project for AI. (Personally, the last thing I want are HAL's popping up all over the place until we tame the bloody ATMs.
The most important thing about the station is that it'll actually be a full time space settlement. I didn't fully approve of the way it's being done now, but now that we've spent the money and the time, we might as well start making use of it.
You also need to get a more expansive understanding of progress. Progress seldom happens in big dramatic steps, usually even the most important things go unnoticed until much later. Anyone remember the big hoorah when packet switching was invented? Didn't think so.
Let's spend our money wisely. Let's develop our cislunar presence, enlarge Spacewatch, and learn to manage the junk we're leaving in orbit. As for Mars, there's much to do with unmanned flights before we go to the dangerous and expensive route of sending people.
[OT] Better than duct tape... (Score:3)
--Colbey
Re:Let's all jump for joy (Score:3)
There's a lot of more useful things that we could be doing -- exploring other planets, trying to discover...
Oh no! Our Mars ship malfunctioned. Our heat shielding is detached, we're losing oxygen, and all we have is maneuvering thrusters. Oh well, at least we have enough power to make it to the International Space Station. Umm... Oh... no we don't, because some guy on /. said it was useless.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Russian meaning (Score:3)
If anyone is curious, 'Zvezda' means 'Star' in Russian, 'Zarya' means 'Dawn'.
just my .02$
Re:OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:4)
BAH! I subscribe to the "Independence Day" scenario.
It all feeds into a manufactured perception that the DOD is incompetent. That way everyone (including the foreign powers) underestimates them.
Hell the mob has been doing it for years. Do you really think the little Italian restaurant really needs to replace all their platess every 6 months.
So you won't waste time reading all the comments: (Score:4)
1) I still don't know why we're wasting money on {tech} when people in {place} are {mode of suffering agreed to be bad}. We should be worrying about solving our problems here on Earth!
2) This is the coolest thing ever! The most magnificent achievement since {primitive yet crucial tech}. It's the first step towards {cosmic achievement}, just like {author} predicted.
3) Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these!
4) I shrug. I am so underwhelmed. Millions and millions of {currency} wasted so we could put more trash in space. It will last less than {hyperbole of brevity} and be as useless as {hyperbole of futility}.
5) Look up these links here. Yeah, I need the karma.
6) Not bad for a Pizza Hut flight.
Fill in the {blanks} and permute at will. Add Microsoft bashing, MPAA/RIAA cursing, RMS, ESR, OpenSource zealotry. Simmer to a boil. Watch if we don't get 400 comments on this one.
THS
---
Re:What a great place! (Score:4)
IIRC, applications for the astronaut training program are reviewed every two years in July; the next screening takes place approximately a year from now. You can find out more information and download application forms at NASA's astronaut selection website [nasa.gov]. Generally speaking, for admittance as a mission specialist you need to possess an advanced scientific, technical, or medical degree (PhDs and MDs are preferred) as well as demonstrate leadership in your particular field. (Most if not all of the pilots have prior military training, so a civilian's best shot into the program is as a mission specialist). Becoming a NASA astronaut is highly competitive and grueling, as I'm sure you can imagine, but since it is hands down the coolest job imaginable, it won't stop me from sending my application in.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4)
In the last 10 years Shuttle flights have been responsible for the Hubble Space Telescope - giving us a much clearer understanding of our universe and how we fit into it. The Hubble needed human servicing to have ever completed its mission.
We've been able to study the effects of spaceflight on the human body, which mimic many of the changes in the aging process. If we're going into space, we need that kind of information.
We've been able to monitor and observe earth-bound phenomena to an extent that has never before been possible, and would not have been possible with robotic craft.
We've given people something to hope for. Sure, robotic missions are great and they bring us loads of scientific data at no human risk, but they lack something that the human imagination needs. No robotic explorer will ever overshadow Neil Armstrong first setting his foot down on a foreign body in space. Who cares about the Russian Luna and American Surveyor probes after that? The world's attention was focused on space because that was a human being out there.
How about taking a close look at Pluto, which we still know almost nothing about? How about a closer look at Europa, an excellent candidate for the presence of life? How about trying to land a probe on Venus capable of surviving more than a few hours?
Isn't the Pluto Express mission set for a launch date in a few years?
There are already plans to revisit Europa, with a craft that can get below the ice and actually settle the life issue.
A probe to Venus would be very difficult to lift out of Earths gravity well. We'd almost have to build something that heavy in space - where could that take place? Why a space station, of course?
Granted, the ISS isn't that big a leap, but it is a leap. The ISS is a worthwhile project, and will continue to advance humanity's progress to the stars.
All wrong! (Score:4)
- Infoart [infoart.ru] - my favorite;
- Multilex [infoart.ru] - slower but larger.
Do not slashdot them - I need 'em for my work. Do not try to enter transliterations of russian words (like Zvezda from Çâåçäà) there - this would not work. You can try english words however.Here's some translations:
If you want to see russian graphics in this message, ensure you read it in Cyrillic Windows-1251 encoding so what Xx looks like Õõ. (If you've got correct fonts.)
Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
Re:Make work waste of time and money (Score:5)
You think those guys are just sitting around in mission control going "well gee, duh, this space stuff sure is fun... Lets eat raw potato while we flink stuff around in space"?
I don't think so. They, along with thousands and thousands of support personnel in the space and aviation industry, understand the importance of the space program to the expansion of human science.
There is so much for the future of Russian economy to be gained from the space program, its not even funny. Space manufacturing, medicine, electronics - all of these human endeavours stand to benefit from research to be done on the ISS over the next few years, and the Russians know this just as well as any corporate bigwig at McDonnall/Douglas or Boeing.
Space is probably about the only thing the Russians are good at, as an industrialized nation, right now, and so it follows that they are putting their heart and soul into continuing to lead and participate in human exploration of space. Russian pursuits of space programs are *vital* to the future economic stability of the Russian system, since it's among the few truly exportable industries that Russia has right now, having lost a great deal of her productive power due to Communist misguidance.
That you cannot see this, or are unwilling to be able to even *think* that scientists and great minds of this ilk have an accute awareness of the benefits for what they're doing, belies your pop-culture, spoon-fed, MTV instant fix upbringing.
The hard working souls behind every nations space program are doing it for humanity, and for the benefits it will bring to humanity in the coming years - and while it may not seem too accessible to the plebian uneducated masses such as yourself right now, you (or, god help us if you breed, your children) will most certainly stand to benefit from it in the future.
OT: $435 hammer myth (Score:5)
This is where those numbers really come from:
The government often pays for things to be beuilt by contract. Instead of listing every item and price on invoices or work orders or whatever the hell they are, they take the price of the entire contract and divide it by however many items there are. Thus, though a computer system on an F-16 may cost $10,000 and the special gold tempered cockpit glass may cost $50,000 per bubble, a hammer used by Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics (aren't they the same company now or something?) still only costs $15 or $20.
So, in other words, while we're paying $435 for a hammer, we're also paying $435 for the highly special radar scanning tip in the nose of the aircraft.
Space Station User's Guide (Score:5)
The Space Station User's Guide [spaceref.com] is a terrific resource on the entire space station (written and assembled by one of the engineers who worked on it BTW), including the live NASA TV broadcast of the docking.
And yes, I submitted this link this morning to Slashdot but it got rejected in favour of the Space.com link in this story - go figure.