backtop

Print 52 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Aug 14 at 8:38 PM

Astronaut Clay Anderson out on a spacewalk  (Source: NASA)
Shuttle Endeavour safely reaches the ISS; NASA finds a troubling gouge on the underside of the shuttle

The shuttle Endeavour successfully docked with the International Space Station (ISS) after a two-day journey that started from the Kennedy Space Center. After carefully linking the shuttle to the ISS, both ISS and Endeavour crew members conducted a 90-minute safety leak check before opening hatches to go aboard the ISS.  Five of the seven Endeavour crew members have never been to the ISS.

"Welcome on board," was the greeting the Endeavour crew received from Fyodor Yurchikhin, ISS commander.

The crew is expected to help continue construction on the space station, which NASA wants to complete before the current generation space shuttle is retired in 2010.

Once the crew successfully entered the ISS, NASA discovered a 3-inch-by-3-inch gouge on the underside of the shuttle's heat shield, a problem which may have been caused by ice.  The Wednesday night launch was closely monitored by cameras and radar, and NASA officials noticed what appeared to be a piece of ice deflecting off of the spacecraft during its launch.

A spacewalk may have to be conducted to patch the gouge if it turns out to be too deep to fly with - an initial inspection will be done sometime tomorrow morning.  The shuttle's astronauts will use a robotic arm that has cameras and lasers attached, enabling the crew to measure the depth of the gouge.  

All of the extra precautions involving a shuttle's heat shield are in place after the 2003 shuttle Columbia disaster - Columbia disintegrated while returning to Earth.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 1:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't this be NASA news updates? I mean I don't like the word 'international' at all but if you want to call it that, at least put up whatever the Russians are doing! :)

Also, it's barely an international space station. More than most of it is built by us, with the exception of the completely ub3r, amazing, Russian life support pod.

And let's face it...The ISS is probably 50% american, 35% Russian, and the last 15% would probably be Canada's solar panel, Japan's solar panel and module, and Europe's modules (have they contributed? This is just an innocent question, I really have no idea on Europe in relation to the ISS).

So, I suggest a name change: NASA/Russia space updates!




RE: 'International' Space Station
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/12/2007 1:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Canadarm, I think they attached a special one to the ISS. Too lazy to check Wiki...


By christojojo on 8/12/2007 10:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm

too lazy to write more ; )


RE: 'International' Space Station
By JTKTR on 8/12/2007 1:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
The key you are missing is that it isn't completely finished yet. Many other countries are contributing the best they can and sooner or later it will including a much wider spectrum of parts


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 2:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the predicted 'retire' date for the ISS is 2019, so I doubt their additions will be very major.

What I mean is, if most of us don't know what anyone has contributed besides our country + US + Russia, then why call it 'international' space news if you're only reporting on 2 (actually, so far 1) country's advancements?

I like the sound of US Space news (since its still quite a while 'till a third country gets up there)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Aprime on 8/12/2007 2:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
2019? Why are we forking money on something that won't even last 10 years once finished?

Jesus f'ing Christ, let's go to Mars already.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/12/2007 2:45:11 AM , Rating: 1
I am utterly convinced that is impossible with current technology. I mean, we could get there, but what after that? Land? This ain't no Ray Bradbury novel.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 3:16:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am utterly convinced that is impossible with current technology
me too.. between
1. not a powerfull enough rocket to get us there.
2. radiation
3. livable quarters for over a year.
4. figuring out how to land on the damn thing
5. money
6. this list is getting too long.... i think ill stop now for fear of being bashed..


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Hypernova on 8/12/2007 5:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the only issue is with no5. Apollo has proven that buy burning enough $$$ for a project you can get it done. Boost NASA's funding 20 fold and I'll bet my ass on it that we can get to Mars by 2012.

It all boils down to a rocket big enough and how you are going to pay for it, need bigger launch pad? build one. Want to assemble it in orbit but not enough payload for current shuttle? Build more shuttles etc.

These things are never about technology.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Anonymous Freak on 8/12/2007 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Point by point...

1. No powerful enough rockets. What, Proton (the rocket that boosts the Russian-made ISS components,) isn't powerful enough? To quote "Interplanetary transfer capacity is about 5–6 tonnes (11,000–13,000 lbm)." And that's assuming we launch straight from Earth Surface to Mars surface. There a few different proposals, including some that involve launching the ground station and return vehicle first on a 'low power' approach (takes longer, but less fuel,) possibly over a couple launches, and launching a small 'manned transfer' vehicle on a faster, but more fuel-intensive trajectory after we are sure the ground base and return vehicle is safely there. You could save even more by having the return vehicle stay in Mars orbit, with just a small capsule on the surface to bring back to Mars orbit on the way out.

2. Radiation. Yes, a problem. But raw interplanetary radiation is not a big problem, and a small shielded chamber in the transfer vehicles for solar flares wouldn't be too bad a weight problem.

3. Livable quarters. Again, if you launch the ground base separately from the space vehicles, you could even have have a few different modules.

4. Landing. We have done soft landings before, not just the 'bounce in a ball' landings. And Mars has lower gravity than Earth, yet we've even had a couple prototype rockets that landed vertically on Earth. The big landing worry is if a large sandstorm is going during the landing window. That can be solved by not going straight to landing, but entering orbit first, and giving the crew a chance to pick their own landing time.

5. Money. This is the only real show-stopper.

One major proposal of the type I mention was proposed in the '90's as "Mars Direct". One cost estimate has it costing $55 billion over 10 years. (Or approximately 1/10th the cost so far of the U.S.'s war in Iraq.)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/13/2007 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe, instead of wasting money on exploring space, we could focus on fixing up the planet we currently live on, and maybe spend the money on something that has a more direct positive effect on humanity. Like helping 3rd world countries. 55 billion could buy a lot of food.

Point is, spending money on anything space-related is such a waste when there are far bigger problems to solve. It's like buying a luxury car when your kids are starving.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By stromgald on 8/14/2007 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Please, go spread your ignorance elsewhere. Do some research and actually look at how much is spent on 3rd world countries and the environment vs. NASA's budget. There would be many times more people starving on this planet if it wasn't for the NASA's technological advancements.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/14/2007 8:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
What? You're telling me that all our great SPACE technology has somehow helped the 3rd world? What'd they do, barbecue a pig under the rocket blast and ship it to Sudan? Why is Bono still begging the everyone and their mom for help? Please, educate my poor, ignorant mind.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 3:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jesus f'ing Christ, let's go to Mars already.

I wonder how long thats going to take, or if thats actually in NASA's radar for the next 40 years. 5-15 mars landings is pretty bad, let alone the radiation issues that would occur.
each astronaut that went to the moon got almost a yearly dose of radiation, it would be fun too see what a year in space would do to you.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 3:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
That was 40 years ago (exactly, yay for 2k7!).

One of the plans for NASA's new thingy to carry people to mars (not quite land, but we're almost there, 2015-2022) has several meters of water encased around it, which irrc is one of the best insulators against radiation.

The other has a hell of a lot of lead around it, but I heard that was impracticle for who knows why. ne1 here work at nasa??


RE: 'International' Space Station
By grath on 8/12/2007 5:07:33 AM , Rating: 5
We have no business going to Mars any time soon. Theres plenty that needs to be done on the Moon first, and the more practice and experience we get on the Moon, the cheaper, safer, and more capable any eventual Mars mission will be. Conversely, any serious funding and development of a manned Mars program comes at the expense and detriment of a manned lunar program. If NASA goes all out and puts humans on Mars in 2030, we will be buying the rocket fuel for it from the Chinese Moon Base. If they get there first it instantly becomes cheaper to buy from them than develop the capability ourselves.

Ultimately, he who unlocks the resources outside the big gravity well will control the next phase of space exploration/development/colonization.
He who puts a footprint on Mars gets red dirt on his boot, an encyclopedia entry, and can no longer have children.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2007 10:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Very true Grath. Many years ago, I had a lengthy debate with Bob Zubrin on just this issue. Against my long list of industrial and commercial benefits for a Moon base, his support of a Mars mission boiled down to:

1) Mars is a "planet", whereas the Moon is not.
2) Mars has greater research potential than does the Moon.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/12/2007 5:25:10 PM , Rating: 3
With respect, Mr. Zubrin's arguments for going to Mars are a lot more well thought out than that. For those who haven't read it, 'The Case for Mars' offers a point by point rebuttal for those who say that it isn't possible to go to Mars with current technology.

With respect to bypassing the moon, Mr. Zubrin offers many reasons for doing so, not the least of which are: Mars has an atmosphere that offers some protection from solar radiation and Mars has an atmosphere that allows for the comparably easy manufacture of return fuel, air, water, and electricity using relatively well known chemical processes. The fact that NASA is adopting a semi-direct plan that incorporates many of his suggestions speaks well for his ideas.

Mike


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2007 6:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Mr. Zubrin's arguments for going to Mars are a lot more well thought out than that..."

Ahh, someone took the bait :)

> "'The Case for Mars' offers a point by point rebuttal for those who say that it isn't possible to go to Mars with current technology"

Why certainly, its possible. There's just no benefit in doing so, except from the perspective of pure science.

> "Mars has an atmosphere that offers some protection from solar radiation "

The lunar regolith offers much more protection. Build a shelter and cover it with rock dust...dust already ground powder-fine for you. By comparison, covered shelters on Mars are far harder to build.

> "Mars has an atmosphere that allows for the comparably easy manufacture of return fuel, air, water, and electricity "

Atmosphere or no, returning from Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult than from Luna. The dV required is far greater, the gravity well is much deeper, and, for surface launches, that Martian atmosphere becomes an impediment.

The problem with Mars is that its too much like Earth...some incredibly cold, barren, inhospitable parts of Earth. No one is rushing to colonize Antarctica, and its much easier to live there than Mars. So what does it offer us?

The moon, now, is a different story. Limitless free vacuum, priceless for certain industrial processes. At the poles, access to solar energy 24 hours a day, energy that, unfiltered by any atmosphere, is far more practical than here on Earth, much less the weak flux found on Mars. Half the gravity of Mars, meaning large-scale construction is cheaper...and without winds or other weather, require still less in the way of structural strength or maintenance.

The shallow gravity well and the lack of atmosphere mean that manufactured goods on Luna can be launched to Earth without expensive rockets...EM launching becomes trivial and dirt cheap. And the short transit time means that executives or workers could travel to lunar enterprises without paying for billion-dollar tickets or giving up years of their lives. Even remote-control from Earth becomes feasible. On Mars, speed-of-light delay alone makes even the simplest telecommand a weeks-long agonizing process.

A lunar base offers many other unique advantages, ones found nowhere on Earth (or Mars). Commercial exploitation of lunar resources could be a self-supporting, financially profitable enterprise within a couple decades of the first base. Whereas any foothold on Mars would remain no more than a tiny, government-supported research base for a century or more to come....if it wasn't simply abandoned after a few years as a project far too expensive for its meager gains.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/12/2007 10:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
I still disagree with you, but appreciate your arguments. Informed people can disagree. Exploring the moon or Mars each present significant risks and costs. There isn't a simple answer as to which is best as you suggest but I think you have oversimplified Mr. Zubrin's proposal.

'Priceless vacuum' is not something that is uniquely abundant to the moon. The same lunar regolith that you extol for radiation protection also offers significant challenges to maintaining the clean environment you envision for industry. Using regolith (lunar or Martian) may be a reasonable goal, but it almost certainly won't happen in the first stages of exploration so I maintain that a planet with an atmosphere offers significant advantages to a lunar body that doesn't.

A planetary atmosphere may mediate solar energy collection but it also provides significant thermal mediation. An atmosphere is also important for solar protection if we are to attempt any type of agriculture (oxygen recycling, food production, water reclaimation).

Lunar regolith does have oxygen but it is bound in oxides and is difficult to extract without a lot of power. Generating oxygen from the Mars atmosphere or Martian water presents a simpler challenge.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2007 10:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "A planetary atmosphere may mediate solar energy collection but it also provides significant thermal mediation"

Actually, the reverse is true. Vacuum provides a high degree of thermal insulation (that's how a vacuum thermos works, in fact). Whereas Mars atmosphere (and worse, its winds) will convect away heat an order of magnitude faster.

> "'Priceless vacuum' is not something that is uniquely abundant to the moon"

Sure, one can generate it here. But on Luna, its free, in limitless quantities. For many industrial processes (vacuum distillation, nanoscale manufacturing, etc) that's invaluable.

> " Using regolith...almost certainly won't happen in the first stages of exploration "

Why not? We've had the technology to do so since the 1970s. Researchers have done proof of concept exploitation on lunar samples brought back from Apollo, as well as simulated regolith.

But all this still misses the point. Yes, there are challenges to both destinations. The important factor though is that a Lunar colony can quickly become useful. Commercially and Industrially. But what would we get out of Mars? Beyond scientific research and bragging rights to the first interplanetary colony, Mars has no value whatsoever. Maybe in 300 years, a Martian colony could be exporting goods and services back to Earth...but a Lunar base could be doing so in 30.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 2:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lunar regolith offers much more protection. Build a shelter and cover it with rock dust...dust already ground powder-fine for you.


Incidentally, that's precisely what Bigelow plans to do, and apparently is already working on the equipment used to move the regolith around out by Vegas.

Not that he's got it figured out how to *get* it there yet, but there's plenty of other private groups working on that particular detail. He's doing his share, figuring out how to construct the lunar base at a LaGrange point and then lowering it to the surface.

That project probably excites me more than anything else going on, including NASA's projects, as far as manned projects go.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/13/2007 1:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, a vacuum is used for insulation in a thermos bottle because it removes conduction as a source of heat transfer, but conduction isn't the problem we're discussing. On the moon, direct radiation means that a lunar base will bake while it's in sunshine and freeze when it's in the shade while on Mars the atmosphere serves to mediate these extreme temperature difference. It's hard for me to imagine any environmental (ie life support) advantages that the moon's vacuum has over a Martian atmosphere.

Your point re the ease of lunar transfer of products back to Earth is well taken, but the little I know of geology suggests that there are likely to be many more exploitable metals on Mars than there on the moon. Isn't the moon basically comprised of basalt material? You know better than I do, what products and materials do you see having enough commercial value to be mined and transported from the moon? Your point about exploiting a vacuum isn't sufficient for me - you can do that in orbit.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/13/2007 1:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
There is one disadvantage to a MArtian atmosphere that I thought of after posting - weather, including storms and dust abrasion. This might also, however, provide some advantages including a relatively easily exploitable power source in the form of windpower and the possibility of lighter than air unmanned or manned exploration close to the surface.

Mike


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2007 2:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
You won't get much windpower from the thin Martian atmosphere. Its sufficient to disperse dust into any machinery or structures built there, but that's about it. Solar power on Luna is, however, far more practical than it is here on Earth. The flux is roughly 300% stronger without atmospheric filtering, the low gravity allows massive solar panels can be built with less structural strength, the lack of weather means maintenance and cleaning is slashed, and (if you site at a pole), you can generate 24 hours a day, without worrying about the day/night cycle.

As for resource exploitation, the lunar regolith is extremely high in iron and aluminum, with some samples showing usuable amounts of titanium, rare earths, and many other elements. There has been a vast amount of research conducted upon exploiting the regolith for resources, a small sampling is below:

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/workshops/lrsm2005.h...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001mms..conf..525S
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR...
http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/Documents/PDF%20File...


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/13/2007 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
You raise a lot of good points but you also seem to selectively ignore information that isn't in your favor. I concede your point about the moon offering more potential for use of solar power but I still have no idea what you meant when you said earlier that a vacuum offers better thermal protection from the sun compared with a planet with an atmosphere. The potential for lighter-than-air transportation on Mars is also important. How do we travel long distances quickly on Earth? By air. What do you proposal for the moon, building honking SUVs?

Thanks for the links. In the articles that you cite, aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon seem to be the usable materials in the greatest abundance. These aren't exactly valuable materials but as you stated earlier, EM rail technology may make it viable to move these materials to Earth relatively cheaply. Again, separation of the oxides commonly found on the moon will be very energy intensive as your links suggest. Zubrin states that Mars is more likely to have usable deposits of more valuable materials because of its similar geological history to Earth's.

My point in writing all of this is to not to favor one route over the other. I simply state that there are costs and benefits to both exploring the moon or Mars but that the arguement is not so simple as you stated earlier. You said that Mr. Zubrin favors Mars 1) only because it's a planet; and 2) because of greater research potential. It's easy to win a straw man argument with yourself, but not a very educative process.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By grath on 8/12/2007 4:34:44 AM , Rating: 6
With respect, you are ill-informed.

The Russian components can be considered in their own right a fully functional space station.
Zarya module provides storage, propulsion, and guidance
Zvezda module provides life support and habitation
Both modules have solar panels to provide power as well as integrated nodal elements to berth additional modules off-axis.
Pirs airlock module supports Russian spacesuit EVA as well as Soyuz docking.
Progress un-manned spacecraft deliver cargo, remove garbage, and re-bost the station.
Soyuz manned spacecraft provide crew rotation and stay on-orbit as the escape craft.

This is basically Mir-2. All thats missing is the additional solar power tower that was cancelled, and the research modules that were scaled down considerably, but still awaiting launch.

Attached to one end of Mir-2 is the rest of the ISS. The majority of the pressurized US modules function to connect the modules to each other.
Three node modules to connect additional off-axis modules.
Three smaller adapter modules to connect US and Russian berthing mechanisms to each other. The Shuttle also docks using the Russian design.
The Destiny laboratory module.
The Quest airlock module.

And on the other end of the station from Mir-2, will be the European and Japanese laboratory modules, when NASA finally gets around to launching them.
The European Columbus module is basically another Destiny module.
The Japanese are putting up 3 laboratory modules, which look like they will end up being the most capable on the station.

Of course, NASA/US made the big Integrated Truss Structure with the prominent solar panels. This provides power and cooling to the rest of the station. The thing is so big it takes 7 shuttle flights to deliver, which is a perfect demonstration of the inefficiency of its 80s shuttle era design and idealogy. The thing is so excessive its almost ridiculous. But I digress.

And the US didnt respect the agreement. Mere months after taking office, and 2 years before the Columbia accident, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to cancel modules we had agreed to build.

Habitation module, key to expanding the crew capacity of the station.
Crew Escape Vehicle, also critical to the expanded crew.
Propulsion module, so the station wouldnt be entirely dependant on Russian Progress cargo craft for re-boost.
Centrifuge module, would have provided a large variable gravity envirnoment for research. Was a significant part of the total US science capability.
All cancelled.

So when it comes down to it, the US part of the ISS is one science laboratory, with the rest of it there to connect the Russian parts to the European and Japanese parts, with everything plugged into the expensive and inefficient US provided electricity, that in 3 years will be entirely dependant on Russian spacecraft to access and supply. Even Brazil expressed interest in building a supply craft for it.

So whats not internatonal now?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/12/2007 6:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome post


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Loser on 8/12/2007 7:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
niiiiiiiiiiiiice info
PS: he just wtfpwned everyone above :)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Tsuwamono on 8/12/2007 11:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
ya no kidding. Amazing post, very informative


By ThisSpaceForRent on 8/12/2007 1:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Reading that actually got me excited about something that has basically become a dull topic in these days. Awesome post.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By tdktank59 on 8/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: 'International' Space Station
By RaisedinUS on 8/12/2007 2:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Care to post where you got this info? From this site, the US and others are or will supply much more that you claim. http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/
And the US didnt respect the agreement. Mere months after taking office, and 2 years before the Columbia accident, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to cancel modules we had agreed to build. Care to back this up with facts as well, otherwise, it sounds like an anti US/Bush rant.
Other than these small issues that need facts/sources clarification,it was a good post.
More reading about Bush's view on space exploration:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2004/01/comments...
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Big_Budgets_Ma...


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/12/2007 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 3
International space station, what station? To the moon!

The current policy of the U.S. government (whether it originated from Bush or his advisors has no real bearing on the issue) is to push programs to return astronauts to the moon/to mars. This is a noble enough goal.

HOWEVER, the program is still significantly underfunded. In 2006, the budget for the solar system exploration/Earth-sun exploration, roughly totalled roughly 4 billion. I am not sure if this includes the 1 billion of extra funding Bush set aside for moon exploration, but I would assume it does. To see the full budget for 2007 see:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html
Now 4 billions sounds like a lot, but in 1994 dollars, the Apollo program cost approximately 10 billion a year between 1964-1968. Converting this to 2007 dollars (approximately) the budget would be more than 13.5 billion dollars!
Sources:
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/02/07/apollo-cost.html
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
Now is it realistic to expect the U.S. to go to the moon on a 1/3 of the equivalent money that it required to in the first place?? Certainly Mars would be even more expensive, and thus even less realistic with the current budget. And this assuming ALL the money is going to the new moon program, which it is not. I may be wrong, but I would be significantly suprised if the U.S. successfully completes a manned mission back on the moon in 2010, or even 2020.

So what is the current moon drive taking away from? The international space station and research programs are two victims. The exact programs cuts are often not disclosed, so unless you work at NASA, you only get generally stories like this: http://www.physorg.com/news63374578.html, which give vague details "programs have been cut"!?

So I would agree that what the original poster said about cutting off funding for module construction was likely true. Of the 2005 budget, out of 1.8 billion dollars only 70 million (about 4%) was spent on developing/building new hardware. To me, this does not mean that they are spending inappropriately...obviously you cannot cut back on maintenance in such a mission critical situation. However, it tells me the program is almost certainly UNDERFUNDED. In today's money the 1965 NASA budget, with inflation factored in would be approximately 38 billion in 2006 dollars! So what is the real budget? 16 billion, less than half that amount. NASA today is grossly underfunded, despite its great successes and achievements.

So what is the hope for the ISS and space exploration? Well since the U.S. space program is struggling, European, Japanese, Chinese, and Russian participation is key. Soon India may be playing a part as well. Also, hopefully the private space industry trend continues and leads to some new real space progress. Space may once have been solely owned by the U.S. and Russia, but as the NASA budgets fail to keep up with costs, and old designs linger, the hope for space travel truly rests with the international community and private industry. I truly hope they succeed because space travel is one of humanity's greatest achievements.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Ringold on 8/12/2007 3:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mere months after taking office, and 2 years before the Columbia accident, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to cancel modules we had agreed to build.


From another persons link:
quote:
the fact that the ISS' estimated total cost has ballooned since 1985 from $9 billion to over $90 billion (including the necessary Shuttle flights)


From my view, he simply was the first one to question if the continued costs would be worth whatever came out of a completed ISS. Many of the cuts you cited seemed redundant; Progress cargo ships would be needed anyway, so might as well provide a boost while they're there, so there goes the propulsion module. Crew Escape Vehicle has been taken care of quite nicely by the Russians, probably at lower cost. The Hab and centrifuge modules sound important but I don't know what they'd of cost compared to what benefit they'd of provided.

In a slightly different world it wouldn't of been at all out of character for our other international partners to drop out; Bush, in a not surprising turn of events given his history as President, just was the first one to voice what many people thought. "Holy crap that thing is expensive! What are getting out of it, again?"

That's all I'd debate though. Definitely an international station, and it'll definitely be reliant on third party countries from 2010 to 2016. Even then, we've got nothing on the cards at present capable of replacing the functions the Shuttle could provide. Just thought it was a little harsh to come down on Bush for being the first President to stem the bleeding on the project, a decision that's at least pretty defendable. Clinton should've probably aborted it long before but back then it at least caught a little public imagination; now it doesn't even serve a PR purpose, and hindsight is 20/20.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By RaisedinUS on 8/12/2007 4:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
As I stated earlier, good post but I see a few things wrong with it.
Now, while I tend to research things from several different sources, I can’t find the details you post. You may be a better researcher than I am.
First of all: “which is a perfect demonstration of the inefficiency of its 80s shuttle era design and idealogy.” We are talking about well over 20 year old technology which to the best of my knowledge, no one has matched. I’m not sure what this “idealogy” is you refer to.
“The thing is so excessive its almost ridiculous. But I digress.” What is it you are talking about here? Are you referring to the ISS parts or the space shuttle? If it’s the shuttle, again the ancient technology statement applies. If you refer to the ISS components, then I can’t comment as I am not an engineer but if they were made and work, what’s the point?
“And the US didnt respect the agreement. Mere months after taking office, and 2 years before the Columbia accident, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to cancel modules we had agreed to build.” I can’t really find any concrete, set in stone, agreement you refer to. This was a joint venture costing billions of dollars and I see no problem with a change of direction considering the ISS will have to be overhauled/recertified soon after completion, costing how many billions more. “They know that essential elements of the station, such as the batteries and the seals that connect the modules, will have to be replaced and/or recertified.” From: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/769/1

As you stated: “Even Brazil expressed interest in building a supply craft for it.” I say, let them in if they want in. And need I mention 9/11 certainly changed priorities. The cost to the US and other countries around the world was absolutely staggering. Need I remind you and others that the NASA shuttles have made scores of trips to and from space for many different country’s as well as the ISS. These supply runs aren’t free. NASA also pulled the plug on shuttle flights post Columbia citing safety concerns. This also delayed some ISS projects a few years. The Russians did step in and took over several supply runs. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2...
http://www.space.com/news/060302_iss_future_plan.h...

Bush has also reset the goals (his right as President) of NASA in 2004. He wants to return to the moon and set missions to Mars. Is it feasible, you decide. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.spac...

Your timeline on “Mere months after taking office, and 2 years before the Columbia accident” is off a little. Bush took office in 2000, the shuttle disaster was in Feb. 2003. That’s more than 2 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbi...

I will quote you once again: “With respect, you are ill-informed.”
Everything I can find states NASA will complete the ISS.
2005 article: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2...
2006 article: http://www.space.com/news/060302_iss_future_plan.h...
Dec 2006 article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/769/1
You are 100% correct in this is a truly international effort, not just a US solo effort. All nations that contribute should be applauded.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2007 6:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "its 80s shuttle era design and idealogy.” We are talking about well over 20 year old technology which to the best of my knowledge, no one has matched"

From a perspective of launch costs, heavy-lift capability, reliability, simplicity, and a few other factors, the Shuttle is beaten by a 60's-era Saturn V rocket. The Shuttle does have a few extra capabilities its predecessor does not, but it never achieved anywhere near its promise of reliable, cheap, launches with minimal turnaround time.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By RaisedinUS on 8/12/2007 6:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, surpassed for sheer payloads but not for versatility. I should have clarified.
"From a perspective of launch costs, heavy-lift capability, reliability, simplicity, and a few other factors" And this backs up what you are saying: Space Launch Failures

Of the 4378 space launches conducted worldwide between 1957 and 1999, 390 launches failed (the success rate was 91.1 percent), with an associated loss or significant reduction of service life of 455 satellites (some launches included multiple payloads). A brief look at some of the most publicized, critical launch failures around the world will highlight the nature of system failures (see chart, Launch Successes and Failures, 1957–1999).

In the United States, 164 space launches failed, with an associated loss or significantly reduced service life of 205 satellites (see chart, U.S. Launch Successes and Failures, 1957–1999). Most of the U.S. space launch failures (101 out of the 164) occurred during the first 10 years of space exploration (1957–1966). In that period, the United States was diligently attempting to catch up to the USSR, which had gained an early lead in space exploration. The first space launch failure involved a U.S. Vanguard vehicle, which exploded two seconds after liftoff on December 6, 1957. The failure, which attracted tremendous public attention and criticism in the wake of two successful USSR Sputnik flights, was the result of a low fuel tank and low injector pressure that allowed the high-pressure chamber gas to enter the fuel system through the fuel-injector head. A fire started in the fuel injector, destroying the injector and causing a complete loss of thrust immediately following liftoff. From: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2...
I thought this excerpt was interesting: Most of the U.S. space launch failures (101 out of the 164) occurred during the first 10 years of space exploration
" but it never achieved anywhere near its promise of reliable, cheap, launches with minimal turnaround time." I'm with you on this.
All in all, if you do some searching you can find out some really fascinating information on space exploration. I found some really good information in several of these posts. Kudos!
I also came to the conclusion I didn't want to be a rocket scientist.


By RaisedinUS on 8/12/2007 6:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add that CIS/USSR has carried out more launches than all other countries combined . They definitely have a leg up on the rest of world.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 2:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
Nice find there.

Does it go on to talk about the extremely high rate of SHUTTLE launches in between the late 70s and mid 80s, up to the point where the media yet again destroyed the advancement of everything and effectively told everyone we need to forget space, which proceeded a severe lack of shuttle launches from then to now, where we seem to be around the activity in space we were in the 80s?

The launches aren't quite cheap, but they're reliable, with 2 crashes, both of which resulted in death of all crew members. 2 crashes is nothing in the 100+ shuttle lauches we have made (maybe more than 100+). More reliable than Soyuz and the time when USSR spacecraft flew straight into population centers and then exploded. I'm sure that doens't happen with Russian spacecraft anymore, but the soyuz or w/e they are using is certainly no better nor equal to our shuttle. Perhaps cheaper, but then again not of the same quality.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the time when USSR spacecraft flew straight into population centers and then exploded. I'm sure that doens't happen... anymore


They got tired of losing spacecraft. ;)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 2:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Dang, nice post. Thanks. I never said the Russian's didn't have a presence on the moon. Did you bother to read that part or are you just too anti-american? Nice post, though.

And no, we aren't attatched to the Mir 2. The mir 2 is part of it. Of course we use Russian life support and russian stuff. However, I didn't see anything there by the Russians used for anything then keeping the ISS up there, so you guys still end up using our stuff.

Still not very international, imo. NASA still has to be used to launch the 2 other nations' modules (I thought china had something there? mmm guess not). IIRC (and coming from an american) you seem to adamantly opposed to american technological progress to realize the projects, if I remember correctly, have been restarted (or something to that effect).

So you're pro russian, I'm pro american. You guys provided the staying power of the ISS to keep it afloat and keep our men alive, we provided the technical power, and the Jappanese and UK have their own personal modules.

You call our stuff incredibly inefficient, and I don't have time to look everything up (nor do I have your resources), but I do know that Russia has yet to develop a spacecraft capable of matching our shuttle's efficiency (which WILL be retired in 3 years).

You guys will soon have the ability to have sole control of the ISS, but are you developing anything to go beyond that (which is where the resources will go to once we have our completely brain dead president out of office)? iirc you guys have a moon base program like ours, but I don't have any information on it. Mind explaining your future space plans and what will replace the extremely old and quite outdated soyuz spacecraft?

afaik most of NASA is now devoted to going beyond the ISS, probably taking into consideration the eventual retire date of the ISS (which will happen 5 years after our little pod is developed, the name of which I forgot). We have this new rover that is supposed to be, to NASA, far more important than a shuttle launch, what about you Russians?

Sorry if this seems to be written as as attack to you, I don't mean it to sound like that but many others seem to see any post by me to be a personal attack to them and their country. I'm sure you don't :).


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Paratus on 8/13/2007 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Grath - you also seem to mis-informed

Without the excessive truss and solar arrays the russian segement would die for lack of electrical power. Several times a year the russian segment cannont generate enough power to support it self. The US segement provides the make up power. In fact as the Russian segment solar arrays degrade they are becoming solely dependent on the US.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By East17 on 8/13/2007 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 1
Really ? Who was maintaining the ISS and taking care of the crew while the Shuttles were grounded ? Who ARE the ones that thought the USA how to build a Space Station ? Go easy on the ego .
Russia is a country with 700 billion budget versus USA that has 13,500 billion budget , and still Russia spends a lot of their small budget on space development while USA , although rich beyond belief , spends hundreds of billions just to steal oil from Iraq . What are those 11 USA companies doing in Iraq extracting it's oil ? Why must we wait a life time to get to mars while being busy with Operation Iraqis Liberation / O. I. L. ?
Is this what President Kennedy would have wanted us to do ? Is this the American Dream ? Iraq , Yugoslavia , Vietnam , Cambodia , Korea .... Are these the symbols of America ? All America does is to pollute the world's air and make wars ?
No . One symbolic development of the country is its foray into space development and research and that SHOULD be its most treasured initiative . That would indeed be a true American Dream .
But no , the congress and senate , that are so ready to approve on war , are reluctant to approve NASA's budget . I don't know exactly NASA's budget for the last year but let's say it was around 20 billion . What's that out of the total 13,500 billion USA budget ? 0,148% !!! That's all . The rest is probably used to fund the 300 billion F35 programme right ? 15 times more money are invested in weapons .
Heck , 15 times more JUST FOR ONE WEAPON . Let's say Russia's space budget is just 4 billion . Out of 700 billion , that's 0,57% . That means Russia's space effort is 500% greater than the USA space development effort .


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Ringold on 8/13/2007 12:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
1. How much oil, exactly, has been taken from Iraq? Oh, thats right, none. All sold on the open international market just live everyone elses at no benefit to America.

2. You praise Kennedy in one sentence, and then mention his *other* creation as if he had nothing to do with it, Vietnam.

3. 13.5 trillion budget? (trillion comes after billion, btw)You're thinking of GDP, comrade. Huge difference -- unless we're communists anyway. Wrong either way; 06 GDP was 13t, 07 GDP is more around 13.7t, and 08 projected around 14.5t, with spending being 2.8 this year.

I'd of taken on the rest, but can only read so much peacenik ranting in a 24 hour period.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By East17 on 8/13/2007 3:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
1. According to the statements of the representants of the 9 American companies that extract the oil of Iraq : "Daily , we extract at least 50% then all of the countries members of the OPEC are capable of exporting." THAT's A HUGE AMOUNT . I would not be surprised if the current statements of the USA leadership that they want the ONU troops to take over the pacification of Iraq are made because they’ve already extracted ALL THE OIL and they have no interest to stay there anymore . Think of this , the smallest American company that extracts oil from Iraq is twice as big as Iraq's National Petroleum Company . That means that the rate at which the oil was extracted was AT LEAST over 18 times faster than the rate at which Iraq was doing before the war . This means that in 6 years , those 9 American companies extracted the oil that it would have taken Iraq over 108 years to extract .

2.Didn't Kennedy inherit the Vietnam War from the former president ?

3.Learn to read , I never said 13,500 TRILLION ... I've said BILLION . And yes , the sum is correct .


By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "1. According to the statements of the representants of the 9 American companies that extract the oil of Iraq "

Oil that is then sold on the open market...not barrelled up and sent directly to the US.

> "2.Didn't Kennedy inherit the Vietnam War from the former president ?"

No. When Kennedy took office, the US presence in Indochina was a few hundred military observers. During his inaugural address, Kennedy vowed to support the Vietnam government, sent thousands of troops to the region, and formed joint US-Vietnamese military forces.

The war didn't officially start until a few months after Kennedy had been assassinated, so technically Johnson (Kennedy's VP and successor) inherited the situation from him.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Paratus on 8/13/2007 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Umm I installed another pair of solar arrays on the damn thing 2 months ago so we can get the European module up by the end of the year. The Japanese modules will follow early next year. We could call it the US/Russian/Canadian/European/Japanese space station but that seems so unwiedly. If only there was a word we could use that refered to many nations at once.....

(PS - The Russians "life support module" has about 50% of the livable space and all of the manuvering thrusters. The US supplies most of the electrical power and non-propulsive attitude control currently)


US NASA funding
By lompocus on 8/13/2007 2:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered where all of that money goes. I know we have an utterly brain dead president in office who sees money (I support Iraq, so don't see me as another brain dead liberal), but gosh, we have an amazing 8 billion devoted to space. 60 billion funds 2 battalions of soldiers (half a division). How is it that we cannot at least give NASA some of our 7 trillion dollar funding per year?

I can see a lot of money coming back in once the tax breaks for oil companies are revoked. Perhaps some of that will allow NASA to be expanded?

We're already at the top militarily and technologically. Maybe we can make our technology advance past everyone elses' a little bit more...?

Read: a little bit probably means a 300% expansion of NASA and 100 billion of funding.




RE: US NASA funding
By onelittleindian on 8/13/2007 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you're not aware that Bush raised NASA's funding slightly, while Clinton cut it.


Railway launch tube?
By TimberJon on 8/13/2007 12:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to news on that railgun-based launch tube that was so many miles in diameter, and curved around and launched upwards to try to get cargo into space.

Anyone have any media or news on that project? Hopefully it wasnt scrapped.




PROBES
By JonnyDough on 8/13/2007 2:44:11 PM , Rating: 1
Probes. We need more probes. Why send a human on a long dangerous mission when it costs billions more than what it would cost to send sensors and cameras? The truth is, we don't know enough about the journey, let alone the planet. We have done some research but not enough. I read an article about chip sized probes that could be dispersed all over the galaxy. A rocket would get them clear of our atmosphere and release them. It makes little sense at this point in time to spend billions on a manned Mars mission. The ISS is considered a failure by many. It would have possibly been more practical to dock a space station on the moon. There have also been discussions about gigantic elevators connected to the moon or to satellites. Ideas have also been brought up about installing solar panels on the moon and wire or beam the energy back to earth. Without the protective layer, the sun's rays provide much more energy on the moon than they do on earth's surface and patch of panels the size of a small state could essentially power the world. We need to use our heads and solve problems we are currently facing here on earth, instead of dumping billions into research that may never help us infest other worlds because our modern society or earth won't last long enough to see it through.




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki