Decking The Space Station Out With Comms 57
snuf23 writes: "The crew of Discovery has attached the Z1 Integrated Truss Segment to the International Space Station. In addition to serving as the base for the U.S. solar array, the Z1 houses the Space Station's communications systems. Like the Space Shuttle, the Z1 has a slower S-Band system as well as a fast Ku-Band Communications System which transmits at 50 Mbps.
Shuttle Online Press Kit has detailed information about the Discovery's payload on the 100th Shuttle flight." Specifically, here's the information about the Integrated Truss Segment, which sounds like a smart way to use expensive hardware in multiple ways.
Shuttle Online Press Kit has detailed information about the Discovery's payload on the 100th Shuttle flight." Specifically, here's the information about the Integrated Truss Segment, which sounds like a smart way to use expensive hardware in multiple ways.
What else we need (Score:2)
Re:Photos? (Score:1)
I'll be the first.... (Score:1)
First person to get a first-post from Space gets 200 karma.
------------
Re:Photos? (Score:1)
for ISS on their site not so long ago. I don't know if it's still there, but it had all the tech specs, and line drawings in it. Also CNN has a Cult3D version available so you can take a fly-around view of ISS.
Re:Read this. Important. (Score:1)
Nope, just someone I used to share a house with - with my (then) girlfriend.
Elgon
PS - If I say that I am not gay, does this mean I am in denial?
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Okay, I'm done with being aggressively reasonable - go fuck yourself and your opinions. You're clearly too ignorant to know jack about the issue and clearly too stupid to formulate a reasonable argument without resorting to insult in the face of sensible, if perhaps cynical, argument.
Elgon
50MBPS (Score:1)
Data Bus (Score:1)
Re:ISS (Score:1)
Re:Read this. Important. (Score:1)
Use the Truss' Ku-band for TV? (Score:2)
I guess the Truss isn't fully online yet, but if it was - would it be possible for them to re-route signals through the shuttle out onto the ISS' systems?
Heck, if they can do stuff like that in the movies
Space Station Hams (Score:1)
3 replies beneath my current contempt
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Develop a world-class orbiting laboratory for conducting high-value scientific research
Fairy nuff, although quite why you'd want to orbit some of these is beyond me except in specific cases where ultra-low gravity is required.
Develop ability to live and work in space for extended periods
Already done. Mir, skylab usw although I do agree that more research should be done on mankind in space for extended periods as I agreed earlier.
Develop effective international cooperation
I can agree with this one. Mankind's future in space will definitely require cooperation between nations.
Provide a testbed for developing 21 st Century technology.
How exactly? Give me examples, reasons or some good links to these. Plenty of 21st century technology is already developed on the ground. I doubt there will actually be a huge amount of 21st century technology used in the station on the grounds that in space where just about everything everything is critical tried-and-trusted technology is used.
Elgon
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Its there, you just gotta find it ... (Score:2)
Start here:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/st
Probably be a ton of other stuff there as well, after the mission completes.
Also, if you're interested, you should be watching NASA TV - live coverage of the entire mission (though this time around, there's no live TV courtesy of a malfunctioning shuttle antenna).
On previous missions, NASA TV has given me about all I can stand of video and pictures and details and information about the ongoing shuttle missions
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
The worth of the possible data is enormous but that don't mean to say that it couldn't be done better and/or cheaper.
Elgon
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
How exactly? Give me examples, reasons or some good links to these. Plenty of 21st century technology is already developed on the ground. I doubt there will actually be a huge amount of 21st century technology used in the station on the grounds that in space where just about everything everything is critical tried-and-trusted technology is used.
I think by "21st century technology" they mean technology that relies on space (as opposed to 20th century technology which can be done on ground), rather than technology that is _used_ in space.
One example of such technology is the Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center [uh.edu]. They define themselves: "The Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center creates advanced thin film materials and devices for commercial applications through growth technologies using terrestrial and space environments".
They operate a so called Wake Shield Facility: "The WSF is a 12-foot diameter stainless disk-shaped platform launched from the Space Shuttle that creates a unique ultra vacuum environment in its wake, with a combination of pumping speeds and vacuum levels thousands of times better than the best vacuum chambers on earth. Built for eventual long-term autonomous operation, the WSF supports all of the processing and characterization instrumentation required for advanced molecular and chemical beam epitaxy (MBE/CBE) materials processing."
On the role of the ISS for their business they say: "The ISS is the linchpin in long term WSF business planning, serving as the logistics and servicing node in a manufacturing process that will make the Wake Shield Facility a profitable International Space Station commercial tenant."
A range of other projects can be found at Space Product Development [nasa.gov].
Information on Commercial development on ISS can be found at http://commercial.hq.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
setiathome? (Score:1)
Disprove the CIA brute-forcing theories.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
The problem is that the bureaucracy for ISS has become so large that it has developed its own inertia. That is, it no longer exists to support research in space, but only to support itself. Research and science has become secondary to its own existence.
This is one of the problems with NASA in general. The shuttle and ISS consume over half of NASA's budget. Both were developed to support NASA's primary functions of research and development, but in a way, they have now become NASA's primary function. Science and research is secondary. NASA has repeatedly demonstrated they will cancel science missions to support shuttle and ISS.
Personally, I doubt there will be much significant research done on ISS. What little that will be done will be widely publicized as "important" (hey, maybe they can send John Glenn up to ISS for a week or two, that's "important"). Meanwhile, NASA will continue to impede cheap, commercial access to space.
God, I hope I'm wrong.
Re:So whats next? (Score:1)
The politicians won't take the risk of sending people to the moon or Mars if they can't be reasonbly sure that these guys will be coming back too and do not die horribly in the space as the whole world watches.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
Re:Email From Space (Score:1)
ISS (Score:1)
In (Vaguely) related news (link [go.com]), The Russian Space Agency rejected a last-minute change in the launch of the first International Space Station module next week, a Russian idea that had mystified the U.S. space agency, officials said.
Well, *I* found it interesting.
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
Network connectivity in space (Score:2)
Spacemoss just tip of iceberg (Score:1)
Oh, I get it (Score:2)
I would, but... (Score:1)
Re:Use for the extra bandwidth (Score:1)
Chronicle site:
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/in
Broadcast.com screwed me by not offering Real Video anymore
I'm in Charleston, SC, on the coast. Actually I live 40 miles inland.
Charleston is about 300 miles north of Canaveral.
After liftoff, we went outside and looked southeast. After 3-5
minutes we saw a bright white light low in the southeast
through the trees. The light slowly climbed above the trees.
It moved from southeast to east; from 20 degrees above the horizon
to 45 degrees above the horizon. It changed from a brillant white color
to dim red. The white light was as bright as Venus is when it's
at it's brightest. The orange-red light was similar to Mars when
it's brightest.
We watched it a total of 3 minutes. It moved as fast as a jet
moves when it's way up high. But it had no flashing beacon light.
I put the binoculars on it and saw the prettiest red flame.
It was totally awesome!
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
structural blockage outages = communication outage due to ISS structure itself being in the signal path (approx 30% per orbit for the completed ISS)
So, the communication outage recorder is vital unless you want important data to disappear in
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
The ISS is a critical investment in space exploration and expansion. One of its long-term uses will be as a waystation for interplanetary travel. Besides, if it were somehow possible to assemble a vessel in space as opposed to on the ground and then launching it (space launch "guns" have been discussed to launch small payloads cheaply) it would make space travel much cheaper; most of the cost of the Shuttle is the propellant and that fuel tank that they don't reuse.
Having a space station is a foothold in space; if you want to accomplish something in space cheaply (i.e. without launching off the Earth every time) then you need a space station to do it, and that's how the ISS can be useful.
There are more reasons, such as the political benefits of internationl cooperation, but I'm no diplomat so some other slashdotter can comment on those.
And I thought.. (Score:2)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:3)
May I cite "ISS Familiarization, ISS FAM C 21109":
1.2 Purpose, Objectives, and Organization of the ISS
The purpose of the ISS is to provide an "Earth orbiting facility that houses experiment payloads,
distributes resource utilities, and supports permanent human habitation for conducting research
and science experiments in a microgravity environment." (ISSA IDR no. 1, Reference Guide,
March 29, 1995)
This overall purpose leads directly into the following specific objectives of the ISS program:
Develop a world-class orbiting laboratory for conducting high-value scientific research
Provide access to microgravity resources as early as possible in the assembly sequence
Develop ability to live and work in space for extended periods
Develop effective international cooperation
Provide a testbed for developing 21 st Century technology.
Here is a link that describes the scientific objectives.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
On the second point - so failing to convert poundinches to newtonmetres and crashing your expensive Mars mission into the Polar regions of the planet is not a cock-up? Really, I'm so glad.
Before you debate the issue, know the facts. Also have the courage to sign in instead of posting anonymously if yoi wish to make personal insults.
Elgon
This thing gets BIG (Score:3)
The link to Boeing's page seems to be too long for Slash to let me post it without corrupting it with spaces (!) so here it is (minus the initial "http://"):
www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/spacestation
There are plenty of photos [nasa.gov] of the Truss and other parts of the Shuttle payload at NASA's STS-92 homepage. [nasa.gov]
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Well why aren't we doing them instead of diddling around repeating Skylab and Mir? BOOOORIIIING!
And if "we" weren't, satellites would still probably be a theoretical possibility.
Yeah, another hail mary like Apollo would be kind of good. Or, alternatively, another 50 planetary probes and satellite observatories, which we could probably do for the same cost as the ISS and would have immeasurably more scientific as well as pissing-contest value.
Thank you for your holier-than-thou attitude. Perhaps, by the time I depart this earth, you grownups might just contemplate that anything beyond what we did in 1969 might be possible "in the forseeable future". Just don't justify an engineering white elephant by arguing that it's great to get experience in building engineering white elephants.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
-
Re:Oh, I get it (Score:1)
I think it is important that we establish a Solar Army to make sure that the possible Lichens of Mars are free to choose their own democratically elected pro-American business government.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
As CNN [cnn.com] notes in the essay "Soaring toward Von Braun's vision [cnn.com]" - the original aims of the NASA after the Moon landings was to build a fleet of shuttles and a space station to serve as a platform for manned flight to Mars.
I think there is a still a strong push in NASA to fulfill this vision. Hence the focus on the hardware programs (shuttle, space station). NASA has indicated a desire to put a man on Mars. Recent exploration into alternate methods of space propulsion (solar sails, ion drives) are all looking to get man to other planets within the solar system.
It's ABOUT TIME ! (Score:2)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
This may come as a shock to many, but the ISS already fulfilled its primary mission before anything was launched: The intended purpose of the ISS was to keep Russia from providing India with long-range missile technology. In return from their halting the spread of the technology (IIRC Russia can sell missiles to India but not the technology for manufacturing long range missiles) we bought the Russian involvement in the program. We give the Russians half a billion dollars and they build some components for the ISS and let NASA fly a few astronauts on Mir to train for the ISS. (Information on the politics surrounding the ISS can be found in Dragonfly : Nasa and the Crisis Aboard Mir by Bryan Burrough). With the agreement we pay the low price of 20 billion dollars to slow down India's development of long-range missiles for a decade or so.
In addition the ISS is major pork, so it satisfies the second key component of its mission--that is, get some elected officials reelected. ISS construction brings revenue to over 40 states, and as a consequence it enjoys and will continue to enjoy broad support in Congress.
While I agree that a mission to Mars would probably be of higher scientific value than running a bunch of laps in low Earth orbit, it has to be recognized that science is not nor ever was a priority of the ISS mission. Any words to that effect were just subterfuge, ramblings of a disingenuous politician. Furthermore, a mission to Mars has the serious disadvantage from a practical point of view in that we don't know for certain whether or not we could pull it off--some technical issues, such as whether the amount of cosmic ray exposure the astronauts would be subjected to is manageable, have not yet been resolved. When the price of a program reaches a threshold the public becomes quite allergic to risk. (Cases in point: Apollo 1 almost killed the Apollo mission, and NASA still hasn't recovered fully from the Challenger explosion). Since with the ISS we are doing nothing besides applying tried-and-true technology in a low-risk environment, it's a slam dunk that the ISS will perform more-or-less to specs and that nobody will swing from the gallows over its failures.
Look at the bright side: We get to take some pretty photos, pat ourselves on our backs for a job well done, maybe watch a few seasons of "ISS Survivor," and then promptly lose interest in the whole "going to space" thing--that's for the next generation to struggle with as they combat the other problems we'll leave them with (depleted ecosystems, energy shortages, ozone depletion, global warming, etc).
Re:Whats the point? (Score:1)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
And if their budgets weren't continually cut, they wouldn't ahve to cancel more research in order to actually do something.
If we are ever going to go further into space, we need to start *somewhere*. Gee.. never mind all the other technologies that actually trying to put people in space have brought us..
LIttle research? Do you know how much microgravity research is still sitting earthside waiting to be done? YEARS OF THE STUFF! MANY YEARS!
Re:Whats the point? (Score:4)
Nice troll, troll.
In point of fact I am not entirely behind the ISS; I would prefer more spending on planetary science, even at the expense of the crewed space program. But you shouldn't argue from ignorance.
The basic premise of your argument is that NASA is "losing funding". In point of fact NASA is not losing funding. Certain NASA programs are less well-funded than they could be, but ISS is Congress's baby, and they've willingly gone along with one slipped launch date and technical delay after another. They have restricted funding on specific things. At this point NASA cannot switch to experimental tech like a "balloon" habitat for ISS, nor can it officially spend anything on preparing for human visits to Mars. The planetary craft budget is notoriously starved. But funding for shuttle and ISS has been pretty much stable, taking into account a mandate to privatize and cut costs.
As far as research into extended space exposure, I tend to agree with you. Nevertheless, NASA does not, and in any case, they do not see medical research into long-term habitation as the primary purpose of ISS. It will certainly occur, and NASA astrodocs want to do their own experiments rather than translate Russian papers, but it's not the main reason.
ISS has two reasons to exist, which trump any others. The first is "international cooperation". This is rpetty much the only reason that ISS was ultimately funded: the Bush and Clinton administrations finessed a joint US/Russian ISS as a way to forge a relationship with the new Russia, incidentally toss them some cold hard US cash, and to stop sending nuclear engineers to places like Iran. So, foreign policy above all.
Second is that ISS, like Shuttle and Apollo before it, is a large, complex program that just happens to be spread -- and can be purposely spread even more -- across dozens of states and congressional districts. Hence pork above all but foreign policy.
Finally there is the political need for NASA to have a major "goal" program rather than just endless shuttle flights to low orbit. NASA has watned a space station since the early 1960s, and they finally have it. NASA doesn't really care that scientists, per se, may not have that much to do with it; it's not built for the scientists. It's also provided a way to build up space agencies in other countries, allow them to train astronauts, cooperate on a vast project, and generally learn how to handle a large engineering project in space.
All that said, the hope is that the microgravity environment will allow many different long-term experiments to be done that could not on a 10-day shuttle flight, covering materials, biology, and yes, human habitation, not just about medical but also about technology for doing it. This may yet prove useful. Folk like me see the utility, just not the cost-benefit ratio.
If you understand the political reality of a program like ISS the reasons for decisions made becomes much more clear.
----
Re:Use the Truss' Ku-band for TV? (Score:2)
It is rather ironic that the Shuttle is delivering an antenna related to the one out of commission. Unfortunately, the electronics to drive the new Ku-Band antenna are onboard the lab module (Destiny) which isn't due to be delivered until January.
Later missions will have more and more redundant capability as station resources are delivered and activated. A good example of this will be when the stations airlock arrives and it won't be necessary to lower pressure in the entire shuttle, and seal off the station, every time a spacewalk is done.
Email From Space (Score:2)
Re:Use for the extra bandwidth (Score:2)
M I R (Score:1)
i know, i know, and it's love a technologically confused rooskie week too (hey i can get away with that, i'm belarussian)
Where Your Vote Should Go [mikegallay.com]
Use for the extra bandwidth (Score:2)
Kevin Fox
Whats the point? (Score:1)
What is the point of all this? What do they hope to get in the way of data from the ISS? I mean what is the point of the ISS anymore? They already know how humans react to extended space exposure. The reason NASA is losing funding is because stuff like this is pointless.
-
Yeah but.... (Score:2)
Photos? (Score:1)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
Re:Use for the extra bandwidth (Score:1)
So whats next? (Score:1)
They've got video. So? (Score:1)
I am not convinced that digital links in the space station is a real challenge, while a stationary satellite is 36.000 km away from ground, the ISS is only about 400 km. So, it must be much easier than uplinking to a satellite, which is a very well known technology.
OTH, I am not sure of the usefulness of the links for video-conferencing with relatives and space control. But it might be very useful if the allow p0rn video there. It's normally cheap for their budget, only $20 to $90 for a year subscritpion and they will be able to research:
Sure they can get funding from the EC or NSF, just ask Bruce Perens to prepare the proposal and exploitation plan.
--ricardo
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
it is all very well saying things like 'money spent on the space program is spent on the ground' and so forth but ultimately if you don't do something useful with the ISS all you have is a multi-billion dollar toy. Pretty but useless.
NASA (Never A Straight Answer?) has never given any particularly good answers on what the hell they're going to do with the ISS. I don't agree that we have done enough physiological research into people in space, facts are still being found, à la vitamin K story a few weeks ago. Various things that I have read in the papers include a tracking system for stolen cars (I kid ye not) and super-accurate timing signals worldwide (uh...relativity?).
The basic fact is that they haven't got a damn clue what the hell they're going to do with it - they are just bloody sure that they are not going to screw it up like so many previous cockups by NASA (I'm not proud the ESA have made enough too and it must be said that at least you have a damn space program - unlike the UK. We got the scientists but we've also got a government which couldn't give a shit.)
Essentially NASA is just praying for some good publicity after the strem of unmitigated fuck-ups of the nineties - Hubble, Mars craft etc...
Gotta say what I see.
Elgon
"Uhhh, what planet are we sending this (Hubble ST) to?" - Gore, Albert.
(PS - for real afficionados of space cockups, read: Chaisson, Eric. 'The Hubble Wars'. A damned fine read.)