What is Digg?53 Comments
- RogerStrong, on 07/30/2008, -1/+22>> the moon always seemed like a more permanent space station.
It's merely a different place to put a space station. The ISS in low earth orbit is easier to reach and easier to build. Unlike the moon you could send people there with launchers that have other commercial uses. And in an emergency you can get home in hours rather than four days. It's the best place for the first steps to long-duration space structures.
>> a year in zero g leaves you almost an invalid
No, it doesn't. That was the prediction, but it didn't turn out that way thanks to exercise programs.
The last long-term Mir resident spent 438 days aboard the Station but was able to walk from the Soyuz to the recovery area. He said that the doctors actually slowed his recovery by constantly insisting that he rest!
>> it makes me sick to think of the hundred or so tanks that have been wasted.
None were wasted. If each shuttle had carried a smaller payload on order to carry the external tank into orbit.....
- Probably only the last couple of tanks would still be in orbit, it that. The tanks are huge - high drag with low mass, and they'd only be above *most* of the atmosphere. Even the ISS gets reboosted by every visiting Shuttle, Soyus, Progress and ATV.
They'd be in wildly different orbits. Not just because the missions go to different orbits; If you left a tank in orbit on every ISS flight, well, the ISS's orbit gets reboosted and adjusted several times between shuttle flights. Over time those tanks would get harder and harder to round up.
- You'd have the mother of all space debris problems. All that insulating foam would be comng off like popcorn.
- If you wanted to join a bunch to make a space station, you'd need a couple dedicated shuttle flights per tank to alter and outfit them. Plus more flights to bring solar arrays and radiator panels, power and coolant distribution systems, air locks and an orbital maneuvering system for the whole thing. At a billion dollars a launch, that gets expensive. - inactive, on 07/29/2008, -1/+18The future is uncertain any where. :)
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+16But they can't tank it, Sir Richard Branson is going to take everyone there.
- shearyadi, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12Soon, there will be a massive space traffic jam :)
- spookyttws, on 07/30/2008, -0/+9"No one got any free tacos."
Genius. That's the kind of last minute statement I like at the end of an article discussing the life and death of one of the greatest technological feats of our time. They clearly understand their demographic is a different generation. - vroom101, on 07/29/2008, -2/+10The International Space Station photographed from NASA's Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-124) on 11 June 2008
1. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/iss_sts124_bi ... via http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080623.html
2. http://www.esa.int/images/s124e010045.jpg via http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMALNRHKHF_1.html (www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMALNRHKHF_1.html)
3. http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2006102 ... , http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2006102 ... via 32 and 33 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20061021.htm
Dextre the Robo-Overlord . . . at home . . . on the throne
4. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... via http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-123/html/s123e007088.html)
5. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... via http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e009056.html) - AmyVernon, on 07/30/2008, -0/+7i didn't realize the life span was so short... i can't blame them for wanting to extend its lifespan beyond 2015...
- alex7575, on 07/30/2008, -0/+6Be honest now,
Are you Buck Rogers? - starmanjones, on 07/29/2008, -6/+12for those of us that thought it was mistake from the beginning its some vindication. the moon always seemed like a more permanent space station. but now that its there i'm less critical... retasking it seems like asking for trouble. i'm not sure why we'd move it to the moon. long duration missions simply have to include gravity. we hope spin is a good enough substitute. the space station would be the death of an astronaut there too long. a year in zero g leaves you almost an invalid in one g. then there are the immune system problems.
we need to keep it there. use it for earth sciences. the climate change thing is going to require monitoring and its there. maybe move it to a more stable higher orbit. if we use the direct 2 booster with the large fuel tanks that would give us something to work with as far as refitting it for more people or making it less dangerous.
it makes me sick to think of the hundred or so tanks that have been wasted. what a resource they could be. anyway, the seals are most of the problem. maybe something goofy like taking it apart and putting each module inside a fuel tank like an outer hull. they are variously somewhere near the same size. salvage the solar panels.
we have to change our habits. everything that goes up needs to put to some use. designed for a second life. those tanks are reason enough to use the direct 2 booster. - pradaaddict, on 07/30/2008, -0/+5APOD - The International Space Station Transits the Sun
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080730.html - WilliamAdama, on 07/30/2008, -1/+5if it gets me a free taco, let it burn.
seriously though, don't let it burn unless it means going to mars in my life time... and I'm 22 and looking to live to 100 soo.. - JQP123, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4"Let it burn. Lets go to Mars!"
Wasting $150 billion building what is effectively an elaborate piece of space junk isn't the way to win support for a Mars trip. - layzice, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4Death and taxes my friend, death and taxes.
- Rikkochet, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4You're planning to die?
Noob. - ryan83189, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3But if they are going to crash it I want my one in a trillion shot of a free taco.
- RogerStrong, on 07/30/2008, -1/+3No, that's the only research that the media comprehends and has reported on.
Of course, a lot of science HAS been done on the station, but too many people have the attitude "Fox News doesn't report it, and I haven't gone looking, therefore doesn't happen."
A two-or-three person crew of spends much of its time on construction and maintenance, but many experiments still get done. Once the crew expands to six next year, we'll have people who can do experiments full time, and the new European and Japanese labs can be put to good use.
This is the equivalent of a research lab under construction and almost finished. Shiny new labs finally got installed and are awaiting the scientists. It's almost ready - the scientists are about to arrive.
And now, just before the ribbon cutting ceremony, some nitwit is yelling, "we spent all that money, and no science has been done yet!!! It's a failure!!!" - ryleyleckie, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2go Canada!
- Tyrghast, on 07/30/2008, -2/+4"I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace. Thank you very much. You've been great, I hope you enjoyed it." -Bill Hicks
- robertgoodwin, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2It's nice to see a more realistic look at the future of the ISS. The Washington Post op-ed piece was just uninformed jibberish.
- StigNordas, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2I bet he's working on his first condo building up there.
- cheezintern, on 07/30/2008, -2/+4Thanks, I'm too lazy to write such a concise response.
- idontlikeyou2, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2Most people think that you need a orbital platform to launch a mission to mars, like a space station, if only there was one up there.
- krusader3z, on 07/30/2008, -2/+4I remember when I went to space camp as a kid back in summer 1998. The ISS was such a heavily believed in and ambitious project, and it seemed to have the energy behind it. Nowadays it is just another forgotten project.
- ChayD, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2Sell it to Virgin Galactic?
- WilliamAdama, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2if it gets me a free taco, let it burn.
seriously though, don't let it burn unless it means going to mars in my life time... and I'm 22 and looking to live to 100 before respawn - appleseed1234, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1That comment reminded me of Space Jam! I don't know why I'm telling you this!
- starmanjones, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1>>> the moon always seemed like a more
>>> permanent space station.
>It's merely a different place to put a
>space station. The ISS in low earth
>orbit is easier to reach and easier to
>build. Unlike the moon you could send
>people there with launchers that have
>other commercial uses. And in an
>emergency you can get home in hours
>rather than four days. It's the best
>place for the first steps to
>long-duration space structures.
i'm not going to argue with you. i said i reconsidered. i wish we were on the moon too. but it has been a lot more useful than many of us predicted. i think the politics and the publicity have been out standing and worth it.
>>> a year in zero g leaves you almost an
>>> invalid
>No, it doesn't. That was the prediction,
>but it didn't turn out that way thanks
>to exercise programs.
>The last long-term Mir resident spent
>438 days aboard the Station but was able
>to walk from the Soyuz to the recovery
>area. He said that the doctors actually
>slowed his recovery by constantly
>insisting that he rest!
this is an exaggeration. it side steps the problem. long duration weightlessness gets you carried off in a stretcher even with hours of exercise. thats hours and hours of exercise that eats into productivity. the list of other down sides is long too.
you have to eat special diets.
take special drugs.
redistribution of fluids is coupled with fluid loss the result of increased volume in the upper body. the brain says to excrete fluids making astronauts prone to dehydration exacerbated by exercise
cardiovascular due to the lack gravitational pressure even with hours of exercise.
bone deterioration is extremely bad even with hours of exercise
muscle loss
decreased production of red blood cells and anemia
balance disorders. astronauts are often sick for the first several days.
hand-eye coordination, posture and balance are all affected by the
astronauts are often overwhelmed by dizziness and are unable to maintain
their balance.
the immune system is also affected. 100 genes involved with immunity just shut down.
minor effects such as puffiness in the face, gas, weight loss, nasal stuffiness and sleep problems . they don't snore however.
there are striking similarities between aging and the effects of space flight on a person’s health.
its not oh last years worries. its real. and the list of problems grows. would i go anyway... sure. not a second thought.
>None were wasted. If each shuttle had
>carried a smaller payload on order to
>carry the external tank into orbit.....
thats the argument. its a trade off. odd that you would be in such support of the ISS and what it takes to maintain it but dead against increasing the facilities for just a little more fuel. ISS... oh... ya... a little more fuel. let it burn.
>- Probably only the last couple of tanks
>would still be in orbit, it that. The
>tanks are huge - high drag with low
>mass, and they'd only be above *most* of
>the atmosphere. Even the ISS gets
>reboosted by every visiting Shuttle,
>Soyus, Progress and ATV.
you are supposing that they'd be hurded into a space junk yard and then let drop. you are exactly correct. the ISS needs to have its orbit raised as does everything in earth orbit.
>They'd be in wildly different orbits.
>Not just because the missions go to
>different orbits; If you left a tank in
>orbit on every ISS flight, well, the
>ISS's orbit gets reboosted and adjusted
>several times between shuttle flights.
>Over time those tanks would get harder
>and harder to round up.
you are assuming that the people who said they'd pay for that fuel would not do anything with them. you are very wrong. this has been a heated topic and direct 2 is just the latest iteration.
>- If you wanted to join a bunch to make
>a space station, you'd need a couple
>dedicated shuttle flights per tank to
>alter and outfit them. Plus more flights
>At a billion dollars a launch, that gets
>expensive.
blah blah. the russians are hauling tourists. you can rent a room on the ISS. the first private space station is made of foam. all you've done is make an excuse for putting off more people in space until you think we need it and in a way you approve.
you are one of those 'you can't do that people.' those of us that are just a little more creative than you can. you might just have an attitude problem. i'd call that an expensive and wasteful attitude problem.
there are those that call the ISS space debris of the same sort if nobody does anything with it.
20 people in the desert built a spacecraft that you'd call impractical or some such thing... no damn computers! no fly by wire! no tiles! but whata bet every ride home in a space shuttle has silent thoughts of burning more fuel and floating home on a rutan feather that doesn't even approach the engineering limits of it composite construction. i'd ride home on the shuttle. i would. thats what i'd be thinking until i heard the screech of the wheels.
the moon. safe from radiation under ground in lava tubes or other means. gravity. water. raw materials. plenty of room for everyone. plenty of room for science. plenty of room to grow food. to make lots of power to do lots of things. plenty or room to stage for mars. plenty of room to stage for the astroid belt. plenty of room to stage for many many deep space missions. service the ISS from without lifting out of the gravity well we call home.
your argument is really last century. but i do like the way ISS has turned out. i just wish it hadn't cost us the moon and who knows what else. - Wildthing, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1There is no respawn
- salamnder, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2***** the poor of the world, feed the poor here. I am a middle class poor.
Oh and our nuclear arsenal is used mostly for deterrence, since we have never had a nuke war (except the end of WWII, but I am talking about a nuclear exchange). - Mosheiken, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Zenon the Zequel!
- WilliamAdama, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1*Edit - I plan to live to 100 before I respawn again.
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2This a proof that countries can never unite for a common goal. Everybody else has their own agenda.
- starmanjones, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1>Thanks, I'm too lazy to write such a concise response.
but he is wrong or not playing on the same field on every count. easy rebuttal. his arguements are... "you can't." so all you have to do is know one of the nearly infinite "you can" answers. - Halsfield, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2you would think they would have thought this out before spending all the money to build this. Hmm, we built it, lets throw it into the sun! weeeeee. id rather just have a billion dollar money-fire here on earth.
- RogerStrong, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1>> 7 years for all that money?
Anyone who tells you this is being dishonest.
15 years is for the one module, Zarya.
Zarya provided electrical power, storage, propulsion, and guidance to the ISS during the ***INITIAL*** stage of assembly. As other modules with more specialized functionality were added, the Zarya's role primarily becomes storage, both inside the pressurized section and in the externally mounted fuel tanks.
http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Zarya.html
In any case, Zarya incorporates a lot of the lessons learned from Mir. ISS has a lot more redundency. It has a whole lot more spare parts being prepositioned on the outside of the station. Zarya has already had substantial refurbishment that was hard or impossible on Mir (a Soyuz or Progress can only carry so much) - new batteries, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, etc.
And btw, there's NO chance of landing the ISS on the moon. It's built for zero gravity, its built in three dimensions, so you couldn't rest it on a surface, and there's simply no way to land it on the moon. - MrFurious2k, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Get your ass to Mars.
- alex7575, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1...any ways. ;)
- crazymaster16, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1yeah...
if it was free i will be there too :) - Halsfield, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1@rogerstrong: i think part of the outcry against this is the short lifespan of such an expensive object that has yet to make any groundbreaking achievements. its 2008, they are estimating its lifespan to be about 2015(with parts starting to decay at 2013 with the russian piece). 7 years for all that money?
now im hoping for either a refurbish or landing it on the moon and making it a moon space station that is a little more permanent.
If nothing but some simple "how do plants grow in space" type experiments come about from this space station, i think we should have spent the money going to mars and other planets or shooting a few more camera probes out into space to take hubble-like space photos. - layzice, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1I'm down for that, but the people who own this planet could never deal with the equality that mindset brings. They have to have more than everyone else to feel special or because they feel entitled.
However, after they get done nuking the place... - Pixelante, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0Somebody will set them up the bomb.
- BananaGrabber, on 07/30/2008, -5/+4Let it burn. Lets go to Mars!
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -5/+4Hey at least it didn't cost $3 trillion, severely damage the US economy and lead to the deaths/displacement of over 1 million people.
Lol I love Bashing the Bush regime. It's so easy. - ABadPerson, on 07/30/2008, -3/+1Load it with enough fuel so it can crash land on the moon.
- trendsetta, on 07/29/2008, -4/+2Perhaps that's where Steve Fossett is hiding...
- pradaaddict, on 07/30/2008, -3/+1The most expensive and complicated thing ever built and the only thing we have gained from it is a slightly better understanding of the effects of long term space travel on people
- hbrtmran, on 07/30/2008, -5/+0We need the Extreme makover "ISS edition" guys!
- hbrtmran, on 07/30/2008, -6/+1We need the Extreme makover "ISS edition" guys!
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
