# ISS problems continue ...

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Chagur, Nov 27, 2002.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Chagur.Seeker.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,235
Looks like NASA and the ISS have another problem looming:
A need for 'demanning' due to funding problems, both Russian
and US, may result in the ISS being unmanned for a year at a
time.

Although Mir was able to survive demanning, I wonder if the ISS
would be able to considering the need for almost constant main-
tenance?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/840268.asp?cp1=1

3. ### empennageSoccer KingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
69
ISS is probably the worst thing to happen to the US space market. Too much money was spent on that damn thing, and we get so little science out of it. The real science and commercial applications come from unmanned spacecraft. It's just too expensive to make spacecraft suitable for people to survive in.

5. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
It's expensive, yes. However, if this annoying pack of monkeys we call humanity could stop wasting money on wars and advertising, we could easily afford to build massive colonies in space, self-sufficient with acres and acres of plant life, covered in solar panels, et cetera...

7. ### empennageSoccer KingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
69
First off, let's remember that technologies developed from war are what allowed us to get into space in the first place.

Second, I don't think there is enough desire for us to get into space and start colonizing. IIRC, it took 1% of the GDP for the US to put a person on the moon. Colonizing space is much more difficult, and thus will probably be more expensive. People don't want to pay for something that doesn't get us much in return.

Most of the manned space flights have been political, and we have had comparitively little science in return. On the other hand, unmanned spacecraft have returned a bunch of scientific data that has improved our knowledge of the universe.

8. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
The novel Time by Stephen Baxter presents a rather nifty solution for cheap movement into space for our species. Not a bad story either. You might like to have a look at it.

9. ### empennageSoccer KingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
69
You want to give me a quick summary of it?

10. ### Chagur.Seeker.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,235
Good points empennage. Welcome to Sciforums.
But if I'm not mistaken, quite a bit of 'science' was
done aboard Mir.

Come to think of it, I don't remember Noah having
much in the way of public support either, Adam.

11. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
The idea went something like:
- A one-shot launch using 40-year-old shuttle engines, no need to worry about a return to Earth.
- Atop the launcher, a mainly automated facility to latch onto a NEO and mine water and launch it back to Earth orbit.
- Water in orbit gives water and fuel.
- Facility on asteroid starts harvesting ore as well, launching that back to Earth orbit.
- Material already in orbit means less to lift up from Earth.

In the novel this is done by a private company, avoiding the ridiculous overheads of the NASA bureaucracy. By the way, most of the cost of USA space launches comes from unnecessary crap like stripping a shuttle down to component parts bewteen launches, and the endless committees, and the thousands of committee-sitters who need to be paid...

Anyway, one of the ways they saved money in the novel was by buying old, trusted technology, no development costs at all.

Have you noticed that Russia can put ten loads into orbit for the cost of one NASA load? There's a reason for that. It's the same reason Australia is getting into a joint space programme with Russia. The USA blows so much money on bureaucratic nonsense...

Messages:
69
Agreed.

IMHO, a lot of the money that they blow on bureaucratic nonsense is because of the manned space programs. If all that money went into unmanned launches, there would probably be 10 times the launches. Afterall, it is rare for one unmanned spacecraft to cost anywhere near $1 billion. Most are less than$100 million, and some are in the $10-30 million range. 13. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member Messages: 7,415 Agreed, 100% Unmanned launches are a must. Manned launches are a waste, until we get a space industry turning a profit from materials in the asteroids or such. And if NASA could launch ten unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission, then Russia/Australia could launch ten unmanned missions for every one NASA unmanned mission. Now all I need to do is convince NASA to hand over all that money so we can do the work... 14. ### goofy headed punkRegistered Senior Member Messages: 170 True, but how has human advance been retarded by our desire to kill one another? (Yes, I know this is not an answerable question.) 15. ### Voodoo ChildRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,296 Things called IIS are just prone to fucking up. 16. ### Pollux VRa Bless AmericaRegistered Senior Member Messages: 6,495 If you want advancement, maybe some healthy competition between countries would help, more or less like the cold war, except...without the "war" part. We're all cooperating with each other, but from my POV I've noticed that we're helping each other out at least once in awhile whenever we get behind in schedule. We need competition, using the systems and beaurocracies we've got going now. As for the ISS, the first time I looked at it I wondered: "why the f*ck isn't it a wheel?" You'll easily garner public awe if you have a rotating wheel in space (a la 2001), which means more public support and interest in the space program. If we're going to continue advancing in astronomy, we need people in space. Not robots, but people. They may not be able to garner the same sciences as unmanned spacecraft, but they would capture the imagination. 17. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member Messages: 23,049 um exuse me but didnt VELCRO come out of the space program? and plastics? i mean velcro is used HEEPS and that by itself is a BIG plus 18. ### empennageSoccer KingRegistered Senior Member Messages: 69 Plastics came from the 30's. IIRC Dow Corning was a major developer in polymers, especially things like nylon or rayon. 19. ### Dwayne D.L.RabonRegistered Senior Member Messages: 199 Ford Motor Corporation, number one developer of plastics and it applications. in the early days. DWAYNE D.L.RABON 20. ### Dwayne D.L.RabonRegistered Senior Member Messages: 199 Public intrest in space, would require the avialablity of materials that currently are exspensive putting the cost out of public reach, although the material are mined in abundance even the so called rare elements, and for certain the abltiy to manufacture elements is now days a easy step of achivement, So then we can see that what prevents people form having a intrest is that are not allowed to achive such, as gold mongers sit on 100 million tons of gold and charge 400$ a little oz. who could afford it at that rate.
And it is because of this that people look at the sky and just wish, to see the sites from above, but no door will open for them to achive such views of the earth ect..., NASA intimidates the public and scares the public that going to space is not possible.
And therfore the UFO is in such a craze and wonderment of the public, because they want something that will allow them to achive such a site, that they can afford to cross that bridge to see the site of the world.
Even so the goverments have determined that there own public is the enemy,confining the people to limited knowledge and teaching, imposing needless regulations.
the easiest way into space is to use a hydrogen ballon and then propell the remainder in to space. it so simple that the hot air ballon and helium and hydrogen balloon use in the 1800s could see the hue of the earths atmosphere. there is so much hydrogen in the sea that there is a endless supply. The hindenberg was a pleasure craft, it is for sure that private zeppliens gain many a space flight.
if that was not enough, in todays time a person could burn oxygen or nitrogen to propell into space, nitrogen has the highest exspansion rate of any gas, got all the push you need for 40 miles.......
the problem is this once you get started the goverments which ever is yours ect... is going to say you can not do that because you did not meet are requirments of what we say is to be met, or you have to pay us to have a license, permit ect...., when the event to gain flight is as free as the wind that blows on the earth, as free as the air we breath, but yet they would make you pay for the abundance of air that circulates the earth. But consider this the piolets of the 1800s where flying objects as big as ten storie houses, that means the ojects where biger that a 747 jumbo jet liner, biger than the zepplins, and such piolets had very and i mean very little knowlegde of flight and atmospheric condtions, in fact if you look at the marker of history books you can see that thousands of people with out any skill in flying where floating hundreds of feet above the ground, some of them miles those that were privilaged to hydrogen.
it is the fear that NASA and the goverment put into people about flying,media, when it would be safer to fly a hot air ballon that fly a lear jet.
well i just though i might add to the picture some facts
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

21. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
Hi Dwayne!

NASA intimidates the public and scares the public that going to space is not possible.

NASA doesn't intimidate the public so much as they scare the public, so I'll have to admit that part of your statement is somewhat correct.

But NASA doesn't go around "scaring" the public with covert, clandestine operations, as most conspiracy theorists would have you believe. NASA can just as easy scare anyone with simple, yet effective evidence.

The costs of moving payload into LEO is one the primary reasons NASA has problems with space travel. The costs of salaries, research and development simply add to the problem. The real kicker is that the bulk of the monies invested rarely yield any fiscal returns. Together, this represent billions of irrecoverable taxpayers dollars. Are you starting to shake a little ?

Once into space, the problems of overcoming the effects of cosmic radiation, weightlessness, and isolation become issues of great magnitude and importance - the result being--you guessed it--more taxpayers dollars for R&D! Getting scared yet ?

No matter how you look at it - space travel is expensive - VERY expensive! And that scares the public.

But don't get me wrong, Dwayne - I'm a huge advocate for space travel. But there is a limit to how much one can give to the taxman.

And if you sincerely feel strongly about helping NASA, then go to this site and make a donation and make it your personal goal to make space travel a reality:

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_1210_001E_&page_name=main

22. ### Mr. Greality.sysValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,110
No one can deny the obvious value of scientific exploration of space via unmanned spacecraft.

But then, how easy is it to deny the obvious value of exploring male sexuality via vinyl inflatables?

There's nothing more important for man than confronting the real thing and acquiring actual experience.

Last edited: Dec 15, 2002
23. ### Dwayne D.L.RabonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
199

With the invention of the hydrogen ballon people can see the site of the earth for a very low cost, in this picture of J. Kittinger he is jumping from a open gondla attached to a hydrogen ballon,he is also whereing a suit to protect hem from the cold ect.... could primative man accidentally mad it this far, zepplins would have, why is the image of great diffculty present to the public about such easy achivements.
Well hydrogen will float right out into outter space, there is no doubt about that, its called the hydrogen escape ratio, is there a cheaper way into outter space than a hydrogen ballon , no! as the entire 70 % of the earth is covered in water containg hydrogen, it only gets cheaper if you use the electron, i.e electricty.
Below is the picture of the jump and you can see the view!