Russia Aims Towards Mars 161
Iddo Genuth writes "Russia's Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) has announced its intentions to build a low-orbit space station which, according to the agency, will support future exploration of the moon and Mars. There's also a suggestion to extend the operational lifespan of the International Space Station by five more years, resetting its retirement date to 2020. The project proposal is already on its way for review by the Russian government. Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars."
Perfect! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect! (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't realize that Cincinnati was having trouble with their franchise... a shame the team had to leave the country and an even bigger shame they had to leave the planet.
Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Moving the ISS is not such a crazy idea at all, and it's been proposed already by some smart people as a way to increase moon mission payoffs and reduce mission risks. A series of orbit boosts could eventually lead to a transfer orbit and lunar orbital insertion. Once in lunar orbit it would be at reduced risk of damage from orbital trash. Yes, sending up resupply and crew swapouts would be more difficult, but remember we would already be doing that for manned lunar operations so it's really not that much of a stretch.
Moving it to mars... Now that's a bit of a stretch but it might be possible with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough that could be powered by existing solar arrays or a bolt-on reactor. Still though, I think the idea of using it to support lunar operations might be an interesting idea especially as an alternative to letting it die after such a slow and expensive build-up with gross under-use as a science platform since it's been manned due to problems with the shuttle program.
The big question is: Once the shuttle is out of the picture, why keep the ISS where it is? Why not just put it wherever it is the most useful?
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, it's not crazy. They have actually gone "plaid" instead. Sure, most of what you are saying is interesting and insightful. It just overlooks the fact that the ISS has been plagued with malfunctions and other serious problems. Quite frankly, it's the Yugo of space stations. Yeah, its "gets us there", but it is not something we want to "drive" across the Solar System.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the next space station will be any better?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and every single piece built by the cheapest bidders.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just not a good idea. I can see that you value efficiency and find waste distasteful. However, you are just not considering the situation carefully.
Let's say you are some place near the U.S and Canadian border where it gets near freezing. You have an older space heater and a bunch of blankets and warm clothes. Generally, the space heater is serving you well. It's malfunctioned a couple of times, but you were able to use more blankets and some warmer clothes. In short order you were able to use some tools and some parts obtained from a local supply store and fix your "trusty" old space heater. One time you were just too tired and went over to a friend's house for the night.
Now, let's say you are are lot farther north of the equator. You are literally 1,000 miles away from the nearest warm shelter and local hardware store. If the space heater breaks down, you cannot find another heat source before you freeze and die.
In space, this situation is thousands of times worse. Reliability and redundancy are not just mission critical considerations, but life critical situations. This MUST be your primary consideration at all times. My tax dollars paid for parts of the ISS and I would want it to get the greatest amount of use before it is decommissioned. However, I don't want to risk the lives of astronauts just to keep using a piece of equipment.
AFAIK, there have been problems with the ISS where the situation could have been far more serious had it been orbiting around the Moon, or worse Mars.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, consider how much refined materials cost in space, what is wrong with sending it to the moon or to Mars? Somebody might want a bolt or some wire one day, aboard whatever ideal craft they follow up with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, consider how much refined materials cost in space, what is wrong with sending it to the moon or to Mars? Somebody might want a bolt or some wire one day, aboard whatever ideal craft they follow up with.
That's actually rather insightful. Make sure they put a bag of Cheetos onboard, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really it's not about the cost of refined materials it's the cost of putting *anything* in orbit. It cost's ~5,000$/pound to get it up there which means dirt in LEO is almost worth as much as solid gold. (August 2007, the price of gold was 8070$/lb now it's ~15,000$/lb)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really it's not about the cost of refined materials it's the cost of putting *anything* in orbit.
Hence the complete craziness of throwing away all those shuttle primary fuel tanks. It would have taken little more to take them all the way and once there they could have been used for something. Shit, we could have used them to build a space station. If we just saved the tanks from 3/4 of the successful launches we'd have had enough to do something big with.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Hence the complete craziness of throwing away all those shuttle primary fuel tanks.
Many of them are still in orbit, still being tracked by ground stations. But you're right, most of them are actually ditched over the Indian Ocean. The irony is that the shuttle could actually be more efficient if they knew they were going to re-use the tank in orbit, because they wouldn't have to waste the fuel necessary to perform the MET ditch maneuver.
Each fuel tank weighs more than the total shuttle payload. That's an enormous amount of raw materials that are already up in space to work with. But this is not an original idea... people have been talking about converting main fuel tanks into crew habitats for years.
The first mention was back in 1979 by a group of undergraduate students writing for a competition at the International Astronautical Congress. It was entitled, appropriately enough Space Shuttle External Tank Used as a Space Station [archive.org].
They ended up winning first prize, but naturally nothing was ever done about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No Shuttle ET (external tank) has ever stayed in orbit - they burn up a little while after separation. Other rockets regularly place upper stages in orbit. The Shuttle's upper stage, the Orbiter, returns to Earth.
Reusing ETs or other upper stages makes a lot of sense but is not currently practice.
Moving ISS out of Low Earth Orbit is insane - the station was designed specifically for that environment. Even GEO, L1 or Lunar orbit are vastly different (radiation, thermal, etc) than LEO. Much better to customiz
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody might want a bolt or some wire one day, aboard whatever ideal craft they follow up with.
Now! that explains an orbiting
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using ISS as a ship is obviously crazy, but considering that it will take some fuel to safely deorbit it anyway, I would love to see it put into a "storage" orbit someplace out of the way. Maybe somebody will have a use for it in 20 years. Maybe not. But, I'd really like to think that my great grand
Re: (Score:2)
How much would it cost to move the ISS to lunar orbit compared to moving the same mass from earth to lunar orbit.
How much more usefull would a craft designed for the job of similar weight be.
IIRC most launchers have a maximum mass to LEO several times higher than thier maximum mas to GEO and lunar is even futher up the gravity well than GEO.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, there have been problems with the ISS where the situation could have been far more serious had it been orbiting around the Moon, or worse Mars.
So far no crew was forced to return to Earth after an emergency, and no spacecraft had to be launched up there on emergency basis. We know now what pieces of ISS are reliable and what pieces of it are not. Why building a completely new vessel and launching it first time to the Moon or Mars will be safer? Even if certain systems on that new vessel are done in triplicate, they still can fail and crew can perish - especially because these systems haven't been tested enough.
I do not dispute that a trip to Mars will be hard from survival POV. It can be only compared to sending a group of people to North or South pole; in all these cases loss of some essential supplies like food, fuel [and air] results in painful death, and if you need help it won't be coming. Some polar explorers died. I do not expect Mars to be kinder than coldest places of this planet. The only way to prevent deaths on other planets is to never go there; but it's too much like the guaranteed recipe of avoiding death at old age (die young.)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Gemini 8 [wikipedia.org] had to land after a thruster failure. Not to mention Apollo 13 [wikipedia.org]. At least two Soyuz had to terminate their missions early because they could not dock with their target space station. (Back then, Soyuz only had batteries. After these incidents the solar panels were restored.)
Re: (Score:2)
He is clearly talking about the ISS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long has the ISS gone without a resupplly mission? While there may have been no emergency missions i'm pretty sure there have been changes to the manifests of supply missions adding more single use oxygen candles and spare parts for the oxygen generators due to failures of the oxygen generators on the ISS.
IMO before we consider a trip to mars we have to get to the point where we can reliablly (how reliablly depends on what risk to the astronauts you consider acceptable) maintain humans in isolation for
Re: (Score:2)
How long has the ISS gone without a resupplly mission?
I think 4-6 months is possible, though it has little bearing on a trip to Mars. Clearly such a trip will require externally attached storage containers with tons of stuff - not only to get there, but also to return, and to do some useful work while there.
changes to the manifests of supply missions
Good that we know now what is likely to fail, and what spares are needed.
With regard to a dry run on LEO, that had been already done many times, that's
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep in mind that many fires are started from "repaired" space heaters getting too hot or bursting into flame. Of those fires, some of them take human lives with them.
I don't see anything wrong with fixing broken stuff and making them work again. However at some point in time, the efficiency or repair needs to be considered with replacement as well as the potential to cause more damage. A $50 space heater starts looking mighty cheap when it costs $20 to fix it twice a year or you have to replace a $100
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not logic. You are making an observation about culture. I won't argue who is wrong or right, good or evil in this case. According to you, Russia and China place less value on human life and more value on the success of a project. That may work for the governments, but I would not say it is "working" for the
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's some craziness:
Send unmanned craft to Mars whose mission is to stay in orbit and deploy a series of reflectors that will concentrate sunlight and keep it focused on the same spot on the surface of Mars, bringing the temperature there up to ~20C.
Then when we finally send manned craft, they will set up camp at that spot. As long as the reflectors don't fail the ground-crew won't have to worry about their heaters breaking and they can build greenhouses to deal with their food and oxygen situation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:4, Informative)
Note that those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Equatorial orbit is NOT the plane of the ecliptic.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind the fact that getting to an equatorial orbit from where the ISS is now is not easy.
You can't easily turn your orbit 'left' or 'right'. Taking the extreme example, say you wanted to do a 90 degree left turn from the ISS's current orbit. You have to do two things simultaneously :
- Lower your current forward velocity from it's current value of approx 7 kilometres/sec to zero.
- Increase the velocity in the direction you want to travel from zero to 7 kilometres/sec.
Let's just say that you're not going to be doing that with an ion thruster any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can do a left turn with an ion thruster. It's just that you have a very, very, wide turning circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The hard part of moving it to Mars, is not the propulsion system. Rockets work well.
The issue is moving it without structural damage. You have to make sure that each module gets JUST the RIGHT amount of thrust relative to the others, so that the whole thing wants to move at the same delta. If one part's delta is off to much... crack!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't one just accelerate really slow?
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're already adding rockets, and you can't see your way to adding some superstructure to keep the thing from disintegrating at the seams when it's moved? I don't think you've had enough coffee this morning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but you have to stop or slow down on approach to Mars, if you plan on staying very long. Ion engines might not cut it - and anything more powerful (as above) could be problematic.
As well, the ISS doesn't have the shielding required for interplanetary travel - so we either need to shield it, or move it as quickly as possible (unless you don't mind dead astronaughts and damaged materials)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much friction on the ISS...
No, but plenty of mass [wikipedia.org]. Its not all in a single line either, so you would get some fairly large moments [wikipedia.org] around the junctions of the various modules (F=M*a, and T=F*r), the solar panel wings, basically anything off the line of thrust. Remember, the ISS was not designed as a spaceship, it was designed to sit in a (fairly) stable orbit where the g forces (aka DeltaV or Acceleration, which is constant during orbital shift) would be limited to minor orbital corrections. Trying to blast it to mars without it fall
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or even this [aip.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is crazy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, though you are correct. Probably the MOST important device that we could have put on this was the life centrifuge. That would have ena
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Informative)
You're right - it isn't a crazy idea. It's a barking-at-the-moon freakin' lunatic idea, proposed only by folks who are either crazy themselves or (being kind) utterly innocent of any acquaintance with the facts.
To start with, the ISS isn't designed to be operated unmanned. Next, the electronics onboard ISS aren't shielded against the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
So yeah, in theory you could boost about 500 Shuttle loads of fuel and move it to Lunar orbit... In practice, it'll arrive there dead.
Sure, it's a stretch. Kind of like saying it's a stretch for me to fly from Seattle to New York by flapping my arms - though it might be possible for with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough, like strapping a 747 to my back.
Re: (Score:2)
Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
I'm curious. Apart from the altitude, what's the difference between a 90 minute polar orbit around the moon as opposed to a 90 minute polar orbit around the earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question! But I doubt the OP will have the chutzpah to try to reply.
I wonder what could make the lunar space environment so cold compared to
the Earth space environment? Magic lunar icecubes? But why polar orbit?
Approximately equatorial makes transfers easiest.
Re:Moving ISS not a crazy idea at all (Score:5, Informative)
Well, somewhat simplified they can be compared this way: 90 miles above the Earth, the ISS 'sees' (thermally) the warm Earth beneath it. (Think of how it feels standing near a bonfire.) 90 miles above the moon, the moon fills much less of the sky, and while warmer on the day side is much (much) colder on the night side. (Think standing in front of a small electric heater.)
People are used to thinking only in terms of the sun when it comes to thermal environment of space, but that is the result of years of journalistic simplifications. (I know you've heard it too - "blazing hot in the sun, freezing cold in the dark".) In reality, its a bit more complicated than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moving it to mars... Now that's a bit of a stretch but it might be possible with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough that could be powered by existing solar arrays or a bolt-on reactor. Still though, I think the idea of using it to support lunar operations might be an interesting idea especially as an alternative to letting it die after such a slow and expensive build-up with gross under-use as a science platform since it's been manned due to problems with the shuttle program.
Please tell me what will protect the humans onboard from cosmic radiation once they leave the Van Allen belts. Or do you propose wrapping the whole thing in a meter of lead?
Another bright/stupid idea... (Score:2)
Ludicrous? (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose *some* people would be upset if a Russian booster rocket took the ISS out of orbit without telling anyone, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it ludicrous. If the U.S. doesn't pay Russia to boost the ISS during the shuttle's downtime, Russia may have no choice but to pull a repo job on it.
In space, no one can hear you... nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering why the OP says that too. It's already got about everything you'd need for an extended stay in space, and it's a proven technology. The only serious problem I see for it is it's not designed to be rapidly accelerated for a fast trip, structurally wise. But having all that gear already in orbit surely would give things a head start. Getting an interplanetary ship into earth orbit is the majority of the time and expense involved and we already have a lot of that done if we try to recycle t
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs rapid acceleration? Slow and steady. ISS can already withstand the sort of thrust used in stationkeeping maneuvers, which should be plenty. Perhaps they could even use something like a larger version of VASIMR for the cruise stage -- 50-100N thrust (current version is ~5N).
Since ISS wouldn't be able to withstand aerocapture, and humans wouldn't be up to slow, multi-month aerobraking maneuvers, you'll need a braking stage. Same for Earth departure, return, and insertion -- but nothing with a hu
Re: (Score:2)
If you planned the trajectory right, couldn't you just fall into orbit around mars or the moon? Since gravity accelerates (or decelerates) all parts of the station equally, there would be no strain on it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to lose the energy you used to get there. Technically it's possible to be captured without burning any energy except for course correction maneuvers and leaving Earth orbit, but you want to be going far faster than that. Generally things going to Mars are either aerocaptured or aerobrake, sometimes in addition to a kick stage. Aerobraking would take too long for humans, and ISS can't be aerocaptured. You need a kick stage.
Re: (Score:2)
"it's not designed to be rapidly accelerated for a fast trip, structurally wise"
No, but an orbit that would be helpful for lunar exploration wouldn't require jarringly fast acceleration. For Mars it would be more tricky because you would probably want to send the people in a fast spacecraft to minimize the radiation exposure. The ISS could still be used as a conveniently large cargo container sent ahead of time. Of course, it would have to take the slow track to Mars, IIRC, a slingshot [wikipedia.org] that uses Venus
Re: (Score:2)
Take it apart again? Send up the rocket parts, some structural parts, and rip off bits of the ISS and reassemble. Seems plausible anyway, and better than watching the whole thing burn up.
Actually (Score:2)
Finally, I suspect that L-Mart, Boeing, Orbital and SpaceX can come up with quick ability to do
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be to surprised if the air force didn't have something capable tucked away somewhere. Sure, it would be a last ditch, I finally got to let people know about it scenario but they already mirror a lot of what NASA does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In space, no one can hear you... nevermind."
Steal a space station? :)
And then (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars, ever eager to fight, aims right the fuck back.
Just say the magic word: K'Breel [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's just as well though. Think of how disappointing it would be if they did launch something all that way only that have it collide with the polar orbiter upon arrival...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Weird... (Score:5, Funny)
In soviet space, you can hear no one screaming...
(!)
Russia aims towards Mars, ... (Score:4, Funny)
but sometimes they hit Georgia.
Russia Saves US Manned Spaceflight? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite ironic that it looks like the only thing that will save US manned spaceflight & planetary exploration from becoming a sacrificial lamb on the altar of pork & payoffs by short-sighted, corrupt US politicians may well be a re-emerging, hostile, and aggressive Russia.
It looks like it may be more effective for US citizens who are in favor of NOT letting our manned spaceflight capabilities die from neglect to, rather than contributing money to any US politicians or organizations, donate money to the Russian spaceflight program instead.
It seems that US politicians have so abandoned any pretense of doing the will of the people, of upholding & defending the US Constitution, and acting in the countries' best interests, that we may in future find it much more effective to donate money to our various enemies and rivals like Russia, Al Queda, and Ahmadinejad to preserve our freedom and prevent our politicians from doing things like de-funding NASA and the US military to fund their pork-filled, quid-pro-quo/payoff-laden, "bridge to nowhere" projects and social-engineering experiments designed to increase their voter-base.
Cheers!
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not let (extraorbital) US Manned Spaceflight die for now?
Before you reply, consider for a moment the relative gains we have gotten from things like Hubble, Cassini, the mars rovers, Japan's Hinode solar satellite, etc, to what we have achieved with the ISS and the projected goals of Orion, versus the costs of the programs.
I have a strong knee-jerk reaction against letting manned spaceflight die too; dammit, I *want* people to walk on Mars. But the fact is, we are learning a hell of a lot from unman
Re:Russia Saves US Manned Spaceflight? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can resurrect the idea of extraorbital manned missions at any time...
Respectfully, this is where you are wrong.
The learned skills and experienced personnel will not wait around. If they aren't used, they will be lost and have to be entirely re-learned and replaced again with the attendant costs in wealth, time, and lives. The engineers with the necessary skills and experience will have to find other employment and careers, which they won't simply drop to return whenever it again becomes politically expedient to start up extra-orbital manned spaceflight again.
A manned spaceflight program, and especially an extra-orbital manned spaceflight program, can't simply be put on 'hold' for years and have any hope of retaining viability without almost starting completely over from scratch again. This has already been proven by our inability to build a modernized Saturn V again. Heck, we can't even *find* all the old plans anymore!
Young people choosing education and career paths won't be choosing those that provide the skills necessary if there's not a viable career waiting for them. It will require a whole new generation of people to be educated and then more years to re-gain all the experience and learned skills lost.
We will, out of pure necessity, *have to* eventually have an extra-orbital manned spaceflight program. We can choose to do it now, or we can procrastinate and raise the inevitable eventual costs in lives and treasure, and possibly cost ourselves our species' ultimate survival.
Not trying to be insulting, but don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. For a tiny fraction of the treasure wasted in the "stimulus" package just passed (and assuming that only a fraction of the total package is "waste"), we could have *both* types of programs fully-funded and running in parallel, each benefiting and complimenting the other. The combined economic, technical, and societal benefits of which I guarantee will dwarf anything this stimulus package could ever hope to do.
Cheers!
Strat
manned flight is a waste of money right now (Score:2, Insightful)
Not trying to be insulting, but don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. For a tiny fraction of the treasure wasted in the "stimulus" package just passed (and assuming that only a fraction of the total package is "waste"), we could have *both* types of programs fully-funded and running in parallel
There is no "fully funded" in unmanned space exploration. There are hundreds of targets we should be exploring and that we are technologically ready to explore, and we should be working our first interstellar probe.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "fully funded" in unmanned space exploration.
There's actually never any "fully-funded" for any type of research or exploration. There are always more things that could be done.
There are hundreds of targets we should be exploring and that we are technologically ready to explore, and we should be working our first interstellar probe.
This is not an either/or problem. There's no reason other than political posturing and pork-barrel spending why both manned and unmanned programs couldn't be seriousl
you're the Luddite (Score:2)
This is not an either/or problem. There's no reason other than political posturing and pork-barrel spending why both manned and unmanned programs couldn't be seriously pursued.
Yes, there is: every dollar we spend on manned space exploration is more effectively spent on unmanned exploration right now; the resulting scientific and engineering insights will accelerate both unmanned and manned space exploration.
If you're that much of a monster that you're ok with sentencing a whole new crop of poor schmoes to r
Re: (Score:2)
It's people like you that condemned us to a failed space shuttle program and "space stations" and that have held back space exploration by decades. If it weren't for your irrational insistence on constantly putting men into tin cans, we probably would have orbiting space habitats and manned interplanetary travel right now.
So, tell me O wise one, how the frak do you expect to keep anyone alive in a space habitat or how do we insure men would be able to successfully survive & complete an interplanetary mi
Re: (Score:2)
We've already progressed past '60s tech...or did you miss the shuttle program? If we let what we've learned atrophy from disuse
We have learned little that is relevant to the future of manned space flight because developments in material science, propulsion, biotech, and AI are making the technologies that our manned space program has been built on so far obsolete.
In 50 years, manned space flight will be easy even if we don't invest a dime in it until then, because a lot of necessary technologies will have b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 50 years, manned space flight will be easy even if we don't invest a dime in it until then, because a lot of necessary technologies will have been developed for other uses.
What you're overlooking here is that it isn't *just* hardware & tech that's involved here. It's learning how humans themselves react to long periods in space and how best to make sure the people not only arrive at their destination, but arrive alive, healthy, and sane. There is no way to reliably model or simulate how humans may re
Re: (Score:2)
What you're overlooking here is that it isn't *just* hardware & tech that's involved here. It's learning how humans themselves react to long periods in space and how best to make sure the people not only arrive at their destination, but arrive alive, healthy, and sane.
What you're overlooking is that these human factors are being worked out as part of medical research anyway. And it's going to take a few decades whether or not we have a manned space program.
[Unmanned space probes] cannot think outside t
Re: (Score:2)
Me: I'm quite familiar with the history and science of spaceflight, and how knowledge and skills in this area are gained. I worked in aerospace for many years.
You: You really have no clue about robotics or technology. Go back to reading science fiction novels and leave science and engineering to people who actually know something about it.
I guess reading isn't fundamental for you, eh?
Add to that I've also been in the technical side of the automation & robotics industry for many years. I'm very aware of
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite ironic that it looks like the only thing that will save US manned spaceflight & planetary exploration from becoming a sacrificial lamb on the altar of pork & payoffs by short-sighted, corrupt US politicians may well be a re-emerging, hostile, and aggressive Russia.
I don't find that strange at all. Competition breeds innovation.
Re:Russia Saves US Manned Spaceflight? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the budget deficits were not manageable; they were simply pushed back.
This is not a partisan issue at all; increases in the national debt are public record and there for anyone to see, be it on wikipedia or .gov websites.
The Reagan administration borrowed more money than all the presidents before him, combined. Basically, it was the same idea as living "well" by maxing out credit cards and getting new ones when you fill up the old ones. Fun while it lasts, but someone has to pay for it eventually.
So, we get to where we are today, with the interest on the national debt being more than 20 times NASA's annual budget. Granted, a lot of that came from both presidents Bush too, especially the latter. GHWB kind of inherited a problem there from Reagan.
Anyway, remember that when you look back to the Reagan years as some kind of boon for the space industry. Short term, definitely; long term, not so much.
2 things in the way (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, RSA is already not well funded. It is not likely that they will get funding for more when Russia is losing money and their economy is crashing HARD.
Re: (Score:2)
But EU will be working hard to get themelves unhitched from the Russian Pipeline over the next couple of years.
By doing what -- buying natural gas from Middle East and paying even more?
At the moment, it appears that NASA is going to fund RSA by the ridiculusly high price of ~50M/seat (when they were getting 20M). But more likely than not, NASA is going to fund SpaceX and try to get SpaceX to carry the bulk of the humans for less than half the price.
They will have their own vehicle before SpaceX will produce anything -- however neither is going to be cheaper to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me ask something? WHy do you trash them? THey are already close to doing this. They have the FULL backing of NASA and DOD. What do you KNOW that real experts say that you are wrong about? Please, where is your resume on being a rocket scientists. In addition, please let me know WHAT SpaceX is doing that will prevent them from being up there soon with Drago
Meanwhile, on Mars... (Score:5, Funny)
"Podmates! A new threat from the wretched third planet has presented itself!" roared K'breel, Glorious Elder Speaker of the High Council, the his gelatinous tendrils quivering with excitement. "The detestable ape-people of the Northwestern Continent, having failed pitifully in their invasion of our homeworld with their pathetic wheeled war vehicles, have now attempted to enslave the population of an old adversary to construct their monstrous interplanetary weapons of destruction. Fortunately for our cause, due to the design faults of their primitive neurological systems, and in no small part the assistance of our hidden operatives, their economies have collapsed as a result of their insatiable lust for accumulating worthless structures of planetary rock and decayed photosynthetic matter! They have turned against one another in their uncomprehending rage, bringing the hour of our ultimate victory within sight!"
When one journalist timidly asked of K'breel to confirm the rumors that a new Great Speaker had arisen among the citizens of the Northwestern Continent, who had been prophisized to lead the ape-people to final victory in the interminable conflict, K'breel ordered his gelsacs to be pierced on the spot.
Using ISS for research, finally (Score:2)
Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars.
It does sound like the submitter has some better use of ISS in mind. He should share it with the rest of the world, especially considering that the warranty on ISS expires 5 years from now, and no new scientific discoveries were reported so far. Most of th
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS is sort of like the Ford Pinto or Chevete Citation of spacecraft in terms of convenience for a long term space flight. It's great for short trips around town and possible to the next town but it start taking it's toll on the passengers when you go much further then that.
Basically, there are some issues with taking it to mars. It would be packed with so much stuff that most of the room would be gone and you would basically be putting it on a trailer and hauling it behind another space vehicle that ga
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS is a prototype. As our (humanity's) first modular space station it has been a roaring success in that it has not yet killed anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's been a success at what it was "indented" for. How likely do you think that success rate for the death toll will be once it has been redesigned from within space and re-purposed for a mission it was never intended to carry out.
It's just not the ideal craft for going to mars.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just not the ideal craft for going to mars.
it's not the ideal craft for doing scientific experiments in orbit, either.
the argument is that the mass is already in orbit. we should have been saving the orbiter main tanks, which are ideal containers for a number of reasons.
there is no argument that just attaching some rockets to it wouldn't work. but adding some kind of structure as well might result in a workable package.
Great idea, but the ISS wouldn't be very useful (Score:2, Informative)
A suggestion for power... (Score:2)
After the little fiasco this last week, they should design their station with lots of little paddles wheels attached to small generators. That way when the debris clouds from their crashing satellites cause their platform to be continuously pelted by fast moving debris, they can use it to generate power...
re: ISS --- ITV? (Score:2)
Neat... it will become a movable feast [imdb.com] for our Martian overlords and space aliens, then?
this is the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to send a quadrocopter to where there is no air, but it had problems...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This might actually be a good idea IF ... (Score:2)
... you do the flight unmanned, don't mind several decades in transit and are able to mothball the station in a way that you can reliably unfreeze and reactivate it after many years in space. That way, you might be able to use low thrust, low energy, solar or nuclear powered high specific impulse ion or plasma drives to haul the station there.
A pioneer mission can then try to reactivate the station and if successful, you already have habitat, life support and scientific equipment in place for subsequent mis
Empire is coming back (Score:2, Funny)
Finally! (Score:2)
I said this along time ago, keep stuff made for space in space, so that we can use their metal and pieces to put together more stations in the future, like all those orbiting sats, could they not be used for parts, they are already up there, have the shuttle scoop up all of them and bring thenm to the space station, and use their thrusters and cameras and satcoms etc....for the station, if they are broken, they can be fixed, along with someone who can stay longer up there to head up the
inventory.
This is not
Re: (Score:2)
i emancipate myself from the grammar nazizm you people hold so dearly. im not english, american or australian. that's the way i speak, take it, or leave it.