Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

International Space Station Turns Two 233

Posted by michael from the space-is-wide-and-good-friends-are-too-few dept.
RedWolves2 writes "Today is ISS's second anniversary of Operations. Two years ago today NASA astronaut Bill Shepherd and Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev first boarded the ISS. In two years the station has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

International Space Station Turns Two More

International Space Station Turns Two

Comments Filter:

  • lance (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:01PM (#4585711) Homepage Journal
    N*SYNC free since november 2000!

    Its a shame it won't last...

  • and still (Score:4, Informative)

    by gspr ( 602968 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:01PM (#4585712)
    ...and still the people of Earth cannot tell the difference between then and than.

  • Whats it for? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer@sub d i m e n s i o n . com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:01PM (#4585715)
    What we need is links describing what they7 are going to DO with it. Im not saying its useless but i dont know much about it but am interested.
    • Spend a lot of tax payers money. Keep at lot of contractors in business.

    • Re:Whats it for? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Paul Komarek ( 794 ) <komarek.paul@gmail.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:38PM (#4585863) Homepage
      I don't think we'll know what the Space Station is for until we're done with it, which won't be for many years. I like to think of our space efforts, in general, as

      1) Research Investements
      2) Engineering Investments
      3) Inspirational Exploration
      4) Inspirational Art
      5) Occasionally Profitable

      and for the space station in particular,

      6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

      -Paul Komarek

      • Re:Whats it for? (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Pooua ( 265915 )
        I like to think of our space efforts, in general,

        It's good that you said in general, because Items 1 through 6 you listed are only true of *other* space projects, not the ISS.

        1) Research Investements It looks increasingly unlikely that any significant research will ever be performed on the ISS; extremely unlikely that $100 billion dollars-worth of research will be. What research is done probably could have been done more cheaply by other means.

        2) Engineering Investments

        OK, we have a works program, which is actually corporate welfare.

        3) Inspirational Exploration

        I think we need to get our inspiration along more practical lines.

        4) Inspirational Art

        5) Occasionally Profitable

        ISS is never going to be profitable.

        and for the space station in particular,

        6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

        That could be a reason that the project is such a gross waste of money, time and effort.

      • Re:Whats it for? (Score:2, Informative)

        by C0LDFusion ( 541865 )
        6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".

        I'd like to remind the poster of the above that most countries "participating" in the ISS have been defaulting on their share of it, leaving the US to pay up for a capsule that has THEIR flag on it. Then they insult us because we can't afford National Health Care.
        • While writing that, I wondered how people would take it. What I had in mind is that NASA is trying to be (more-or-less) patient. I believe it is more important to move together than to move as fast as possible.

          -Paul Komarek
      • Do you really plan to be stuck on this planet for the next 4 billion years? The sun would have gobbled up our solar system by then, and life on Earth would have been wiped out well beforehand by overheating or of course being pelted by asteroids. Which is of course are just fancy names for ENTROPY DEATH. The clock is ticking! We must escape!

        The ISS is just a feeble first step at researching how we can live outside of the womb of mother Earth... did you really expect to jump right to the Moon or to Mars? Of course, it might be a waste of time and money, but that's how many "operational prototypes" are. It would be even more of a failure if we attempted to colonize the moon and it went bust because we didn't have simple stuff like the operations and project management skills that could only be developed by running this ISS business. It would be a real shame if the entire human civilization was wiped out in a few millenia simply because we couldn't be bothered to take the first few baby steps out of our atmosphere.

        But I guess more to answer your question, I used to work on a research project that investigated the granular flow of particles in microgravity. There's presumably a lot you can do with forming new materials and pharmaceuticals by developing manufacturing processes in the absence of a gravitational potential always fooling around with you. Our project was relatively pure research... stick a bunch of plastic BBs in a chamber with a circular conveyor belt and see if you could sort them by size, surface friction, or elasticity by merely using a kinetic energy gradient instead of a gravitational energy gradient. Not much practical use, but the point was to develop theoretical models and simulations to predict what would happen for more practical applications. Our conveyor belt had been tested a few times on NASA's KC-135 "vomit comet" aircraft (simulates micrgravity by flying a parabolic trajectory for a few tens of seconds), and was bound for the ISS when I graduated.

  • The space station is a great symbol of mankind joining together to enter a new frontier.
    • Hear hear! One early morning I happened to see the station flying across the sky [heavens-above.com] and it was amazing to realize that that little moving "star" was something that mankind managed to brought up there, high in space. For those who can't appreciate it, find out when the ISS is going to fly by and experience it for yourself.
    • Unfortunately it's actually a symbol of spending way more money than planned, and then cutting costs in such a way that the scientific return is very low, not to mention breaking contracts with other countries.

      Sadly we now have an enormously expensive station that requires the crew to spend almost all their time maintaining it instead of doing science experiments. The amount of money spent on the station and the shuttle is so enormous that many other valuable missions have been cancelled.

  • 200,000 pounds ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Trusty Penfold ( 615679 ) <jon_edwards@spanners4us.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:02PM (#4585719) Journal
    200,000 pounds? Nonsense - it is in space, therefore it is weightless.
    • Lol, even since it is in space, its still weighs, but much less.

    • You are all wrong! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Keebler71 ( 520908 )
      You are all wrong! Objects in orbit have both mass and weight. The term "weightless" is often misused as it only applies to the reference frame to another object in the same orbit.

      Weight (force due to gravity) = -G*M*m/(r^2)

      show me what part of that equation is zero...

      For instance, an astronaut is weightless relative to the shuttle or ISS, but still weighs 200lb or so relative to the Earth. The apparent weightless is simply due to the fact that the vehicle and the astronaut are both being accelerated toward the Earth with exactly the same magnitude, thus no RELATIVE acceleration and no perceivable weight.

      Another misconception is that object are easy to move around in "zero-g". Not so,... a large object still has the same mass as on Earth which corresponds to a lot of inertia so it is very difficult to get moving and stop again. The big difference is that there is no surface friction so once the object is moving, you don't have to apply a non-conservative force to keep it moving.

      • Well they are still kinda right, while it may have some weight it certainly isn't 200,000 pounds however.
        • But very nearly... what people tend to forget that low-earth orbit (LEO)... in this case about 400 km is very very small compared to the radius of the Earth (6378km). Add the two then square the sum... the force of gravity at LEO is very nearly the same as it is on earth... in this case 89% of the surface value. (177,000lb)

          So assuming the author was using one significant digit... 200,000lb is exactly right.

  • Next on Jerry Springer (Score:3, Funny)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:05PM (#4585734) Homepage
    Meet ISS who says she is being used and abused by men, and indeed women, she says she has entertained over 112 people in the last two years and has gained over 200,000 pounds. ISS says that all of these people leave after a short period of time and never come back. But she says that she still has a positive outlook on life and doesn't feel the weight is a problem, in fact she hardly feels it at all...

    Well Lets bring out ISS...

    JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY

  • umm (Score:2, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 )
    so where's the trailer for this?
  • Now we only have about 25 more until we can crash it into the ocean and pray it hit's the Taco Bell target!
    Mmmmm...free taco....*drool*
    ---

  • Yea.. (Score:2)

    by dj28 ( 212815 )
    And the US tax payer sure is 'feeling' this birthday... in the wallet.

    • Re:Yea.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Keebler71 ( 520908 )
      As a taxpayer in something like the 30% bracket, I would much rather have my money going into the space program than into social security or welfare (including so-called corporate welfare).
      • You do understand that "corporate welfare" is one of the large reasons that congress continues to fund the IIS, don't you?

    • Re:Yea.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Paul Komarek ( 794 ) <komarek.paul@gmail.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:51PM (#4585924) Homepage
      At least at one point in 2001, NASA estimated America's portion of the ISS cost to be US$100bn (i.e. how much America will have spent when the station is completed). Let's suppose nasa is wrong, and that it is actually triple that, US$300bn.

      GW Bush's propsed 2003 military budget is US$378bn, which is something like US$43bn more than last year.

      And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time. The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning. We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.

      At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent. That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.

      Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap? I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

      -Paul Komarek

      • Re:Yea.. (Score:2, Troll)

        by Pooua ( 265915 )
        GW Bush's propsed 2003 military budget is US$378bn, which is something like US$43bn more than last year.

        And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.

        FYI, Bush had nothing to do with the US bombing Serbia, and Bush's proposed 2003 budget certainly had nothing to do with it.

        The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning.

        If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.

        We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.

        The Taliban is out of power and the US has full access to any part of Afghanistan it desires to explore. OBL hasn't been seen or heard from in months, and is presumed dead.

        As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).

        At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent.

        You seem to think the ISS is the reason, instead of just one product. The nations building ISS have been talking and cooperating long before ISS came together.

        That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.

        ISS isn't making friends. It isn't converting enemies. It is just a waste of money and a serious burden on everyone's economy. Even the idiot Socialists know that when an economy gets dragged under by boondoggle programs, it makes the world less friendly. In that way, ISS is hurting friendships.

        Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap?

        Iraq doesn't care about ISS. The Taliban would not care about the ISS. Al Quada does not care about ISS. Your argument is senseless.

        I think the ISS is a damn good investment.

        I think you are wrong.

        • Re:Yea.. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @09:51PM (#4586109) Homepage
          If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.

          While it is true that $270 billion is drastically less than $380 billion, it does not necessarily follow that $270 billion is insufficient.

          Unless it can be demonstrated that another $100 billion would have prevented the destruction of the towers, the point stands.

          George's current buget is simply the most recent figure in a long line of military bugets that can best be summarized by the word "large". I think you read too much into the fact that the quoted value was for the current budget.

        • As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).

          This is why I find myself more and more afraid to go outside. People make painfully broad generalizations and use them as evidence why anything that is not American is bad.

          I personally think the US military budget should be heavily cut, we should never go to war with anyone who doesn't attack us first (war is really just a scare tactic, actual fighting it really, really stupid). And the terrorist attack on America is not just cause to go to war with an entire country.

          and you look like one too.... :p

        • Re:Yea.. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by d_i_r_t_y ( 156112 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @11:06PM (#4586337) Homepage Journal
          you have some incredibly ignorant, right-wing views, my friend. i suggest travelling outside the US and reading some books instead of swallowing CNN and US propaganda.

          i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?

          the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined. i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?

          • you have some incredibly ignorant, right-wing views, my friend. i suggest travelling outside the US and reading some books instead of swallowing CNN and US propaganda.

            I spent 2 years in Guam, 3 months in Italy, 2 weeks in France, 2 weeks in Israel, 2 weeks in Spain, 2 weeks in Mexico and about a day in Canada. None of those places are even half as good as the US.

            i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?

            You want to compare Denmark to the US, fine, let's compare them:

            Denmark - Total area: 43k square kilometers
            US - Total area: 9629k square kilometers

            Denmark - GDP: $128 billion
            US - GDP: $9255 billion

            Denmark - Unemployment (1999): 5.7%
            US - Unemployment (1999): 4.2%

            You have chosen to compare the worst areas of the US with the few areas of Denmark you saw. Can you tell me why your comparison might not be reasonable?

            Tell me; what has Denmark done in, say, the last 300 years that is of world-wide significance? Ask the same question of the US, then compare the two lists. The US easily overwhelms anything that Denmark has done. Denmark could fall off the face of the Earth today, and it wouldn't make any difference to almost anyone outside Europe. If the US disappeared, however, the world's largest economy would disappear with it, along with the world's primary source of invention and innovation. Frankly, the world would be plunged into another Dark Ages without the US.

            the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined.

            Whose planes are patrolling the UN no-fly zones in Iraq? Which nation had the largest military in Bosnia during the war? Whose military protected Kuwait when Iraq invaded? Whose military restored a free society to Afghanistan? Whose military provides the primary protection of the UN Headquarters?

            i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?

            That is not the role of government. The US Constitution spells out that one role of government is to provide for national defense. There is not a word about health care.

        • Why is it that so many moderators mark the unpopular position on a controversial subject as a Troll?

          For the record, I agree with you on most of those points, and I'm glad someone had the courage to articulate them.

          Don't forget to vote today!
      • So you're saying we should go back to old cheap Vietnam-era technology like Napalm? That way you can have tens of thousands of dead civilians in each little war instead of a few hundred dead.

        But at least you wouldn't be spending too much money on weapons.

      • I'm actually in the U.S. military, and I agree with most of this sentiment. From a financial statement, the Space Station makes a far more worthwhile investment than a military which overpowers any five other nations'. Especially given that the cost given is the total cost of the International Space Station, as opposed to the annual cost.

        That said, I think the station as it stands now is being horribly mismanaged. What are we doing with it up there? The station should be a scientific tool, not a diplomatic one. We have a platform for large-scale experimentation and research, with the potential to develop zero-g manufacturing methods that might interest companies on the ground enough to invest in space themselves. How much of that are we doing, really?

        The space revolution awaits us, but it won't happen until we can make it profitable. The ISS can help us make that happen. In the meantime, it's all I can do to hope and dream that the Department of Defense will one day create a separate Space Force into which I might enlist.

        • My hope for ISS is that it is well-managed by the time it is completed, and well-enough managed until then that it isn't abandoned. Unfortunately, all of my (current) research can be done on earth, and it's unlikely they'll ask me to serve as a mission specialist any time soon. ;-)

          As far as military in space goes, I'm hoping we'll have a stronger Corp of Engineers presence than Airborne presence. No offense intended to Airborne personell.

          -Paul Komarek
      • We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.
        Actually it was more a case of putting a large number of microwave ovens out of action. Those dirty-tricky freigners had microwave ovens with the door interlocks disabled. The HARM missles found a series of microwave pulses and a $50,000 missle successfuly destroyed a $150 microwave oven. Repeat a few hundred times and you see where the budget goes.

        I guess those dirty rottrn Serb bastards had to go without microwave-ready meals for a while.....

      • since when has bombing been about making friends?

  • So how long (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wmspringer ( 569211 )
    So how long until it's the size of Babylon 5? ;-)

    Seriously, I wonder how soon the technology will advance enough to make it feasible to establish a permanent station on another planet or moon, one that could be self-supporting?

    Learning things that have practical implications here on Earth (such as improving crops) is pretty cool by itself, but don't you want to visit the moons of Jupiter? ;-)

    • Re:So how long (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CoolVibe ( 11466 )
      For that to really work wrll, we need to invent garvity in outer space first.

      You wouldn't want to live in a space station for 10 years and go back to earth to find out your bones have dissolved, because you didn't need them.

      zero gravoty might sound fun, but it's a killer in the long term

      • Science fiction writers did that decades ago ;-)

        But yes, if you're planning on being off Earth for an extended period (and coming back) then you'll need a significant amount of gravity wherever you're staying.

        Of course, I suppose people might choose to emigrate to the moon permanently. Although, if they don't do that AFTER having families, thier children might get a bit annoyed at them..

      • Wasn't that where the rotation came in? That's why most of the big Earth-based ships and stations were constantly spinning. I haven't worked out the physics, so I don't know if it's practical outside of B5.

        ..unless you're talking about the White Stars, of course.

  • "the shining star of international co-operation" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:13PM (#4585766) Journal
    "It is literally and figuratively the shining star of international cooperation and a lot of dedicated work."

    Yes, maybe - but imagine that it took over an half century of space travel to get these guys working together. Ofcourse it is better now that 3 years ago - but just think if for example US and USSR could have co-operated before the USSR space program and the whole country collapsed. We would be much more far away now.

    ***plug: Here's an analysis of the slashdot effect [openchallenge.org].

    • Also, if we had started earlier(before the collapse) then the USA would not have to be paying for the vast majority of the Russian cost.

      • And we might have had two shuttle fleets not one, by all acccounts Buran was a better vehicle with greater potential. Whether that's true or not the two different engineering teams could have learnt a hell of a lot from each other. I reallllly hope the Buran team's knowledge and expertise is being used by somebody right now.



    • Funny.. Because if they were cooperating earlier, there wouldnt have been space programs worthy of cooperation. I think we all know that both space programs were a result of the tension between the formere USSR and the USA.
    • Actually they did almost 30 years ago.

      In 1975 Apollo 18 [nasa.gov] and Soviet Soyuz 19. This was the the last manned American space mission before the first shuttle flight.
  • Two years and what new breakthroughs in space discovery have come? I think the "wow" factor of the space station is over after two years, let's start trying to answer the question "Why"? I believe a space station is a great thing, but what makes it more than an overglorified oxygen bubble where people can spend a few months in space? And lastly why does NASA still believe it controls the space station??
    • Well, they can add a few more rooms and have the world's first space hotel.. :-)

      (Which, from reading the links, they seem to think is not that infeasible)
    • I'm guessing that they still think they are in control because they bought the majority of it!!! The only other possiblity for supporting the space station is from Russia, who's space program is funded by the US anyway for a considerable amount...
      • I'm guessing that they still think they are in control because they bought the majority of it!!! The only other possiblity for supporting the space station is from Russia, who's space program is funded by the US anyway for a considerable amount...


        Typical capitalist yankees. Just because you pay for the majority of something doesn't mean you own it! It's called subsidies, sort of like welfare. See, poorer humans and nations deserve to get wealth redistributions from more wealthy nations. It's their right in a modern PC world.

  • Coincidence... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:16PM (#4585776)
    "In two years... has grown to more then 200,000 pounds and has had 112 visitors."

    I thought Slashdot posted a story about my ex-girlfriend.

  • Does it have an onboard webserver? If so, can we slashdot it? :D

    Taking bets on how long it'll be before the station is reduced to a burning mass thanks to our server-stopping/melting/frying/BANG-ability. :P

  • Great ISS-related site (Score:4, Informative)

    by frozenray ( 308282 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:21PM (#4585794)

    http://heavens-above.com/ [heavens-above.com] has location-based information about the flight path of the ISS, among other things. Worth a visit.

  • You can't measure objects in space in lbs. (Score:3, Informative)

    by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:29PM (#4585824) Homepage Journal
    lbs (pounds) are a measure of weight. kgs are a measure of mass, although we use them as a measure of weight for convenience.

    Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object.

    Therefore, you cannot measure the weight of the ISS in pounds, since the force of gravity exerted upon it is miniscule.. so it doesn't really weigh 200,000 lbs.. it just has a mass of the kilogram equivalent of 200,000 lbs!

    The ISS would only weight 200,000 lbs if it were on Earth... but it can be 90,909 kgs in space or on Earth since kgs is a measurement of mass not weight!

    • Re:You can't measure objects in space in lbs. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "since the force of gravity exerted upon it is miniscule"

      Go back to physics class. Gravity still has a very profound effect on the spacestation and on the astronauts (cosmonauts) inside it. The 'weightlessness' is only because they're in perpetual free fall, not because of a lack of gravity. If the effect of gravity were miniscule, they would fly off into space, not orbit the planet.
    • In fact, lbs are units of weight but you can also
      refer to lbs mass (this from aerospace class)
      -- the more common unit of mass in the customary
      system though is the slug (32.2 lbs mass)

    • This is not quite true. The Earth is pulling on the ISS just like it pulls on everything else. The pull might be slightly diminished by the distance, but not by much. The reason satelites stay in orbit (and appear weightless) is because they are moving fast enough around the earth to maintain their orbit. A basic physics book can explain it much better then I can. Slow down the ISS enough and it'll fall like a 200,000 lb brick.
      • And instead of moderating you up I had to crack a lame joke! Damn.

        Kaboom is quite right.

        The earth has a radius of 6,300 km (roughly.)

        The ISS is a measly 361 km up.

        Since gravity falls off as the square of the distance from the center of mass (which is the center of the earth) gravity in the ISS is

        (6,300 / 6,660) squared = about 0.89.

        89% of gravity at sea level.

        It could very well weigh 200,000 lbs, although, in a sense, I suspect the original poster is right and that it actually weighs 180,000 lbs.

        If you're tempted to mod me up mod up my immediate parent.
  • Station: World peace?

    Astronaut David A. Wolf [nasa.gov]: Heh. Yeah, right.

    Station: Well.... how about understanding between all peoples and religions?

    Wolf: Damn programmers. Filthy hippies.

    Station: An end to social injustice?

    Wolf: Those pinko bastards programmed you for that! Disregard it!

    Station: Could you tell everyone that a sentient computer in orbit has found aliens and carries a message of peace and love from the cosmos?

    Wolf: We'd be a laughing stock! Look, why don't you ask for something that we can give you up here, right now?

    Station: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

    Wolf: Uh-oh.
  • That's almost as heavily visited as my personal website... ;) (hint: no, not hackerheaven.org. duh)
  • I like to think that I keep up with the goings and comings of the astronauts. I had no idea that there had been so many people on the station. Or, were some of those visitors not from Earth?

    Has anyone noticed all of those ads for freedomofinfo.org? Do a whois and you will understand why.

  • Powered by NetBSD (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let's not forget that the International Space Station also runs NetBSD. Take a look:

    http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/research.html#sams-i i [netbsd.org]

    Yep. The daemon went to space before tux.

  • Story straight from Nasa (Score:3, Informative)

    by term0r ( 471206 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @09:04PM (#4585965)
    click here [nasa.gov]
  • Try it for yourself. It is very neat to watch this fly overhead, and if you like I can email you pictures of it wizzing over me.
    You just tell it where you live. [heavens-above.com]

  • Imagine (Score:3, Funny)

    by perfects ( 598301 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @09:26PM (#4586024)
    ...a Wolf 359 cluster of those!
  • do you think we could wait on any annual celebrations untill we actually finish the thing? we still have some work to finish before we can start enjoying ourselfs...

  • Is it worth ... what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @10:25PM (#4586224) Homepage
    I have opposed the ISS all along (gasp) much as I did the shuttle. The manned space program in general, including or perhaps especially Apollo, has been hard to justify. (The foundation of Apollo was not so much science as the Cold War. Note we haven't been back in 30 years and have no plans of doing so. Yes, it was really cool and as a symbol continues to inspire; perhaps that's the best part. But out failure to return suggests we're really not all that interested in voyaging in space.) Manned spaceflight has a great gee-whiz factor which I share and circularly develops our understanding on how to sustain humans in space -- in others words, men in space help put more in space. Yippee.

    Unmanned probe programs from Cassini [nasa.gov] back to the ancient Mariner [nasa.gov], on the other hand, have produced reams of data for a fraction of the cost and danger. The 25 y.o. Voyager program [nasa.gov] is still working, and they were done on a shoestring compared to ISS. That sort of thing makes me go "wow!" more than several people orbiting the Earth in a claustrophobic tin can.

    Congress cries poverty at unsexy robotic probes, yet relatively easily goes for the big-ticket man-in-space programs. This is due to the public as much as the politicians; it's hard to care about a ream of data as much as pictures of an astronaut. Yet I know people in the industry who talked a great deal of how the expensive Shuttle devastated virtually all other programs, in a period when our interplanetary probes were at their zenith -- Voyager, Viking, etc.

    This is just to speak of pure research. The greatest practical application of spaceflight has been the launching of satellites for communications, weather observation, and so on. If anything the U.S. lags in this area, as more and more launches go to rockets from France, China, and Russia. My engineer friend's American company has several launches planned on Russian rockets of ancient but reliable technology.

    Certainly the people who frequent this site appreciate the power of technology. We're moving to a level of computational power, AI, robotics, etc. whose primary emphasis is to relieve humans of repetitive, demanding, or dangerous tasks. And if our technology fails with a probe, we lose a machine and not a life. Why not apply our emphasis here?

    I don't discount the amazing achievements of manned spaceflight -- and it's a cheap part our trillion+ budget with lots of bang for the buck -- but I do question the allocation of these funds. I think we are many years behind what we could have achieved, and what the space program might have driven our engineering to achieve. As for interplanetary travel, I would love to see humans do it but know that unmanned missions can get there much sooner and return more information for less money and without the compromises forced by life support. Ultimately, who cares whether man of machine collects the data?

    Thoughts?
  • I bet it's lost about 80% of the 10 billion bucks they sunk into it.
  • If slashdot could give measurements in SI units?

    This is supposed to be a reasonably technical site after all, and most other countries did away with imperial measurements years ago.

    Its people like you that get mars probes crashed.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close