Additional Lab To Be Added To the ISS 81
Matt_dk writes "Apparently the International Space Station is going to get bigger. NASA and the Italian Space Agency (ASI) are preparing to sign an agreement to add another laboratory to the ISS by using a modified multipurpose logistics module (Raffaello) during the final Space Shuttle mission. It will be attached in September 2010 during Endeavour's STS-133 mission. The idea had originally been rejected, but earlier this year ISS program manager Michael Suffredini said using an MPLM for an additional module was being reconsidered."
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
No jews in space
You'd rather see Hitler on Ice?
I don't see the point of adding to it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a masturbation lab, so it won't be needed for a lengthy period of time...
Re:I don't see the point of adding to it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not a queer or nothin, but even I wonder what a shpritzen of jizm would look like in zero G!
Perhaps (Score:2, Insightful)
You make the assumption that semen is a homogeneous inert liquid, which it isn't [wikipedia.org]. You could very well be correct if, in fact, the surface tension of the semen droplet is a much stronger force than other internal forces which might structure the semen otherwise.
Re:I don't see the point of adding to it. (Score:5, Interesting)
As the Russian modules have the motors that would be used for controlled de-orbit, this poses a potential issue if Russia takes that capability to a new, on-going station. Other options include using a European Automated Transfer Vehicle. One option stated for an ongoing station is for Russia to build a ball-shaped, six-port module to which existing modules could be attached.
Decommissioned doesn't necessarily mean EOL.
Re: (Score:1)
Decommissioned doesn't necessarily mean EOL.
For what I have seen previously (Mir), decommissioned means "go down and burn!".
Re: (Score:1)
And the Indian space program is a complete joke. It's much like how they develop software. Not very well.
Not very well is now defined as delivering the same goods at a tenth of the price.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's talk of possibly reallocating some of the money from the next thread down [slashdot.org] (since it's already been determined that there's no way to do what Bush wanted on the money they have) to actually keep the ISS operational long enough to do some of the meaningful science that was promised. :)
do you really want to know? (Score:2)
The point is to get other countries to pointless.
fucking slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is to get other countries to <3 the USA by showing "global leadership" in space. It's all about "soft power" and, like most political things, it really doesn't matter if it is actually pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
had a sorta Zen quality to it, didn't it?
Re:fucking slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a joke, but it's not -- the world is more likely to look favorably on a country that uses its wealth for cultural progress like significant science. (
Ironically spending $10 billion on the space program would contribute *far* more to US national security than an extra $10 billion to the military.
Re: (Score:2)
I think an 8 billion dollar aircraft carrier off the coast of North Korea probably convinces them of whatever we want a lot faster than a space station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The US already has an aircraft carrier off the coast of North Korea. It's called Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! I mean ... inventing silicon chips integrated circuits and microprocessors .. the cyclotron and nuclear energy .. freon for use in refrigeration and air conditioning .. the gasoline engine, electric
Re: (Score:2)
That would be nice. (Score:2)
The US is now looked with disdain, some fear but zero respect. It is considered a bully that resolves all matters through force, and is willing to invest 10x more in maintaining that attitude than in continuing its historical path of exploration and invention.
It would be nice if we moved past a Machiavellian world, but we haven't. Pretending there are no barbarians left in the world doesn't make it so.
Good will and tender feelings are fickle, and any positive effects from those factors are based on common i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No they are not.
Fear will only ever buy you lip service, respect gives you admiration and cooperation. Base you regime on fear and watch your friends disappear when the going gets tough, just like Saddam. But gain your allies respect and they will stick with you no matter what. This is the only reason the US is not a province of China with China owning most of your 10 trillion in debt, because your Euro and APAC allies are strong enough
Re: (Score:1)
No they are not.
Perhaps I'm reading more into this than I should but I don't see dfenstrate making the mistake of using fear and respect interchangeably himself; rather, he was suggesting that it is not an uncommon mistake to see made.
Of course, I complete agree with the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that worked really well in the lead-up to Iraq, huh?
Of course, ideally you want your friends to respect you and your enemies to fear you. Pragmatically, it helps if your friends fear you at least a little bit. That way they won't be so quick to jump to the defensive of a murderous dictator, just so they can keep buying cheap oil from him. Sure, some of them will stay with you out of respect and loyalty, but others are weaselly
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it did.
The point of respect is not to gain blind obedience but to inspire loyalty. The US allies have not abandoned it due to their good history. Just beacuse some did not blindly follow you to war does not mean they are not allies.
No it doesn't. In fact its quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi. Welcome to Earth. Did you have a nice trip?
Yeah, that's right, France sided with Saddam because they were afraid of the US, and they figured Iraq could protect them. Makes perfect sense!
AKA conquered.
Re: (Score:2)
When did that happen?
Where is Earth in the galaxy you live in.
The Christians conquered Rome? (HINT: using your logic meaning conversion == conquest, it doesn't and what actually happened is that the emperor and senate converted, not conquered)
The rest of your post is a joke, not only do you fail to understand ancien
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Either you're a moron, or a pedant. Either way, you're wasting my time.
I didn't say that, but, now that I think of it, yes, they certainly did. If the US became 99% Muslim within the next few decades, there would be no question that Islam conquered America. It's irrelevant whether the conquest is violent, cultural, demographic, or what have you. The fact that Christians used force and intimidation to propagate their beliefs amongst the citizens of Rome
Re: (Score:2)
And I tell you from a country other than the US that the Yanks have been made fun of and insulted for decades, all over the world. Funny enough, the start of it seemed to coincide with the end of the cold war. If I were a more cynical person, I might think that people were more than
Re: (Score:2)
So? That's 5 years of work that can be done. Besides: Do you really think they are actually going to decommission it? I bet on a bailout. :P
Re: (Score:2)
---
Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's going to be decommissioned in 5 years. Maybe they should be planning the lab for the next generation space station.
AIUI, there are plans afoot to extend the station's life. I've heard suggestions that it could be in orbit for around 10-15 more years. And as far as I know, there are no plans for a replacement station.
Plus, there's no reason _not_ to do this. The module is already built. It's designed to be used with the shuttle, so after the last shuttle flight it will be useless if it isn't left up
Re: (Score:2)
> It's going to be decommissioned in 5 years.
Not likely.
Why Don't They Leave the Shuttles Up There, Too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
"And so forth"? You certainly mean their crew, don't you ...?
Yes. Long-term storage of human beings in space.
Re:Why Don't They Leave the Shuttles Up There, Too (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Long-term storage of human beings in space.
Two ships go up, one ship comes down. It shouldn't be hard to leave at least a little bit of equipment up there.
On the topic of leaving them up their with their robotic arms, I would like to see some sort of small, orbital building yard - for now it doesn't have to do much, but even some sort of recycling processor to deal with random bits of junk that float past would be interesting, and pave the way for a whole new set of interesting technology.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Leaving my topic of the humans-a-returning (or not):
Nice thought, but space debris is so rare an event you have to wait for years for it to even come close. And, if it does,
Re:Why Don't They Leave the Shuttles Up There, Too (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What we need is a ninja robotic arm, with the ability to catch swords^H^H^H^H^H^H debris moving at high velocities.
Well they seem to have already gotten to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfdHY26E2jc&fmt=18 [youtube.com]
Re:Why Don't They Leave the Shuttles Up There, Too (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems some use for it could be made in the future. Scrap, airtight or easily-sealable containers, storage bits for a manned mars mission, surely something that doesn't require high reliability could be thought of.
And they could try boosting it cheaply using LAO or ProSEDS.
Might be a nice experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
You do? Why?
All you need to do is make sure it's airtight. You can scrap the engines. You can scrap the avionics and flight controls. You can scrap the radio equipment and the computers and pretty much everything in the cockpit. You can feed electricity and air to it from the station, allowing you to scrap the life support system and generators and batteries, or you can keep them as a backup in case the station craps out. He wasn't sugges
Re: (Score:2)
Also, keep one of two in working order in case there is an failure in the station that puts lives at risk, the shuttle could be used either until the station can be repaired, or a trip can be made to rescue everyone. If the shuttle is in good enough condition, just fly it back to earth.
Re:Why Don't They Leave the Shuttles Up There, Too (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why we're not planning to dock the shuttles to the ISS and leave them up there, too, with their useful engines, robotic arms, and so forth.
Duct taping the remaining shuttles to the ISS, arkansas style up on concrete blocks, has the following problems:
1) There's not enough space on the truss to leave them bolted on and still have space for resupply missions to dock.
2) They will rapidly permanently break down and become more or less useless. Either leave the fuel cells running, in which case they run out of H2 in about a month with no was in space to refuel and no in-orbit liquid H2 transport available (at least they "could" refill the O2 tanks, in theory), or shut them off and let the electrolyte and water exhaust freeze in place, cracking the lines. When the freon leaks out of the coolant system, no way to refill... Most of the onboard systems are like that, limited on-orbit lifetime and no on-orbit maintainability, at all.
3) So, they're deadweight, whats the loss? Well, they need to boost the station so it doesn't reenter, and boosts are expensive. Plus it adds surface area to speed reentry so you need MORE reboosts but just BIGGER reboosts.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah really... It'd be kinda like keeping the old pickup truck out back. Some day some old geezer will go out and charge up the battery and see if it fires up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there are so many complaints about this in different locations I am just replying directly to the parent...
In response to:
1. Power: The question isn't if the ISS power system can interface with the shuttle, etc. The issue would be if the station could continuously keep multiple shuttles running. The benefits could potentially be using the shuttle as a reserve power/O2 system in the event of failure of the station systems
2. 'How are the astronauts getting down': The other non shuttle missions that ar
Hilton Or Hyatt Module... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. The ISS has enough labs already. (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe even a Holiday Inn.
The ISS already has enough labs. Why not go for something at least a little more interesting? Maybe a daschund or a beagle?
Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm hoping that eventually we can use an Aries V translunar (or transmartian) stage converted into a lab as a Skylab sized addition to the station. Skylab dwarfed any of the modern individual shuttle launched modules. An Aries V stage, if comparable to a Saturn V stage as they should be would be big enough to play a televised 0-G "Spaceball" game in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good plan, have one cargo "stage", connect them all together after arrival get life support working, and as long as everything plugged in together the cargo stage can have enough disassembled racks to build everything else.
An Offer you Can't Refuse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Decommissioning != De-orbited (Score:2, Interesting)
This has been discussed for several years (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I would really like to see us add a Sundancer AND a BA-330. If we put these up in the next 2 years, they will get a nice shake out (similar to how the 2 are running around). If NASA is really concerned about lifetime, then the easy answer is to use these for storage for a time and keep the hatch closed. Though, I would not be surprised if the crew do not push to have space there. Apparently, the regular ISS is VERY noisy. The BA* should be very quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
Has any research with useful, practical applications actually come out of the ISS yet?
Not saying there hasn't been, necessarily, but if there has, I haven't heard about it.
There was a joke which went around about the Mars Rover, which I think really personified the problem of the genuine usefulness of space exploration, for me.
"Scientists today were stunned by the revelation, received from the Mars Rover, that the Martian landscape consists primarily of rocks, apparently similar to those commonly found in t
Why another Lab ? (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:2)
I've been saying this all along, about recycling parts for the space station, to make the life last longer then predicted, and also, maybe send up one way trip shuttles that will be reconfigured or dismantled to use the parts up for other stuf...even maybe a smelt up there to remold iron / steel for other stuff then first designed. The cost is pretty high to travel up there but once up there, it can even go so far as to harvest broken satellites that instead of coming back down to earth, can be smelted down