digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Power woes prompt NASA to cancel spacewalk

msnbc.msn.com — NASA canceled a spacewalk Wednesday as it scrambled to deal with two power problems at the international space station.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 1, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

48 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Disodium, on 11/06/2007, -1/+7American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
  • Murdats, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5well mostly fully operation atm.
  • p014k, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5A fully operational International Space Station at that!
  • Bologner, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4"Thats why I told you, touch nothing, but you are a bunch of cowboys."
  • Bologner, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Ah, Lev.

    A.J.: Have you ever heard of Evel Knievel?
    Lev Andropov: No, I never saw Star Wars.
  • Murdats, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3getting into space is easy, point a rocket in the air and there you go..
    getting to the moon is easy, point a rocket at the moon and you are there (then point your smaller rocket back at the earth)
    staying in space is the tricky part.
  • RogerStrong, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Yup. The European and Japanese labs still need to be launched and tacked into place. And there's a few other items to go.

  • doublerob7, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Alright, last time i checked, physics and calculus haven't changed in 40 years. And neither have power / weight ratios. So it doesn't matter if we didn't use computers at all, it'd just mean that we'd have to do everything by hand. It's a rather simple equation: X amount of power / Y amount of weight = Z altitude. More power, less weight, voila! next stop, tranquility base.
    So yes, we did indeed fly to the moon with a TI-83, and if we wanted, we could do it by hand, too. Oh wait, we did with Apollo 13.
  • Dylan47, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2well there are some power troubles at the moment, heres a link: http://digg.com/space/Power_woes_prompt_NASA_to_ca ...
  • Bologner, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I see what you did there?
  • spynes, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/med ...

    well i'm no rocket scientist but i think 'thats yer probl--IN MOTHER RUSSIA, PROBLEM FIXES--rite there'

  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"... they are doing some pretty cool experiments up there."

    Yeah, like this one "Study of Low Back Pain in Crewmembers During Space Flight". Seriously, if you look at the "science" information from NASA for the ISS, the vast majority of it has to do with studying people in space. We have a space station so we can put people in space so we can study people in space. Self serving ... just a little.
  • Kitsune818, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Do you have any idea how much technology has been advanced by the push to explore space? I'm not talking tang and pens that write upside down, I mean things you use every day, like the microwave antennas that allow your iPhone to work and little things like computers, GPS satellites, satellite television, etc. etc. There is a phenomenal amount of patents on incredible advances in technology for things *supporting* the space program, some here on the ground, that you as a tax payer can use to make profitable products without even having to pay for the patents. THAT's where your ROI is. Half the things you use in modern life.
  • Dylan47, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1its for future missions... how are we going to utilize space travel if we dont know what effects it has on us? and what precautions to take.
  • csulok, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I guess you remember how bitchin big the saturn 5 rocket was, that put the Apollo modules to Moon. Now imagine that you don't want to make an 8 day trip - 1 day on the Moon - for 3 people, but a 1 month trip for 6. How much bigger a rocket would you need for that? Too big, noone's going to build that.
    Hence they started to learn how to construct a modular station, that would help them set up a modular spacecraft, that would support long duration long distance space travels.
    Just think about how much they learnt from ALL those mistakes. If it weren't for 2 shuttle accident, they might have kept the shuttle-on-the-side-of-a-bigass-rocket design. They learnt a lot from that. If it weren't for the ISS power problems, they probably wouldhave kept the rotating solar panel design, now they learnt from it to correct that as well. Also in this so called 'wasted' 20 years, all the other nations could catch up and help the USA out. Think about how much of a trouble would they be in, if the shuttle was destroyed, and they didn't have an international partner to ask for a steady flow of supply and crew rotation..
    It IS worth it!
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the reference. I did look for myself and according to the "NASA Patents Abstract Biliography" for October 2007 which covers the one year period from October 2006 thru September 2007, NASA was issued roughly 100 patents. To put this in perspective, IBM was issued over 3000 patents last year. The entire patent office issued a total of roughly 175,000 patents last year. By my math, NASA accounted for roughly 0.06 percent of the total.

    Conclusion: Based on patents issued, NASA's contribution to cutting edge research and development is relatively insignificant.
  • NeilVickers, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1And how many of IBM's patents were in the Material Sciences and Engineering? You think that all patents take the same amount of money to research? Is a new database search algorithm as easy or as difficult to research and develop than a new lightweight honeycomb composite material suitable for the aviation industry?

    Apple, meet Orange.
  • Dylan47, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"watched their video on the ISS"
    So you did know about the ISS, was your original comment supposed to be funny?
  • zdiddy85, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Um "Power Troubles" in space are no light matter to me. I'd get that looked at immediately, ***** the space walk.
  • chsbrgr, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1this is why we should just use dilithium crystals
  • Scynet, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1It's not about being a hardcore fan. If you seriously don't know that the human race has cooperatively launched a habitable space station on Earth orbit long time ago, you really _are_ ignorant, not just a "generic guy".

    And saying no-one cares about space is just stupid, it's one of the few things that people all over the world are interested of, whatever the culture, religion or location.

    Yeah, I'm a space fan and no, I don't think it nullifies my point.
  • warriorscot, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Maybe if we give up now we can save money and wait a few more thousand years.

    And if Nasa were a private company it would be very rich, allot of technology developed by the program went on to make allot of money in the private sector and research they funded has been used for allot of things over the years and has earned billions for allot of companies.
  • NeilVickers, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You're not very good with sarcasm are you, tomasm2005?
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"Well .. when the world bursts with population and places become useless to live on due to pollution and all . .you will be singing a different tune."

    Yes, when all those things and more happen, it'll be because we didn't put more people into space.
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"There is a phenomenal amount of patents on incredible advances in technology for things *supporting* the space program..."

    Roughly 7 million US patents have been issued. What percentage do you think can be directly attributed to the space program? Can you name any that fit in this category?
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"its for future missions... "

    To where? For what purpose? This is like a caveman studying aerodynamics. It may be a noble pursuit but it's utterly pointless at the time since the supporting technology needed to actually make use of it is still thousands of years into the future.

  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Geee, I never thought about it like that before. You're probably right, the best solution to any of the imminent threats humanity is facing (such as global climate change or the danger from near earth asteroids for example) is to spend hundreds of billions putting people into space.

    We'd probably all be doomed without forwarding thinking adventurers like you around.
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"... earned billions for allot of companies."

    Mostly contractors doing work for NASA, i.e. the military industrial complex.
  • NeilVickers, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1That's a straw man argument. You want to know how many patents NASA holds then go look them up for yourself: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/Pubs/patents/patents.html. You'll find virtually every branch of science and engineering amply represented.
  • NeilVickers, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1God knows we should never try anything new, because it's obviously too hard. And we never learn anything from our failures anyway, so what's the point. It's not like NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of overall Federal spending either, and I'm sure there are 1,001 better things to do with it than pouring it wastefully into high-tech research, development and engineering.

    I'm with you 'bro. We should stay in our place, planted firmly on the ground just as God intended.
  • Dylan47, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1well... if we don't invent the wheel now, the car will never come...
  • warriorscot, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The shuttle is one of the most complex pieces of equipment ever built, and each new module to the space station gets more and more complicated, more complicated a thing is more that can go wrong, the original space missions were done with a combination of genius, common sense and a touch of brute force, these days takes a little more work fewer geniuses and bigger problems.

    Why do you think they are going back to the rocket and capsule design, it is simpler to fix and less likely to break, and the station is just going to break its a complex machine operating for extended periods of time in the most hostile environment known to man, it would be surprising if it didnt break, Mir had problems all the time and it was a much simpler design
  • Dylan47, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1The benefits of space travel aren't as far away as you seem to think, maybe not in our life-times but within a century or two humans will most defiantly be using things like Mars' land for habitats and the gas of Jupiter for all sorts of crazy things.
    The guy invented the wheel so he/she could push there little cart around easier, so it is with space travel. The benefits now dont seem feasible but the future prospects are.
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You haven't actually looked at any of the NASA patents issued over the past year have you? They're not exactly breathtaking. A lot of them are just kinda trivial, probably just like many of IBM's. Whether you look at the number or the quality of patents, the argument that NASA is a great source of innovation just doesn't hold up; more propoganda than fact.
  • sdub1, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Buried for a misleading title. They had damaged solar panel that has now been repaired.

    And as far as people being concerned about the cost, this thing is a drop in the bucket when compared to military spending. The engineering that is being developed right now with this space station could some day be used to put huge solar arrays in orbit that beam energy down to the planet via microwaves. If solar energy could replace fossil fuels it would definitely be worth the expense.
  • JQP123, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1"...within a century or two ..."

    Within a century or two we could all be dead from an asteriod impact or gloabl warming. Why not spend the billions on the more immediate threat?

    "The guy invented the wheel so he/she could push there little cart around easier, so it is with space travel."

    No, human space travel is not like that at all. The guy who invented the wheel has some real use for it, something more than publicity and prestige and future visions of grandeur.
  • tomasm2005, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0oh yea. . Spending billions on "defense" and around 500 billion on a fruitless war in Iraq is no waste. NASA's budget is like only $16 bil. per year, which compared to the DoD's and the other "defense" and many other things is like pocket change. Well we need to try to make something available. If we don't do anything .. it WONT be available even after a thousand years .. as you say.

    Well .. when the world bursts with population and places become useless to live on due to pollution and all . .you will be singing a different tune.
  • tbetts42, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Number of patents issued to JQP123: 0
    Just guessing...
  • f4nt0m4s, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1i love the digg-downs from hardcore space fans, it's not my fault no one cares about space
    but seriously, i just went to the John F. Kennedy Space Center this summer and watched their video on the ISS, and they are doing some pretty cool experiments up there
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Why did we need the space shuttle? So we could build the space station. Why did we need the space station? To give the shuttle some place to dock ... so we can have people in space. Why do we need people in space? Because it looks good on TV ... and we need to explore and "reach for the stars". And how much did this self justifying adventure to explore low earth orbit cost? No one is really sure but at least a hundred billion dollars and 14 lives. And the really pathetic part is that we're no closer to "reaching the stars" than we were before. We'd be closer if we had spent more money on research rather than on a "people in space" adventure. *If* we ever do find a way to "reach the stars", you can bet that it won't be found onboard the space station.

    Final question: Is it really worth the cost at this point in time? Are you sure?
  • tbetts42, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0You, sir, are a dumbass.
    As for other replies above, the Space Shuttle is the single most complex machine ever designed by man. It greatly exceeds the complexity of the ISS, on many levels, and no one would call a the space station simple.
    However, the comment that space is the most hostile environment known to man is up for debate. I'd argue that the bottom of the ocean is more hostile, if only that we can't possibly imagine going a few miles down, but we can go hundreds, even thousands of miles up. It's that tricky transition of re-entering the Earth's atmosphere that causes issues.
  • JQP123, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Or at least that large part of NASA's budget that is devoted to human space flight.

    Us "reaching for the stars" with human space flight makes as much sense as a caveman "reaching for the sky" and trying to build an airplane. The effort may be noble but at this time, it is utterly pointless since the science and engineering needed to actually succeed won't be available for a few thousand years.
  • JQP123, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1The guy who invented the wheel probably didn't spend 100 billion and 14 lives on the project just on the off chance that someone, someday in the distant future would want to drive to the mall.
  • prevajanje, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0energy crisis moves to the space
  • blw1138, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1is the topic of this article, thank you.
  • wilhel1812, on 11/01/2007, -4/+1NASA
  • ganymede2010, on 11/06/2007, -12/+1Guys, notice all the delays, accidents, deaths, shuttle crashes that we have by just trying get to space? Most of our astronuats time is wasted repairing the damm shuttle instead carring out their actual missions while they're in space. And you actually think we to the MOON 38 years ago? In a lunar module with an onboard computer with the processing power of a pocket calcutlator. Wake up people!
  • f4nt0m4s, on 11/06/2007, -12/+1Wait...there's an International Space Station...?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.