Slashdot Log In
International Space Station: Canada to the Rescue?
Posted by
chrisd
on Mon Dec 17, 2001 08:11 PM
from the canada-going-to-bat-for-science dept.
from the canada-going-to-bat-for-science dept.
Apostata writes "The following story from the Globe and Mail outlines a proposal of the head of the Canadian Space Agency to seek renewed funding for the recently stripped-down NASA budget for the ISS. He makes an interesting point that - contrary to the belief that the ISS is a NASA brainchild/braintrust - many countries have poured $billions$ into it's development and should thus have a say in whether there should be any cutbacks.
Read all about it here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
International Space Station: Canada to the Rescue?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 300 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Polotics (Score:1)
very true, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:very true, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me suggest to you that useful but boring space research gets done because we also do exciting but expensive things. That is, it's hard to get the public interested in a fleet of Earth-orbiting atmospheric science satellites, but human spaceflight galvanizes the public interest enough that a few hundred million can sneak past for other, more scientifically interesting research.
I also think that the money spent on the ISS is worth it if the only thing it proves is that a massive international space project requiring detailed co-operation from former military adversaries is even possible. (PS: I'm all for letting the Chinese get on board too). The future of manned spaceflight depends on pan-national co-operation.
Cooperation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen the results of international cooperation? Everybody teaming up to try and put up a Low Earth Orbit space station, and finally getting hardware in orbit after 2 decades of redesigns, tens of billions of dollars of cost growth, United States delays that threatened European schedules, Russian delays that threatened American schedules... and the result just isn't that impressive, even for a space station.
What human spaceflight depends on, apparantly, is international competition. Russians orbiting the globe, "putting a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before this decade is out", you know, that sort of thing?
We don't need Chinese astronauts on ISS, we need China building it's own space station in half the time... because apparantly there's nothing that motivates the American space program so well as being laughed at.
Re:very true, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, you can have experiments that are easily monitored, altered, and corrected. It's probably cheaper to have an astronaut do the work than to design (and pay for the lift of) the mechanics to do so.
Second, by having experiments inside the permanent structure of the station, you don't need to reproduce the wheel every time you send up an experiment (shielding for radiation and dust, airtight containment, temperature control, etc etc). The station provides all that.
A lot of this could be done with the shuttle - but only as long as it doesn't take too long. I think the max time on orbit for a shuttle is only a couple of weeks, but I'm probably way off. Using the station, you can run a three month long experiment or more... which is really handy if you're studying something like the effect of microgravity on successive generations bred and raised in it.
(As an aside, how they get the mice to have sex in zero g, I'll never figure out.
Jingoism again? (Score:1, Flamebait)
I think what you meant to say was that many countries have poured billions of Rubles, Drachmas, and Yen into the ISS project. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around you Americans, even in the financial world. We still have our own currencies, so far.
Here's to hoping the ISS makes it,
EPD.
Re:Jingoism again? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also a little upset with people bitching that the US has limited everyone's access to the ISS. The US has poured far more money into it than any other participant, AND has had to cover for things when other members (Russia, mainly) defaulted on debts. So don't act like it's just the Americans' fault.
Hmm... (Score:1)
Um, how many space walks have there been this year?
Noone to the rescue, yet (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this article as saying that Canada is going to rescue anything. Rather, they are lining up along with Europe to complain (with some justice, since NASA is not upholding the ISS agreements as they currently stand). Now, I suppose if a nation complains enough and is willing to use this as a bargaining chip (e.g. in trade talks or whatever kind of talks matter to the US), then complaining becomes a kind of action. But a much more direct sort of rescue, a more obviously effective one, would be to come up with some funding. Europe once built a half-scale prototype [esa.int] of (some portions of) a crew return vehicle, but in recent years that activity has changed to "well, maybe we could build a few components for the US crew return vehicle, that would be cheaper. Well, is Europe prepared to build their own crew return vehicle? Or pay Russia to supply more Soyuzes?
The other amusing aspect of this whole thing is the number of times that the US has cancelled its part of a project (shuttle, partially; some science satellite in the 80's the name of which is at home; even Spacelab in a sense), and the fact that Europe (and other partners) fail to learn. It is like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown time after time, and Europe seems to always line up for another kick. I guess Canada is now joining them.
Re:Noone to the rescue, yet (Score:5, Insightful)
The probe, by the way, was to be a US equivalent to Ulysses, so that ESA and NASA would have a probe going over a different pole of the Sun at the same time. We've lost a lot of science to that decision.
There is a difference in attitude between the US and Europe/Canada/Japan. To the latter international treaties are binding documents; they are the *last* thing to go if you're having problems. (Look at the unsuccessful efforts the British made to get out of Concorde...)
The USA, on the other hand, is the centre of the universe, the new Middle Kingdom, and treaties with other, inferior, nations are the *first* thing to be broken if The Land of The Free is getting squeezed. Or even if they aren't and just don't feel like it (Kyoto, landmines, NMD...). Meanwhile everyone else is expected to dance to their tune.
Basically the Americans are a bunch of selfish, arrogant, isolationist pricks who are not to be trusted in any transnational agreement.
Hopefully this has now hit home with ESA. Two reasons:
1. the cost and high public profile of this FUBAR
2. Canada and Japan have been shafted as well.
I hope what we will see is these nations teaming up with Russia and China to build an alternate station to the brain-damaged political football of the ISS and become a new independent force in space exploration.
It's ours. Why? (Score:2, Funny)
Furthermore, as a Canadian taxpayer, I will naturally be asked to help decide who gets to be an astronaut. Moderators, you know what to do.
Orbiting laser of death (Score:2, Funny)
Funding cuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Funding cuts that make it impossible to do research should not be made, since this is a research platform, after all. If they cut funding to this, just like they did with DS1 (story earlier today), then the entire scientific commmunity is going to be pissed. What is the point of putting up a multi-billion dollar space station if not to do something more than have it just sit there, with no experiments being done? That ticking sound is the time before this thing plunges into the ocean years from now. the only question is "what do we do with it until then?"
(/rant)
2 and a half½ crew members? (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't it be safe to round that up?
Obligatory anime reference (Score:3, Funny)
As unpopular as it may sound... (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this covered by contract? (Score:1, Troll)
It seems to me that no country, business, person, or other entity should be obligated to continue paying unless a legally binding contract is in place to enforce such payment. In some jurisdictions, termination clauses are manditory for the contract to be considered legally binding.
What binding contract is in place that actually stipulates who is obligated to pay what amount for the ISS? Are contracts even relevant when the United States in concerned? For example, when was the last time the United States paid its membership dues in the United Nations? What about its compliance with greenhouse emissions agreements?
It seems to me, engaging the United States in a debate about cutbacks would be much like an ant trying to playing a game of chicken with a rhino. Being the resident superpower has its perks.
Dubya's Answer...Send In The Accountants... (Score:5, Informative)
""...No one really knows what a finished station would cost. NASA said earlier this year that it faces a $4.8 billion shortfall over the next five years. Sean O'Keefe, nominated by President George W. Bush to become NASA administrator, testified Friday that he had no confidence in that number or any other estimate he had heard so far.
At the close of the hearing Friday, Mr. O'Keefe was asked an open-ended question: "What is your vision?"
.
Mr. O'Keefe spoke for several minutes about "prudent management principles," reinvigorating "the entrepreneurial spirits" of NASA, the importance of collaboration with other elements of the federal government, the need to be mindful of safety and the possibility of taking advantage of this moment when NASA is at a crossroads.
.
He did not mention space."
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
A sad state of affairs (Score:2, Interesting)
But it's true that NASA involvement is now crucial, and on that point the decision of Congress is sovereign. If you are a US voter and you disagree with Congress's decisions on NASA funding, you know what to do.
On the bright side, I don't think space is going to go away any time soon, and not only are there still many delightful things to explore on earth, outer space itself is becoming far more accessible in the form of robot probes and orbiting telescopes.
Whilst curtailment of the ISS would be bad news for manned space flight in the short term, I don't think it would necessarily be bad news for science as a whole. There is just so much else upon which it would be at least as sensible to spend the science budget of any country.
This is weird... (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems like a rather odd thing to say to the press... I would think if *I* was relying on NASA to do something in space, I would sure want "technical excellence" at any cost. This is not a walk in the park, it is space exploration, and attention DOES need to be paid to detail.
or am I wrong?
Pro Canada should NOT mean Anti USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Too many people here are bashing USA, and saying "oh, we're better than USA because of *reason X* or *reason Y*"...
To those of you who are doing this, take a second and think. Are we really that much better? Do we have to take our argument to an international forum and play the patriot?
The USA, despite it's flaws, is not as bad as a lot of people think. If it was such a bad place, they'd have all moved out of there by now! Besides, the USA is where Megatokyo comes from, and it's also where a lot of anime and video games are distributed from.
And Canada HAS flaws. Sure, our Prime Minster, the Right Honourable Jean Chretien was seen choking and throwing a potential assailant... Sure, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Chris Jericho, Alex Trebek, etc. come from Canada...
But to those who believe in the right to bear arms up here - we can't. To those who believe that we have freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Not in Canada. The government can censor you if they so choose.
The point is: It's the holidays, friends. Break out the egg nog, or beer if you prefer, and let's celebrate life. We're friendly neighbors... why not ACT like it for a change? We should like each other despite our many flaws.
Happy Holidays to one and all.
K1B0!!! (Score:1)
The name of that module is unfortunate on so many levels.
"Laser" (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I'd agreee with the poster who pointed out that the ISS is a huge expenditure compared to what we could do with many smaller projects, but I think it's necessary to have big prjects that are the culimination of the technology that's being devised. Classes that don't have final exams are always considered slacker classes because people don't have a goal to work towards, and the same thing could be said for space projects.
Just print more money (Score:2)
Supper is on, so I got to make this fast.... (Score:2)
It was perfect - and we became dot.compost at the end of the year....
Quick Summary Of The Entire Thread For This Story (Score:1, Troll)
Canada sucks.
America is great.
Everyone else sucks.
Fuck everyone else.
Did I miss one? I only wish it was possible to bring up **any** freaking topic that doesn't involve the USA without this dimwit ranting starting up.
Go Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm on Canada's side for sure. More power to them for giving NASA and the U.S. Congress the kick in the ass they deserved. NASA is an (somewhat) unwitting overspender and Congress is right to want to reduce their funds. But a committment was made. Backing down on that committment will have an exponentially dimishing effect on the project which equals a waste of the starting investment.
And it'll make the station less neat.
-DiggsBiggly
fsck that noise... (Score:1)
I wonder if (Score:1, Funny)
Money money money (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, while other countries may have poured billions of dollars (US) into the project, note that even according to the article this is a small percentage. The article states that the Canadian robot arm cost $1.4 billion and gives them 2.3 % of the research space. The European module is quoted as costing the same. That means Canada and Europe, total, have 4.6% of the research space. Assuming Japan's contribution isn't vastly more expensive, or there isn't some other big player the article didn't mention, that means about 90% of the research space, and presumably the budget, came from the US.
If there were treaties to prevent the US from doing this, then the US should be constrained by them. If not, the US should at least be willing to provide use of launching facilities and shuttles at a reasonable cost. But beyond that, pay up. "He who pays the piper calls the tune"--and that includes telling him to go away. Unless otherwise negotiated, the US has no obligation to let other people piggyback their space efforts on its own.
How can money be the problem? (Score:1)
It is sad enough that we spend money on weapons at all in a time where people starve to death. Starvation and hygiene should be priority 1, research should be priority 2, and at the very end of the list, somewhere in the fine print, should be the military. Until we are enlightened enough not to need military at all, that is. I'm not holding my breath.
Re:How can money be the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, you are a simpleton if you really believe what you just wrote. Let me break things down for you:
As long as there is enough money to carpet bomb mountains and piles of rock in Afghanistan, this is not a valid excuse.
Perception defines the bounds of reality. The percieved value of bombing Afganistan exceeds or at least meets the percieved value of fully funding NASA. Like it or not, the perception is that NASA does not add enough value to the country, to the planet, or to the race to justify their funding levels. NASA has shown us that they can continually do more with less money. This trend must continue or NASA faces even harder times. NASA must either provide the perception of value (and hopefully provide that value) or face repeated decimation.
Just for a moment: consider the money that is poured into weaponry (and I'm not only talking ammo here! The US scientist who sent the anthrax letters gets a salary and took the Anthrax from the expensive bio-weapon program of the USA. Do you know how much money sustaining that program costs? I don't. Why don't we find out?).
To begin, you are spouting off about a clearly inflamatory topic. You claim that a US scientist sent the anthrax laden letters. There is no proof to support your claim. The closest thing to proof that you have is the revelation that anthrax sent through the USPS genetically matches anthrax created by the US Department of Agriculture in 1980. That anthrax (anthrax occurs naturally in bovine heavy environments) has since been shared with up to five other agencies, including the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease and the CIA. However, lets be clear: the US Government is barred by treaty from developing "bio-weapons". On the other hand, treatment of and prevention of anthrax attacks is entirely legal and prudent. That is clearly the role and scope that has been taking place. So the assertion that this takes a lot of money to sustain is false. The bio-weapon research bill for the US is $0. You declaration that a US scientist (implying federal employment) sent the letters is without fact. Check out this article [planetark.org] for more information.
Anyways, back to the topic: money spent on weapons. Again, its perceived value. Weapons are percieved to be valuable.
It is sad enough that we spend money on weapons at all in a time where people starve to death. Starvation and hygiene should be priority 1, research should be priority 2, and at the very end of the list, somewhere in the fine print, should be the military. Until we are enlightened enough not to need military at all, that is. I'm not holding my breath.
I also think it is sad. So my question is: what have you done to eliminate hunger - locally, regionally, nationally, internationally and globally? What specific ways have you helped to quell this problem? What priority is it for you personally on a day to day basis? If you are like most Americans then it is clear that the priority suddenly drops to the near bottom.
I think as a people we should provide for our neighbors far and wide who are suffering. I believe as a person that weapons are the instruments of neither good or evil.
The role of government in this country and in fact all countries is not to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, or care for the sick. The role of the government is to empower its citizens to do those things. Our government largely has empowered each of us to that goal - however, excesses and in fact instrutions lessen that ability. I believe that when faced with a clear and convincing arguement for socail intervention the people of this nation will respond to their economic ability.
The budget of the US government is in the trillions each year. We have spent *hundred of billions* on food programs: direct subsidization, indirect, school lunches, soup kitches, and food pantry programs. We have spent *trillions* on the military, yet we are not a peaceful nation as our leaders claim. We have spent *hundreds of billions* on the space program but we have yet to even decide on a set of goals let alone work towards them.
This has nothing to do with enlightenment or anything else of that sort. This has to do with misplaced trust. We all hope that all we need is that one last law, that one last program, that one last handout that will cause all the pieces to come together and for a nation as a whole to prosper. We think that if we craft the law just right this time, incorporating everything we've learned about old laws, that it will be just right, just how we wanted.
What's truly sad is that people are duped into believing it. No amount of spending by the US Government will eliminate hunger or prevent starvation. No amount of spending or lack of spending will prevent war. No amount of research or spending on the space program will help us to reach non-existant goals.
The US Goverment isn't the solution to the world's problems, it's a contributing factor. Individuals, groups of individuals - we are the answer. All I ask is that the various world Government's setup a framework of laws and protections that allow individuals to make a positive difference.
I am not holding my breath, either.
Where the money goes... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's been said before (Score:3, Insightful)
What is needed is for private corporations to take up the slack, building their own launch sites and launching their own whatevers. If this means corporate domination of space, then so be it. I would rather see the Microsoft Starship Gates make warp one than none at all.
Moosehead in Fridge.... (Score:1)
Robot Arms Ahoy (Score:1)
Just because one statement is true... (Score:3, Insightful)
He makes an interesting point that - contrary to the belief that the ISS is a NASA brainchild/braintrust . ISS is a NASA goal (to the extreme detriment to what I would argue should be the real focus, probes going out to learn about the solar system. On top of that, not only are we sinking 100+ Billion dollors on this (100x the contribution of any other country... and for good measure we are covering most of the soviet's costs as well), we are cutting programs that would go out and examine the Kuiper belt, the sun, etc.
Think of what kind of knowledge we could gain. Long term space research? bzzt. Soviets already did that. Radation effects on humans? bzzt.
The entire problem is that this space station was created by the state department and congress rather then the scientists. ISS? What ever happened to freedom and liberty the first names of this project.
Screw the space station. Give us a workable re-usable launcher and the NGST.
Canada to the rescue means making the USApay more? (Score:1, Insightful)
The whole approach to space needs re-evaluation (Score:2, Insightful)
In the 60's man went to the moon. The moon! Many times. We haven't been back in decades.
Why is there no base on the moon? Why aren't there more space stations in orbit? I think part of the reason is that the focus is on doing dumb experiments instead of just building these facilities as rapidly as possible.
The shuttle was a big step forward. Mir was a big step forward. The ISS will benefit from both these achievements. What I object to is reading quotes from guys at McGill University who are getting bucks to do research on reflexes in space. This is idiotic when we still need lots of money to put more facilities and equipment up there.
I figure you could spend all your money every year on pure research science. And I think you'd get a lot out of it. But it should be remembered that it was guys like Columbus, Hudson and Cook who made the big discoveries of the last exploratory period. Guys who went and did what they wanted to do to see if they could. They weren't sailing ships filled with lab rats and experiments. They wanted to see what was around the next corner, see if they could get there, and see if they could settle there. I don't understand why this spirit has been lost.
Goals need to be set. ISS completion by 2005. Base on the moon by 2010. Man on Mars by 2015. Base on Mars by 2020. Let's get a move on.
Re:Canada has a space agency (Score:2, Insightful)
You at least knew they made the Canadarm [mdrobotics.ca], right?
Re:Canada has a space agency (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:US vs. Canada (Score:1)
Canada never had slavery.
Canada never had prohibition.
And Canada is your largest trading partner. Yes, your LARGEST. You depend on us too.
Re:US vs. Canada (Score:1)
And starts a long history of going off and starting war while instating several military dictatorships. While Canada's ties to the monarchy are superficial and gives up membership in the commonwealth (we also didn't have to kill any one). By the way, remember the war of 1812;)
-Americans call themselves "Americans," as is their right.
Just don't do it anywhere else in the world if you don't want to get shot.
Translation! (Score:4, Insightful)
While the...rest of the United States declares that almost all of the low gravity research to be done on the ISS has already been done on the ground.
-US takes the initiative to throw off the chains of an obsolete and oppressive monarchy.
Choosing instead to worship Topm Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow and George Clooney.
I honestly feel sorry for Canadians (Score:1)
- Candians would rather be called Candian to avoid being mistaken for "Americans" like this guy.
Having accents which most of the world can't pick from "Americans" like this guy has to be a big disadvantage (and I'm an Australian, we get mistaken for New Zealenders
To fight the problem would any Canadians care to point out what the differences in accent are (apart from the -ou- words like "house" and "about").
Re:US vs. Canada (Score:1, Offtopic)
Yawn. Of all the pathetic diatribes attempting to get Canadians "angry", this has to be one of the worst.
I think what we can say with certainty, is that Canadians tend to have serious inferiority complexes
The most telling part of this comment is the fact that you slam Canadians with your, err, "insightful" comments, and you're then claiming that WE have an inferiority complex. Wow. I think a little self-perspective is in order.
If my country's sole export was third rate comedians, I might feel inferior about it, too.
This is just so incredibly ignorant that it really puts the rest of the message into context (not that it wasn't already clear).
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Coming where it comes from...
Marc Garneau's former wife was found dead, along with her lover in a car whose windows was cracked open and a hose was run from the exhaust to the window...
And another can-adian ass-tronaut, a medical doctor, failed to take care of her wife during her pregnancy. So she skipped important tests, and the offspring is retarded. Nothing unusual here, except that the fucking asshole, upon hearing the bad news, squarely put the blame on her and cancelled the shower party.
Even worse, when the family was posted to Houston so the ass-tronaut could do his training, the canadian space agency refused to pay for the special care the baby needed. Needless to say, their salaries were insufficient to pay for this, so the ass-tronauts had to go on strike until the agency funded the special care for the baby.
And, lastly, the second canadian woman in space, Julie Payette, caused an american astronaut's wife strike: since the hot bitch screwed her way to the top, there was no way the chaste american astronaut's wifes would trust their beloved husbands along with that slut, so they went on strike, too, and NASA then said that the hot bitch wouldn't go in orbit.
But, politics being politics, since she is french and a woman, she had to go and the canadian ambassator to the US (the brother of canadian prime sinister Jean Chrétien [buzz.ca]) personally asked Billy Boy (this was before Dubya?) to override NASA's concern for the chastity of their crews.
So, the hot bitch finally went up...
Ain't canadian space politics fun???? (but the baby's doin' fine, though).