ISS Construction Resumes 125
avtchillsboro writes "The NY Times has an article detailing new construction on the International Space Station (ISS) and the additions via coming Space Shuttle missions through 2010. From the article: 'For more than three years, the International Space Station has floated half-built above the Earth. Maintained by a skeleton crew, the station — an assemblage of modules and girders — has not come close to its stated goal of becoming a world-class research outpost. But now construction, which has hung in limbo since NASA's space shuttle fleet was grounded after the 2003 Columbia disaster, is scheduled to resume. The shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to lift off next Sunday carrying a bus-size segment of the station's backbone that includes a new set of solar-power arrays.'"
Cost Versus Utility (Score:4, Interesting)
According the Wikipedia entry, NASA spends $5 billion annually on the ISS. I guess I hope to hear more news of discoveries from ISS and scientific advancements once it nears completion but I have not seen much in the news as of late. In fact, Hubble seems to be the best investment we've made next to the ISS. Is this just a proof of concept that we can work together with other nations on space exploration? What do we envision for the ISS in our future?
I know that this is an easy thing to complain about and I'm not the first to ask if it's really worth it. But can anyone tell me what $5 billion of our tax payer dollars has done for us? And why is it that construction grinds to a halt when only one of the member nations involved grounds its shuttles? Is this really an "international" space station? Also, doesn't this leave the United States eternally committed to developing this project? Will we ever be able to opt out of this even after its completion?
With the current administration in the United States, spending doesn't seem to worry them [cbsnews.com] at all. And with the National Debt Clock [brillig.com] ticking at around $8.5 trillion these days, I guess I should expect nothing more. Why is it that "small government conservatives" have the knack to make that clock jump by large percentages?
Re:Moon base! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exotic Projects Capturing the Public's Imaginat (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly you are NOT American, because it is very obvious to any outsider looking in that the USA will no tolerate any reasonable level of risk at all. Look at the stink when just 7 people die, and only a 2 Billion dollar shuttle is lost? Hell, 7 people is nothing - and Dubya it chucking a billion a week at Iraq - and ALL of those lives and dollars are completely wasted. I don't see anyone reviewing the Military budget (450 Billion) because people keep dying.
Hell, servicing Hubble - arguably the most successful space craft ever - was cancelled because people might die. I bet if you asked ANY rated astronaut if they're prepared to take the risk of servicing Hubble you'd get a 100% affirmative "We'll go!" answer.
No - the USA has turned its back on the pioneering spirit - and the whole "Earth, Moon, Mars and beyond" thing is a joke. It's going to be a debacle of the greatest kind: even worse than the ISS. Jebus, it's no even clear how to build a BDB (Big Dumb Booster) any more. The "Stick" so eloquently argued for is a multibillion dollar development, and not even remotely "using existing hardware" as advertised.
Don't get me wrong, I love the ISS, and if it costs 2 Billion dollars a shot to get my pretty 2560 x 1024 wallpaper - then that's a cost I'm willing for US tax payers to pay! Even if the ISS ends up costing 100 billion Euros, the experience of actually having worked together in space (and yes, many contries HAVE contributed) and the knowledge gained by assembling the thing probably almost justify the expense.
See the thing most of you have forgotten, is that you learn more from your failures than you do from your successes: and NASA has had plenty of failures in recent years. The problem is that NASA isn't being driven by an agenda which requires those lessons to be turned into conventional wisdom, and success!
Hell, it might cost a Trillion US dollars before there's any conventional wisdom about getting to LEO, and how to do things beyond LEO - and if it costs a trillion - or two trillion - or a hundred trillion dollars, then that's the price it costs to buy our way into this galaxy. No one is standing by, watching us, and they don't have a "Key To The Galaxy" waiting for us when we set foot on Mars. Escaping the doomed Earth, and populating the Solar System is going to be the most expensive venture ever undertaken by man. The effort may well cripple the Earth for a long time.
One thing is clear: whatever the cost, we need to know how to get off the planet reliably and cheaply.
Personally, I think sitting atop a million kilos of rocket fuel is the dumbest idea ever!
The future isn't rocket powered: it's laser powered: http://lightcrafttechnologies.com/ [lightcraft...logies.com] or its via space elevators. It most certainly does not make sense to burn 95% (or 99%!) of your payload just toget into orbit! If you're gonna burn fuel, the burn it on the ground.
Re:Cost Versus Utility (Score:2, Interesting)
The moon has plenty of He-3 and we should work on the best possible way to mine this even though we have not produced a viable fusion reactor yet. With plenty of He-3 available it should then be easier to do research on a commercially viable fusion reactor. With a viable fusion reactor, we could then use it to power a spacecraft to other planets. One day we may look back at oil being used as a primary source of energy and laugh. There are other planets that are rich in rare earth materials and that alone could be worth the cost benefit, not to mention in low-g environments, it is easier to bond elements together that are usually repulsed by each other. (e.g Aluminum+1 Magnesium +2) With these currently rare materials it should be easier to make better, lighter, and stronger spacecraft.
Just remember folks, the science fiction of today is quite often the science reality of tommorrow. One day I hope we can move planets to make them more conducive to life , use nanotechnology to terraform and mine an entire planet, and make modifications to the human genome, all to ensure future expansion of the human race.
I hope that politics does not get in the way of our future progess. Someone's pet project usually takes precedence despite all rationality that the money may be spent better elsewhere.
Re:Cost Versus Utility (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Love the post, but ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The launch capacity we had in the 60's (the Saturn V) was as expensive as the Shuttle - we don't need expensive shipping, we need cheap shipping.
No, Congress killed it back during the Johnson administration. Nixon inherited a fait accompli - a Congress that wasn't interested in funding NASA's ever more grandiose and expensive dreams.
The CEV has nothing to do with launch capability - launchers do. And President Bush is indeed getting right back we were in the 60's with regards to launch capacity: launchers that are too expensive to use but rarely.
The whole scheme as outlined as President Bush is an utter disaster for space exploration. The contracts are going to the Usual Suspects doing Business as usual.