No More Science on the ISS Until Further Notice 223
Dyna-Soar writes "Discovery Channel News is reporting that NASA is canceling scientific research projects on the International Space Station until construction is complete. This may not happen before 2010 or 2012." From the article: "In addition to beginning development of a new manned launch system, expenses to return the shuttle fleet to flight following the 2003 Columbia disaster and delays completing the International Space Station have left NASA with a projected shortfall of up to $5 billion over the next five years"
Probably still not enough of a wake up call (Score:4, Insightful)
then what is the space station for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its Actually a Good Move (Score:4, Insightful)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
Its funny how we can always come up with money to kill, but there's never enough money for science.
Re:Probably still not enough of a wake up call (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Its Actually a Good Move (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Its Actually a Good Move (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The reason it's a good move though isn't safety or anything like that. The cost of the experiments they run is nothing compared with maintaining the station, and the experiments the astronauts are performing are not dangerous at all. The reason it's a good move is because it's the next best thing to scrapping the whole thing and letting the station fall from the sky (which is what they really want to do, but can't because of contractual agreements, international relations, public backlash, embarrassment, Bush, ...)
Money makes the world go round (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, people in a space station are very expensive in the long run and although they provide fascility for micro-gravity research ect alot of this could be achived with and un-maned drone.
People on the moon however I think is a much better idea as with a few basic supplies it could become self sufficiant what with all the free water and an ample back yard to stick solar pannels, make hydrogen fuel and grow food stuffs. Plus the added bonus of hulking great lumps of rock to shield from radiation.
Experiments as NASA Fundraiser? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:then what is the space station for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes funding is getting cut... you mean like those negative cuts they got the last two years right?
Re:Its Actually a Good Move (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly do you create a long term microgravity environment on earth?
It makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
But frankly, why would you? ISS isn't a step forward to anywhere. It doesn't do anything much other than "showcase international cooperation". The science it was doing was of the "train ants to sort tiny screws in space" variety. Even the Wikipedia article can't muster much definitive purpose, beyond the usual vague claim of technical spin-offs.
They should either decide that it's a tool for a task, redesign and build towards that, or de-orbit the whole junkpile into the nearest ocean. To carry on building for the sake of mere inertia would be nuts.
Re:Its Actually a Good Move (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't have it both ways (saving money/focusing resources by not conducting research while still expending resources keeping it running), and we shouldn't try. Either fund the fucking thing, hand it over to the Europeans and Japanese and let them worry about it, or deorbit it and be done with it. Or, as they say in some circles: shit or get off the pot.
Re:then what is the space station for? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US and Europe will increasingly have other concerns, with the political will for expensive space projects generally lacking. While the US will probably be able to claim the "credit" for the militarisation of space, I do not believe the US desire to feed its defense industry with boondoggles like an "anti missile shield" will lead to much useful technology for space exploration, exploitation or eventual colonisation.
Russia, if its economy permits, might remain a power to be reckoned with. Certainly, national pride in its ability to achieve practical results with a lower budget than the Americans is a factor.
Cancel it now (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say cut your losses, mothball it now and spend the money on robotic missions to Europa, a prototype asteroid mining mission that actually produces real product (e.g. water for reaction mass), orbiters for Uranus and Neptune, advanced nuclear (ooh, the n-word!) propulsion systems so that deep space missions that don't take decades, and actually get some science done.
I guess it's all a bit moot, though, since by 2020 everyone will be buying elevator tickets from Liftport instead...
Re:It makes a lot of sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the science? (Score:5, Insightful)
For comparison, a search for 'Hubble Space Telescope' gives over 200 papers.
On the other hand a quick search on MedLine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi [nih.gov] for "International Space Station" gives 511 papers, whereas a search for "Hubble Space Telescope" only gives 70 papers.
The low number of papers found at arxiv.org is probably related to a selection bias from that site. In particular, medical sciences seems not to be represented. Similarly, papers related to the Hubble Space Telescope is not well represented in MedLine.
relatively speaking ... (Score:1, Insightful)
on board a ship in Columbuses times, just
like it wasn't much of a "discovery" to bring
lemon tress, etc
the globe
my guess is that the ISS has made many small
but important "discoveries" for future
long duration manned space flights
bill board worth like "cure to cancer discovered
on ISS"
neat-o material research in zero-g with results?!
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop ISS construction (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to offer an alternative to completing the ISS, and Pres. Bush's "Moon, Mars, and beyond". How about we make "The Search for Life" the priority instead? For the price of the ISS, we could have had rovers on all the planetary bodies where there is even a remote chance of finding life, and sample return missions as well. The ISS can be used as is, as a quarantine for the returning samples. Put manned exploration on the back burner for now. At the rate technology is always advancing, when we get back to doing manned missions someday, we will have - who knows - space elevators or whatever to make the job much easier. The advantage of the focus as I propose is that it doesn't call for some mega-construction with mega-funding and attendant mega-bureaucracy. By it's nature, it's done in small steps like NASA's "Smaller, cheaper, faster" missions. Just imagine little rovers on the ground, and rovers in the air, all over the Solar System? Scientists will access and guide them via the Internet. Every university in the world will participate. I think it's a good bet were are going to find some microbes somewhere. Even if we don't, we will have learned a tremendous amount of planetary sciences along the way, much more than we ever would as things stand.
Re:then what is the space station for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
Better yet, imagine what the Apollo programme could have been like if the government hadn't wasted all that money bombing the shit out of another nation based on paranoia about communism and the domino theory...
Another space programme, another pointless bloody mess of a war. America, Fuck Yeah!
Re:Probably still not enough of a wake up call (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA is much smaller. Note that some view the money spent on NASA as "squandered". I see value in what NASA does, but I do feel it's a very inefficient organization in some areas (manned space flight being the worst). Now we have the ISS doing nothing useful for 5 or so years... Yeesh that thing is a white elephant.
If Bush were serious about interplanetary flight he'd start construction of a nuclear powered space-only ship, with a hefty lander, using ISS as the assembly plant. I'm pretty sure we could build a low-thrust nuclear design that'd get to Mars in a few weeks rather than many months. That would greatly change the equation in many ways, and would show the utility of the space station concept. It would even make Mars colonization practical.
SpaceX [spacex.com] is doing some great things, and shows the power of private ownership to lower costs. Their newest design, Falcon 9, is impressive with an ability to loft 24 metric tons at a time into LEO, at only $78 million a shot. You could build a massive interplanetary craft with just a few shots... I can't see this approach costing "hundreds of billions of dollars", but then again I'm not a government expert at inflating costs.
Of course our Luddite anti-nuclear "friends" would scream bloody murder about the Mars ship being nuclear, so it won't happen anytime soon, IMO.
Re:then what is the space station for? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first reason to finish the ISS is we are under international obligation to finish it. That is to say we promised Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Brazial that we would finish it.
The second reason is that scientific research projects will resume once ISS is completed in 2010 or 2012. This is roughly the same time period as the CEV begins operations. Once the CEV begins operations the crew size on the ISS can go up. The current crew size of three is barely able to keep the the station running. The station was suppose to have a crew size of 7, but the cancellation of the CRV means only a 3 person crew can occupy the station safely. An increased crew size will be much better able to maintain the station and conduct experiments.
Where's the proof? (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA seems to misinterpret the administrator's comments before Congress. He speaks of suspending NASA's own research projects in life science and nuclear propulsion.... the kind of cutting edge stuff needed for 9-month trips to Mars (or having the speed to reduce that to a more manageable timeframe).
Re:Sad that it has come to this (Score:3, Insightful)
5 Billions? Is that all? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Think Defense Research (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not worried (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who, like me, actually support humans in space almost all comments regarding space on
And so what if the ISS program was used for more than just its face value of space science? Why is that such a horror? Isn't it actually better to employ people in science that benefits us than let them languish and in likelihood be employed against us?
For being a supposed "Nerd" site
Anyway I'm not worried as I doubt anyone on
Recommended reading:
http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hustle_part1
The danger of that link of course is that it will shame people into shutting up.... what am I saying? this is
Com/Edu research? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Probably still not enough of a wake up call (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm impressed with SpaceX's progress so far and have my fingers crossed for a successful launch within the next month, keep in mind that they have yet to prove the Falcon 1, much less the Falcon 9 or the impressive 27 engine, side-stacked spin-off they've proposed. Remember also, that the $78 million price tag is a goal, probably slightly optimistic, and that's the launch cost only. It doesn't include the cost of the payload.
I think eventually a nuclear-powered Mars shuttle could be a great idea. If we were to reach the point of regular Martian travel, it could be fueled and mated to a payload (such as a lander) in earth orbit, deliver the payload to a Mars orbit and return another payload from Mars back to an earth orbit where it would be refueled and mated with a new payload for the next mission. At this point, however, we need to focus on getting to Mars and figuring out exactly what it will take to establish a permanent presence and if it's worth the cost before we invest billions of dollars developing, billions testing, and billions more building a craft with such a focused purpose. Trust me, it will take billions to design a new fission reactor and get it certified for launch, and there will be a huge fuss (probably costing billions more) over who's qualified to launch it, if anybody.