Mir to be Abandoned Today 149
Tom Rothamel writes, based on a story at FloridaToday.com, "Mir will be abandoned later today, ending a streak of permanent human habitation of space that began on September 6, 1989. There's a chance that one more crew will be sent before earth reclaims it sometime next year." I always hoped we (humans) would launch a better orbiting habitat by the time Mir became unliveable, but we didn't. Sad.
Farewell, Mir. (Score:1)
Re:Yep, it's sad (Score:1)
If you haven't already... (Score:1)
fly over.
or morning
sorry, I don't have the link to the
sighting list.
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
The theory goes something like this:
In geological terms, millions of years is a very small section. Few thousand years is a tiny speck. Couple hundred years is almost nothing. A few decades is almost too tiny to exist.
Given that, consider our technological development - how it has exponentially increased to the point where you almost literally expect a new development every week.
Now imagine what kind of impact this development would have on a geological record. Minimal at best.
Sooo... isn't it obvious that dinosaurs had a technological boom, same as ourselves, decided to vacate the earth (possibly 'cos of an approaching plauge, or Ice Age, or whatever), leaving behind as little evidence as possible that would indicate intelligence?
You decide...
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
Re:Nostradomus was right (Score:2)
And the star fell upon the third part of the river, and the star's name was wormwood, and many men died of the waters for they had been made bitter.
The ukranian word for wormwood is chernobyl.
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:2)
I suppose they could sell it too, but bridges seem to be the more popular model in that product line.
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:2)
There's a reason for the old computers. (Score:2)
Oh, and forget sheilding. Do you have any idea how much lead you'd need? Keeping lots of replacement parts on hand is a maybe, but don't forget that the replacement parts would be exposed the the same levels of radiation.
I mean, really, what did you think? Did you think that the Russians were still banging rocks together to make tools?
Sorry if I was long winded. I just felt that the notion that Mir's "outdated" computers were somehow inferior or unsafe for the job at hand was a misconception that needed correcting.
Re:'mir' means both 'peace' and 'world' in Russian (Score:1)
Yeah, or "Peace, world", like you're a hippy or something.
Re:Y2K Panic. (Score:1)
Well Actually, the ISS is going to use about 40 i386sx 16Mhz on board, that will act as the main electronic backbone. And the reason they chose that kind of technology, is that it producess a very small amount of heat, which is a huge problem in space.
But the main interaction with the onboard computers will be done with IBM Thinkpads, and win95
Re:South Pacific (Score:1)
MIR and fair salvage laws (Score:2)
any thoughts?
Mir: The great endurer (Score:1)
Mir Still Liveable? NOT! (Score:2)
After 10 years in space, Mir is a creaking old hulk; the cosmonauts spend much of their time on maintenance, not science. It wasn't designed to last this long, and if the Russians still had a space program the thing to do would be to launch a new, up-to-date core incorporating the lessons learned from the original, and move over the modules which are still of use. The old core is not worth the fuel required to keep it in orbit. Perhaps it could be useful on the way down, for instance as a test of controlled re-entry using electrodynamic tethers, but in space it's already barely more than a hazard to navigation.
Geeks have money. Russia needs it. (Score:1)
It's a peice of crap yes, but some of us are used to taking such and turning it into something useful. It was useful once, mind you. The stakes may be a little higher, sure, but such is life.
Cool ! (Score:2)
Re:Yep, it's sad (Score:1)
Re:If you haven't already... (Score:2)
I suggest the German Space Operations Centre's [gsoc.dlr.de].
(And, if you enter your coordinates manually and you are in North America, remember that the longitude should be negative... See http://www2.gsoc.dlr.de/scrip ts/satvis/geodistrib.asp [gsoc.dlr.de])
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Seriously, there's Mars and Europe, both have atmosphere and the high posibility of water presence (much likely in Jupiter's Moon).
Just wonder the potential of a solar system economy, all these new
resources. The case of Titan is very promising too
though it wouldn't be so "kind" to human existence,
but those hidrocarbure seas!
Well, let's start by walking for a couple of days over Mars.
Re:Traveling near the speed of light? (Score:1)
Counting on the development of genetics, engineering and "cosmic awareness"/ethics/rationality/not-just-technical-
evolve as similar as us?, well... who knows how we
will look in a couple of milleniums.
Re:Traveling near the speed of light? (Score:1)
Counting on the development of genetics, engineering and "cosmic awareness"/ethics/rationality/not-just-technical-
evolve as similar as us?, well... who knows how we
will look in a couple of milleniums.
Nostradomus was right (Score:3)
Nostradomus predectied the world to end.
And as Mir means life in Russian, it also means world.
So, all of the Nostradomus fans can say he was right again. Most of N's predictions were interpreted like this anyway, which is why he had such a high "sucess" rate.
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:1)
MIR (Score:1)
What a waste of materials (Score:1)
It seems wasteful to send it back down the sink since it costs about $1000 a pound to put something in orbit.
Why can't they push it to a higher orbit and park it there, maybe move it relatively close to the ISS and make it the first orbital junkyard? Maybe even the first Jamaican space station?
Not too mention the kilojoules of heat that it will add to the atmosphere when it reenters, and the pollution it will spread. Wait!!!, I gotta call Greenpeace.
George
Re:Nostradomus was right (Score:1)
Moving out of Mir? (Score:2)
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Crap falls into the sun all the time... (Score:1)
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org [berlin-consoritum.org]
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
What would shipping be on that?
George
Re:MIR (Score:2)
Not the basement again! (Score:1)
Re:It'd cost a hell of a lot more... (Score:2)
"Mr. Gates, we want to drop Mir into the sun."
"On Sun? Kewl,let me get my checkbook."
George
A pity we have only boondoggles to replace Mir (Score:1)
The real crying shame is that we know how to build a space station that could be launched with one shot into orbit on an existing vehicle; we did it with Skylab, and LLNL [llnl.gov] proposed a while back that we build an inflatable space be a few $billion. Of course, this would not station and launch it on a Titan (up in one shot). Total cost, from design to launch, would have given enough money to the space contractors, nor would the State Department have been able to use it as a way to funnel money to Russia as a way of doing some foreign policy out of someone else's budget, so that idea went bust. (I tried searching LLNL's site for the "community space suit" paper, but the search engine doesn't seem to know where it is.)
This leaves us in a state where the Senate is trying to kill all of NASA's non-Shuttle, non-ISS programs, keeping the boondoggles and nuking all the science. It's enough to make you sick.
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Same with the moon landing sites. When we go back to put colonies there, it would be nice to have a little park around the landing sites. You could probably even have a billet for a trinket salesman "Get your Official LEM toys right here!".
Re:Why TF does anyone ever propose shooting (Score:2)
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Mir's time has come and gone (Score:1)
The main reason the Russians want to keep it going is that they built it by themselves and they, like everyone, want to keep their baby running as long as they can.
As the Int'l Space Station becomes permanently habitable over the next few years, it will more than make up for the capability lost on Mir.
An interesting point, I watch closely the Russians moves in the construction of the Int'l Space Station. They seem reluctant to put their money and expertise into this Int'l project. One might even call the Int'l Space station the Open-Source Space Station, everyone is going to contribute and see what everyone else is doing and use it. It will be very difficult for any one country to monopolize it since everyone has contributed. I think the Russians see this and are having, IMHO understandable, reservations about jumping in with both feet.
I hope over time tho, that everyone sees the benefits that will present themselves as we all progress together.
Later,
FM
Mir (Score:1)
How much more fuel? (Score:1)
I know that it's a frequent suggestion of what to do with earth-based crap nobody wants, like hazardous waste. The amount of fuel necessary for that seems much, much greater (since it's still earth-bound) than something in orbit.
Re:MIR and fair salvage laws (Score:1)
MIR moved into ISS's orbit ??? (Score:1)
Basic Orbital Dynamics people
The problem with boosting MIR higher in orbit
Bottom Line...to match MIR's orbit to the ISS's would cost way way more that it would be worth...safer just to land it in the drink than leave several 100 more tons of space junk waiting to clock someone at several meters per second
Re:The first Museum in Space (Score:2)
Moderate this AC up! (Score:1)
well, if you don't, then here are the links...
German Space Operstions Centre's [gsoc.dlr.de]
and
A reminder if you enter your coordinates manually and are in North America: longitude should be negative [gsoc.dlr.de]
Re:MIR and fair salvage laws (Score:2)
Re:Cool ! (Score:1)
Plasma Sail? (Score:2)
Remember the recent story of research in using a plasma field as a solar sail? Would one of those generate enough force to offset the drag on MIR? Granted, it could only be turned on when the solar wind would push it away from the Earth (or in a forward direction in the orbit) so it would not slow the thing down...
Microwave oven (Score:1)
I seem to recall that velcro was a space programme advance, though. About a month ago, there was an article [slashdot.org] on the history of the super soaker, which at least came out of NASA's JPL (which I believe is only loosely tied to the space programme, though I could be wrong)
At the end of Robert A. Heinlein's Expanded Universe is a speech he gave to congress about why the space programme is a good place to put money. IIRC, he enumerates several other technologies which resulted from our space programme.
-me
Re:MIR moved into ISS's orbit ??? (Score:1)
Actually, the're in similar orbits. Both are at 51.6 degrees inclination, for example, and most other differences are minor ones due to drag.
However, the two stations are almost on other sides of the world... I see them right now as being about 140 degrees apart. This was intentional, so the two would never have to compete for limited Russian tracking resources. However, what this means is that it would take far to much fuel to line the two up. (It takes money to launch fuel, and a lack of money is what's causing Mir to be abandoned.)
Re:Plasma Sail? (Score:1)
However, the point is moot, unless someone can provide an economical solution by September 2000 [demon.co.uk].
Mir is, and will be a long lasting success (Score:1)
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
At least this the materials/money wasted on Mir went to a good cause.
Mir was in operation for 13 years.. It was only intended to be used for 5.
...
Re:Moving out of Mir? (Score:1)
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
And that's quite different from Mir. It costs ~$10K/pound to put stuff in orbit. If a single ton of Mir can be reused, that's ~$20M saved!
Of course it might cost more to keep in in orbit than it would to send up materials we need. It depends on how much of Mir could be reused and how much it would cost to to the work in orbit to salvage it. I'm sure NASA and other involved parties have done the math.
Re:Microwave oven (Score:1)
--
Re:Microwave oven (Score:2)
Early, primitive ranges were sold for consumers in the 50's. They were as big as large refrigerators, but they really did work. They didn't shrink to a managable size and price until the late 70's and early 80's, however.
And just to get this off of my chesst, I really hate microwaves. Conventional stoves and ovens work fine for me: there are few kinds of food that I make that can be zapped. More intracate preparation is usually required.
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
EEK! Drag-and-drop munges text again! (Score:1)
Not suprising (not that anyone will care!) (Score:1)
Unfortunately, the power-hungry government in the US, elected by people that seek to have the man decide their every action, spends more on locking away potheads and busting drug addicts than it's space program. Is that a good idea? By all rights, we should at least be on the goddamn moon by now.
What will change those opinions? I know what will, and it's the only thing short of Jesus appearing and telling people to go. It's a mid-sized asteroid taking out a large metropolitan center and/or a mid-sized country. Not big enough to screw the ecosystem, but enough to knock off a few million people and let Joe Schmuck understand that this pretty blue marble isn't indestructable. Far from it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I hope that the Japaneese or maybe the Chinese stick it to the US and get bases on the moon running first - maybe that will deflate some American egos.
Humanity must look elsewhere to live and prosper, or we're going to go the same way as the dinosaurs, and we'll be the next great big oil reserve for the second shot (or third) evolution has. Maybe someone will leave some more plaques around this time, but we're pretty cheap there, too. Maybe that's what those great big symbols in the deserts of asia are.
Anyhow - just another mindless rant. Someday I'll write a book, if for no other reason than bragging rights if I live to see the firey end. *grin*
Just another starry-eyed slashdotter
Steve Manley
smanley@nyx.net
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:2)
Sheesh, some people...
Re:Yep, it's sad (Score:1)
...phil
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
"So here we have the lab module...over here is the storage module...life support's this way...here's the habitation module...oh yes, and this is the busted module."
--
"HORSE."
Re:How much more fuel? (Score:1)
I wonder if it would be possible to put junk at one of the L4/L5 points of the earth-sun system - it's a lot closer than the sun, and it would let us get the stuff back if we ever decide we need it again.
Re:How much more fuel? (Score:2)
Yes and no. While it's a good way up the Earth's gravity well, it would still need to cancel out its orbital speed around the Sun to fall there directly. That's 30 km/s to add to the necessary 3 km/s delta-V to escape Earth.
In terms of fuel, according to the rocket equation (delta-V = u . ln(1+mf/m) where u is the exhaust speed, m the dry mass and mf the fuel's mass), it would take more than 700 times as much fuel as Mir weighs to make it dive into the Sun with a chemical rocket (u ~ 5 km/s). Perhaps you can save some using planetary fly-bys but certainly not much. Or use an ion engine like Deep Space 1 [nasa.gov]'s; with a very optimistic u=15 km/s, the required mass of fuel would drop to 10 times as much, a mere 1400 tons, compared to a few tons for sending it into the Pacific...
Anyway, if you have the resources and technology to send Mir out into the Sun, you can easily park it into high Earth orbit where it will stay for long, and build a brand new huge space dock there and bring in a small asteroid to manufacture interplanetary ships with. More interesting, I would say...
Re:Well that sucks! (Score:1)
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Mars might be an option, though it's a bit of a fixer-upper. And there's always Europa...
*wanders off, humming a Thomas Dolby song...*
--
"HORSE."
Mir Still Liveable (Score:1)
Mir not livable for years... (Score:1)
Yep, it's sad (Score:3)
I think those that died would've wanted the program to continue (fixing the problem obviously) but would not have wanted the program to fall so far behind. I think they would've been better honored by not only getting caught back up on the schedule, but perhaps learning lessons and moving ahead even faster.
It also cracks me up when people say we've wasted so much on the space program without getting anything in return. They have no idea how many advancements in computers, medicine, science, etc we owe to the space program(s).
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:1)
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:1)
Here's to hoping it re-enters somewhere close by - should be one hell of a fireball.
Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Clarke: "If we die out we will have deserved it."
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Bzzzzt! WRONG! (Score:2)
The data and experience on human survival in space that they have gained for the world will offer countless potentially life-saving insights to problems that will be encountered in ANY future space-habitation projects.
The fact that their project did not have the polish and glitz of space projects in the US does nothing to detract from the value of their efforts. They kept men alive in orbit for a very long time, and they did it on a shoe string. The lower funding forced them to be creative and resourceful. We owe them our thanks, and will for a long time to come.
SPACIBO!
Re:Mir's time has come and gone (Score:1)
Re:MIR moved into ISS's orbit ??? (Score:1)
The Zarya module (core of the ISS) was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, the same site that supports Mir.
THIS much more fuel (Score:2)
Orbital velocity is around 8000 meters per second. Boosting to Earth escape velocity (roughly 11,000 m/sec) requires a delta-V of 3000 m/sec. By the rocket equation, the ratio of initial mass to final mass is e to the power of 1.2 (3000/2500), so you would need 3.32-1=2.32 times as much mass of fuel as Mir's mass. You could launch a couple new Mir's for that.
To get to the Sun by the least-energy route requires a flight past Jupiter, which requires roughly as much delta-V as a solar escape burn. Call it a delta-V of about 12,500 meters per second. Using oxygen-hydrogen with an exhaust velocity of 4500 m/sec, the fuel required would be about 15 times the mass of Mir (and a hell of a lot bulkier; liquid hydrogen is about 1/14 the density of water).
If you want to save Mir, I'm sure everybody would be happy to let you pay for this.
Re:Mir is, and will be a long lasting success (Score:1)
Re:Not suprising (not that anyone will care!) (Score:2)
Humanity must look elsewhere to live and prosper, or we're going to go the same way as the dinosaurs,
Go the way of the dinosaurs? We'd be lucky to go the way of the dinosaurs, instead of the direction we're heading now.
After all, they did live and rule the earth for millions upon millions of years. In comparison, our somewhere between a few thousand to 10,000+ years (depending on who you listen to) years here is nothing. We've been a blink of the eye compared to how long they lasted, and yet we're already doing a good job of making the place unlivable for ourselves.. and worrying that things are going to come to an end.. and this and that and the next thing.
Pretty pathetic on our parts if you ask me, which you didn't.
--
Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
Putting Mir into a higher orbit (Score:3)
First of all, Mir can't really be abandoned where it is. The low orbits that Mir, ISS, and the shuttle fly in are not stable. They decay due to minute amounts of atmospheric drag. You couldn't leave Mir where it is because it would have to be periodically re-occupied and boosted. If you did, who knows when and where it would re-enter. It could hit land and cause a lot of damage. If Mir was to be abandoned, it would have to be in a much higher orbit than even ISS.
Second, if you put it into a high enough orbit so that orbital decay is no longer an issue, you won't be able to reach it with the shuttle or a Soyuz capsule anymore.
Third, you can't put space vehicles into a higher orbit by just pushing up. They must be accelerated to the velocity corresponding to the higher orbit. To get Mir into a sufficiently high orbit, you would have to increase its current velocity quite a lot.
Think for a minute how much energy (in other words fuel) was required to get Mir's various parts up to their current velocity. Even with the biggest rockets Russia had, Mir had to be lifted in parts. To speed Mir up sufficiently, you would need to transport an absolutely huge amount of fuel into space.
Unfortunately, you can't just move Mir a little, then resupply it, then move it again, and so on. It wouldn't take long before the shuttle and Soyuz rockets wouldn't be able to reach it to bring more fuel. That means you need to bring all of the fuel up there and attach it to Mir before you start moving it. And that means that you have to accelerate the fuel too in addition to Mir, which dramatically increases the amount required.
Getting that much fuel to Mir would be incredibly expensive. First you would need to build a very large container for it, send it up, and dock it to Mir. Then you need to send multiple rocket and/or shuttle launches to fill it up, with specially trained spacewalking crews to perform the fuel transfers.
Fourth, even if you could get that much fuel into orbit, how would you go about boosting Mir? You couldn't just use Mir's propulsion system. It would take forever and you would need to perform some major modifications of Mir to attach and use a very large external fuel source. You would need to build a special purpose rocket module and bring it to Mir. Also, remember that some of the sensitive parts of Mir (like the solar array) aren't designed to hold up to forces of acceleration when deployed, so who knows whether the station would even survive such a burn.
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:1)
Some enterprising cruise ship line could make some money - sort of like last year's eclipse cruise.
In any case, I'll miss it. Watching Mir (and other satellite) passes gives me something to do out at the observatory while I'm waiting for it to get dark. I once saw Mir and the Shuttle come over separated by only a degree or two. The shuttle had just dropped somebody off and was heading back to Earth. What a sight! I had goosebumps for days.
Black Spiral Dancers? (Score:1)
Or is this only to hide it better?
Re:'mir' means both 'peace' and 'world' in Russian (Score:1)
No chance! So 'mir mir' means 'world peace'. Cool.
Re:Mir's time has come and gone (Score:2)
There have been fires, life support failures and collisions.
Crews living there spend all their time just trying to keep the thing running.
Years of actual EXPERIENCE, warts and all, that no computer simulation could ever hope to impart. The simple fact that they ENDURED and KEPT GOING right through the failures and emergencies is EXACTLY what is so pricelessly valuable about the station's MANY contributions to science.
Dollar for dollar, I think MIR has made by far one of the GREATEST contributions EVER to the advancement of mankind's knowledge of long-term survival in space.
They didn't quit. They didn't give up when things got dangerous or unpredictable. They endured, they did the time and they deserve our praise.
Headline: RedHat to save MIR! (Score:1)
Re:Yep, it's sad (Score:1)
Andrew Gacek
Its latest mission (Score:1)
The latest Mir mission was for its inhabitants to beat the record of days in space
This last mission was funded mostly by the European Space Agnecy [esrin.esa.it].
Another big part of the fund for this last mission came from France Space Center [www.cnes.fr]. Btw the name of this mission was perseus [www.cnes.fr] (many nice photos even if the site is in french)
Re:Quoth the wise men... (Score:1)
Larson: The real reason the dinosaurs became extinct...
George
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Now, if only someone could build a rocket in their junkyard. maybe name it Salvage-1...
George
The first Museum in Space (Score:1)
How much would it cost? To just have it burn up in reentry in a few months seems like a waste.
Alternately instead of boosting it to a higher orbit, adjust its orbit to match the ISS, and rig up a clamp system to dock them together. It would just be a useless appendage for the ISS, but it would be a readily available enclosed space for storage or use for future manufacturing projects or a great attraction for future space tourists that we know are only years away.
--Dave
get your facts right (Score:1)
You might like to read 'The MIR Space Station: A Precursor to Space Colonization'(ISBN: 0471975877), it covers the scientific and engineering achievements in detail from the first Salyut upto very recent Mir missions.
Re:Well that sucks! (Score:1)
If Bill Gates bought MIR and retrofitted it, I may almost forgive him for his sins...
Re:SPACE JUNK (Score:1)
International law basically goes with the idea if there is no one on a vessel, it's yours. (If there is someone, it's piracy.:) Now, I'm certain no one owns the sky...ergo, you can just waltz in and claim Mir, legally.
Re:Too Bad.. (Score:1)
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Dump into space instead Earth's atmosphere? (Score:1)
Re:What a waste of materials (Score:1)
Re:Nostradomus was right (Score:2)
it means peace AND world. Gorbacheov said in a speech (in russian): I want peace and was interpreted as saying I want the world
whatever. i think thats who it was.
It'd cost a hell of a lot more... (Score:1)