NASA Scrapping Space Station Plans

[albino african]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051004/tc_usatoday/nasadownsizingitsplansforspacestation

NASA is scaling back its plans for the orbiting
International Space Station, a result of its goal of retiring the space shuttle and sending Americans back to the moon.
ADVERTISEMENT


A centrifuge laboratory to study the effects of gravity on animals won't be added, NASA Assistant Associate Administrator Mark Uhran said Monday. Another laboratory and a compartment that would have held life-support equipment are also "at higher risk" of being left on the ground, he said. (Related item: NASA administrator softens comments on shuttle)

A Russian component that would have produced power for Russian science facilities will "probably" not make it to the station either, Uhran said. However, space station labs being built by Europe and Japan are not in jeopardy, nor are the solar panels that will supply those labs with electricity.

The plan to retire the shuttle by the fall of 2010 doomed the centrifuge lab, because only the shuttle has the size and strength to carry the station's massive pieces into orbit. Russia's space vehicles can deliver food and other supplies to the station, but they're too small to carry the station's larger pieces.

NASA wants to retire the shuttle to save money to help pay for the plan to send humans to the moon in 2018.

Uhran said the shuttle will make no more than 19 flights between now and its retirement: 18 to the station and one to repair the
Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble Space Telescope. Earlier this year, NASA said it needed 28 shuttle missions to build and stock the station.

The disintegration of shuttle Columbia in 2003 grounded the shuttle until Discovery's flight this summer. Damage by hurricanes Rita and Katrina to two crucial NASA facilities and technical problems have delayed the next flight until May at the earliest. Uhran spoke at a meeting at the
National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences about the future of research on the station.

Among the station parts he said have fallen by the wayside or could do so:

? The centrifuge lab to study how different levels of gravity affect animals. It "is not currently in the plan," Uhran said.

? The cupola, a work space with multiple windows for observing the Earth and stars. A low priority, it might not fly if NASA can't launch all 19 shuttle flights before retiring the fleet.

? Node 3, designed to be a connecting point between rooms and a home to equipment for making oxygen and other crucial functions. It, too, is low-priority now. Uhran said that even if Node 3 were axed, the station would still be able to house a crew of six. But that won't happen until 2008 at the earliest. Five people are aboard the station now, but three will leave next week. The two remaining crewmembers will have little time for science because of the demands of caring for their orbital home.

Uhran said 19 shuttle launches between now and fall 2010 are possible, but "nobody knows" the exact number.

"We will fly again as many times as we safely can" in the time left, he said.

I believe this is a step in the wrong direction. We've been to the moon many times, it's nothing new. The space station and unmanned exploration, I feel, would advance the development of groundbreaking technology better than manned explorations to the moon ever could.

What do you guys think?

[Milkman Dan]

I remember reading a similar article on Slashdot about how the director thinks they placed the ISS in the incorrect orbit. There was a lot of good comments on it. Particularly the ones talking about placing something in L3 and a lunar ladder.

Personally, I'd like to see them concentrate on creating a better shuttle than the Atlantis. I recall seeing something on the History or Discovery Channel talking about how they're developing plasma engines.

[Mr. Fiend]

With the SLI scrapped (The replacement for the Shuttle, canned two years ago) the whole project is in serious jeopardy. How will large cargo be carried up? Will they use seperate rockets to carry crew and cargo? Or are they planning on scrapping anything that would require large payloads? (This is beyond the nineteen planned shuttle flights, of course).

Unless they plan something dramatic for the return to the moon, I'm against it, and against the cuts to the International Space Station.

[Lord Kelvin]

It all seems politically motivated to me. First Bush said that we're going to Mars, then he said we're going to the moon. I haven't seen any plans for a Mars trip, but there's no reason at all to go back to the moon, even despite the fact that China is planning to do that as well.

[Medlar]

http://www.cdaccess.com/jpg/shared/front/large/rebmoon.jpg

[FaKToR]

Why exactly are we heading back to the moon?

[marty]

Stepping stone. The last one gave us a lot of shit, but it was just a crash program. We're gonna do it properly now, and hopefully we put something a bit more permanent down there.

[FaKToR]

Did you know the moon is slowing moving away from us.

[GoatChomper]

NASA wants to retire the shuttle to save money to help pay for the plan to send humans to the moon in 2018.
To be fair, that ain't the only reason.....they should have mentioned the fleet's ever-increasing age.

[Kak]

I'd like to see a new race to the moon. Russia could very well beat us, but only if their Government kicked it into gear and decided it wanted to win. And China's space program isn't even close to the point where they can talk about going to the moon.

[Captain Colon]

Why kak? There's nothing to gain from a race :confused: If anything, an international program would be cool.
To be fair, that ain't the only reason.....they should have mentioned the fleet's ever-increasing age.
True enough, but there still aren't any viable replacements.


I'd love to see people on the moon, but not at the expense of all the research we can do with the ISS.

[Toastar]

And China's space program isn't even close to the point where they can talk about going to the moon.

annnnnd you're basing this on what? get this, americans made it to the moon in the 60s :eek: now think of the technology that has been invented from there.

[Lord Kelvin]

Did you know the moon is slowing moving away from us.
Yeah, but it's only at a rate of a few feet or inches per year or so. So even in a hundred years, we'd only have to travel a few hundred more feet or so to get there, which is nothing compared to the thousands of miles it already takes.

[theMIKKO]

I thought the moon moved a couple of inches closer to earth every year because tides consume moon's kinetic energy.

[albino african]

I thought the moon moved a couple of inches closer to earth every year because tides consume moon's kinetic energy.

How could tides consume the moon's kinetic energy when there is no contact between the two? I thought the tides were powered by the moon's magnetic pull?

[FaKToR]

Tides are cause by the moon's gravity. I think what he's saying is that there is a force of attraction which has an effect on the moon's kinetic energy.

[theMIKKO]

How could tides consume the moon's kinetic energy when there is no contact between the two? I thought the tides were powered by the moon's magnetic pull?

There is no physical contact, but they still do interact via gravity.
Tides move -> (some of) kinetic energy of tides turns into heat. The energy from this comes from the kinetic energy of the Moon. Less kinetic energy -> less velocity -> lower orbit.

[Captain Colon]

Gravity isn't kinetic energy though

[theMIKKO]

Gravity isn't kinetic energy though

True, but Moon has kinetic energy when it orbits around Earth. Gravity is just a medium that transfers a tiny portion of that energy to the oceans, creating tides.

[FaKToR]

Gravity exerts force though colon. It is based on mass yes, but if an object wants to go one direction and it's being pulled another by gravity that will diminish the kinetic energy it has to to go in that direction. I think this is all probably irrelevant though because the tides would already be part of the mass that makes up the earth so any effect it has would be moot.

[Captain Colon]

I'm not following you at all :( It sounds like you're saying that if the moon wasn't moving, we'd have no tides because the moon would have no kinetic energy for gravity to transfer. But stationary objects still have gravity so obviously that makes no sense :confused:

Tide is affected by how close to the earth the moon is and whether it's between the earth and the sun or not, not how fast the moon is moving :confused:

[Bone_Vulture]

You are not following me.

...

The Moon simply slows down because it's kinetic energy is slowly draining away.

Or in other words, it's a type of entropy. The energy that moves the tides must come from somewhere - otherwise we'd have an infinite energy source.

[theMIKKO]

I'm not following you at all :( It sounds like you're saying that if the moon wasn't moving, we'd have no tides because the moon would have no kinetic energy for gravity to transfer. But stationary objects still have gravity so obviously that makes no sense :confused:

If the Moon wasn't moving at all (relative to Earth), it would fall down on us.

[FaKToR]

Of course Mikko the tides don't have anything to do with it, least I don't see how they do, because the earth's gravity already exerts a force on the moon, so how do the tides play into this?

[theMIKKO]

The movements of tides are the key in here. Conservation of energy.
The energy that moves the tides comes from Moon's kinetic energy. It's quite simple, just basic physics.

[Captain Colon]

Nope. There would be a small tide, caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun, but it would be really small compared to the tidal forces of Moon. Ask yourself, what would create the tide if the Moon's gravity was always pulling Earth from the same direction?

Edit: Link that explains it: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question72.htm
If the moon stayed in the same place in relation to earth it would still be moving in relation to the earth and sun, hence a change in tides, nubcaeks ;)

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/ this link is better

[GoatChomper]

If the responses seem out of sync, blame it on a few posters who lost their maps to the OTF.

Carry on.

[Bone_Vulture]

Perhaps he means a geosynchronous orbit? It would still be orbiting, just at the same speed as the Earth's rotation, thus appearing not to move when viewed from Earth.

Possible, yes, but I would assume that that'd also void out any changes in gravity pull that cause tides.

[Lord Kelvin]

Yes, IIRC the moon is in geosynchronous orbit. It orbits, but it always shows the same side to the Earth, kinda like dragging a ball across the diameter of another ball (best example I can come up with).

[Mr. Fiend]

Possible, yes, but I would assume that that'd also void out any changes in gravity pull that cause tides.Been a while since astronomy, but I recall that the sun has a minor impact on tides, however they would be rather minute.Yes, IIRC the moon is in geosynchronous orbit. It orbits, but it always shows the same side to the Earth, kinda like dragging a ball across the diameter of another ball (best example I can come up with).IIRC that is referred to as being "Tidally locked". The Earth's gravitational influence on the moon is so great that the same side always faces towards the Earth. Think of a tetherball. Geosynchronous refers to always being located above the same point on Earth.

[albino african]

The movements of tides are the key in here. Conservation of energy.
The energy that moves the tides comes from Moon's kinetic energy. It's quite simple, just basic physics.

Just because an object is massive doesn't mean it has kinetic energy. Besides, isn't the moon's energy there because of Earth's gravitational pull?

[FaKToR]

But the moon is orbit around the earth. It has mass, it's in motion at some velocity, therefore it has kinetic energy. Of course that concept is all relative at this scale because how can the moon not be motion? What frame of reference would you use for that?

[Col.Kurtz]

I'd like to see a new race to the moon. Russia could very well beat us, but only if their Government kicked it into gear and decided it wanted to win. And China's space program isn't even close to the point where they can talk about going to the moon.

lol, russians can hardle get across they;re own country to buy vodka, let alone go near space again.

[Milkman Dan]

lol, russians can hardle get across they;re own country to buy vodka, let alone go near space again.
Wow. Bad person to aim an anti-Russian quip at (A very poor one, at that).

Aside from that, Russia goes into space quite regularly. They just recently launched up that millionaire fellow in the Soyuz. Plus, they have parts on the ISS, which they ALSO visit regularly.

In my own personal opinion, I don't think Russia could afford going to the moon again. Well, not near the American timeline.

[Lord Kelvin]

Last I heard (which was about half a year ago) a large chunk of the Russian economy is still in the black market, since a lot of people still haven't gotten used to capitalism. Add to that that they have domestic problems to deal with (such as their border war with Chechnya), and several other factors (I can't exactly recall any), and you've got a party. Of course, the US isn't without its own problems either, but then again no country is.

[Mr. Fiend]

Also throw the Russian Mafia into that mess, one of the most violent crime syndicates on the planet a few years ago.

[Kak]

lol, russians can hardle get across they;re own country to buy vodka, let alone go near space again.
I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. That's a very ignorant and incorrect comment, but I'll spare you the multiparagraph response I usually give to remarks like these.

Last I heard (which was about half a year ago) a large chunk of the Russian economy is still in the black market, since a lot of people still haven't gotten used to capitalism. Add to that that they have domestic problems to deal with (such as their border war with Chechnya), and several other factors (I can't exactly recall any), and you've got a party. Of course, the US isn't without its own problems either, but then again no country is.
This is an outdated assumption. This would be true if it were the 1990's, and the 1998 financial crisis really screwed everything up even worse, but the Russian economy has seen nothing but steady growth since 2000.

The wars in Chechnya is not a "border war", Chechnya is a republic of the Russian Federation. Most of the fighting is over, just Russian special units and Chechen police. Most of what goes on now are terrorist attacks by Chechen terrorists, like with the Moscow Theater Siege, the dual Airplane bombings, and the Beslan school siege.

[GoatChomper]

Alright, opinions expressed on each side about the Russian economy.....now back to the original subject.

This is like herding kittens.

[Bone_Vulture]

Yes, IIRC the moon is in geosynchronous orbit. It orbits, but it always shows the same side to the Earth, kinda like dragging a ball across the diameter of another ball (best example I can come up with).

Sorry, I misread one part - I though it read that the moon is always on the same side of the Earth, which is a different thing. But again, I do not think that the moon's revolutions around its own axis would have anything to do with the tides, unlikes the moon's orbit around the Earth.

[Captain Colon]

But the moon is orbit around the earth. It has mass, it's in motion at some velocity, therefore it has kinetic energy. Of course that concept is all relative at this scale because how can the moon not be motion? What frame of reference would you use for that?
I think he was just pointing out that gravity and kinetic energy aren't related, but that gravity will give an object kinetic energy.

If you think about it, gravity really is an infinite energy source, we just don't know how to harness it yet (besides hydro plants and the like obviously)...if it were possible to build a giant tube through the center of the earth and run a massive coil through it ala one of those "shake to recharge" flashlights, we could have an infinite source of electricity as long as everything was exactly the right size and in exactly the right spot.

The gravity from a comet going by would probably fuck it up though :o

[Bone_Vulture]

If you think about it, gravity really is an infinite energy source, we just don't know how to harness it yet (besides hydro plants and the like obviously)...if it were possible to build a giant tube through the center of the earth and run a massive coil through it ala one of those "shake to recharge" flashlights, we could have an infinite source of electricity as long as everything was exactly the right size and in exactly the right spot.

Could you elaborate on how this energy-from-gravity setup would function?

[theMIKKO]

You got it all wrong again, Colon :( You keep forgetting the conservation of energy principle. There is no such thing as infinite energy source.
If you built a tube through earth, wrapped a coil around it and dropped a magnet to that hole, it wouldn't keep going forever. The energy that you get as electricity, equals to the amount of kinetic energy that the magnet loses. The magnet would eventually stop, and pulling it back to surface from the center of the planet would require just as much energy as it produced while floating back and forth in that tube (assuming everything ran on 100% efficiency which is impossible).

[Captain Colon]

Not quite...it should still be a net gain since it should move back and forth multiple times for each time you would have to restart it. I guess it would depend on how much energy it would take to move it back up to the starting point :o


I was just saying that theoretically it should be possible, and gravity does last forever as far as we know.

[Medlar]

You people do realize that we pay the Russians to launch a number of our satellites each year, right?

[Bone_Vulture]

Not quite...it should still be a net gain since it should move back and forth multiple times for each time you would have to restart it. I guess it would depend on how much energy it would take to move it back up to the starting point :o

Ok, this goes against the principles of... I think this the stuff that Mikko is talking about. If the magnet is producting electricity in the coils through movement, shouldn't it slow down? One form of energy (movement, kinetic) is transforming into another (electricity).

[Captain Colon]

It's being accelerated by gravity going towards the core, but ya it would decelerate on the way up.


I'm not a physicist D: I'm actually not even sure how we got here, all I wanted to do was say that tides aren't the result of kinetic energy being transferred to/from the moon :confused:

[Bone_Vulture]

It's being accelerated by gravity going towards the core, but ya it would decelerate on the way up.

It's like using an electric motor to spin a generator that feeds a battery, which in turn feeds the said electric motor. Sooner or later the contraption will stop, due to the law of entropy - although energy is never lost, it can be diluted, and can never be harvested back to its full potential, not without using additional energy. This is why it's impossible to build a perpetual engine.

I'm not a physicist D: I'm actually not even sure how we got here, all I wanted to do was say that tides aren't the result of kinetic energy being transferred to/from the moon :confused:

But tides are being caused by the moon's gravity, yes? Whatever entropy occurs in this process (friction, for instance) is deducted from the moon's gathered energy: in this case its momentum, the orbit that it travels around the globe.

[Captain Colon]

stuff
The difference there though is that you are not using any energy to run the device, only to "reset" it...I know it's impossible but it was just to illustrate a point and it didn't work very well D:
more stuff
Now this (http://hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/public/moontides_e.html) seems to explain the whole thing...apparently it all happens because the tides get pushed and pulled ahead of the moon and they try to drag it along with them, slowing it down and moving it further away.


Cool

[Bone_Vulture]

The difference there though is that you are not using any energy to run the device, only to "reset" it...I know it's impossible but it was just to illustrate a point and it didn't work very well D:

Now, if Mikko could tell us the exact term for the type of energy that is "gained" by an item, when it's moved upwards. Like say, when I pick up a pencil from the floor and set it on a table.

It such a sense, every item on Earth has this inert energy, that could be harvested if we drop it towards the planet's core. And I do know what you mean, but the point is that if we harvest all the energy that an object has when it drops towards the core, it'll come to a full stop in the center. If it has energy to move "upwards" to the other side of the planet, it is simply using the kinetic energy that we haven't harvested yet. Final point being that the energy such a device would create would be limited, and we would have to use more energy to "reset" the device, like Mikko implied.

Kinda like the same way a pencil, if given proper initial momentum, will spin almost for all eternity in the void of space, where there is no gravity or air resistance to slow it down. But there is always something, which is why I said almost. Over hundreds of millenias, the momentum would like decrease as the pencil would collide with hydrogen atoms, and other nearly non-existent particles. And also, there's always some sort of minute gravitational pull in space.. I think the only way to get outside its influence would be to travel beyond known universe, to the total void.

Now this (http://hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/public/moontides_e.html) seems to explain the whole thing...apparently it all happens because the tides get pushed and pulled ahead of the moon and they try to drag it along with them, slowing it down and moving it further away.

I'll check that out next.

[edit]

Yep, seems about right.

[Moe_Rahn]

Now, if Mikko could tell us the exact term for the type of energy that is "gained" by an item, when it's moved upwards. Like say, when I pick up a pencil from the floor and set it on a table.
Potential energy.


Oh, and interesting ideas on that core thing, guys.

[Prowl]

I've only read page 5, but I think I'm gonna go hand in all my physics textbooks since they've been disproved by a bunch of OTF'ers :p

gravity is the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces, quite why you would want to use it to generate energy I don't know.

Harnassing the strong nuclear force would surely be better? Nuclear Fusion when it works is about as good as it gets for efficiency unless you know where we can dig up some antimatter which would beat it somewhat.

every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you really ought not to forget the basics when you come up with these ideas.

[kreket]

We already harness the power of gravity through solar plants.

If there is a connection between the sun and gravity, that is.

[Bone_Vulture]

We already harness the power of gravity through solar plants.

If there is a connection between the sun and gravity, that is.

Err.. yes there is a connection, but we could also be orbiting around a dead hunk of rock.

[kreket]

Maybe we could have been.

Why does not scientists and scifi writers ever talk about no-sun systems? Theoretically they'd be able to support life from planet's inner heat like theories have been when we're going to mars. Maybe it's because the system wouldn't be spotted on our scopes. (Let alone spotted after any inter-system space age had come around.)

Are we able to send spaceships into the coldest of space - in good order? We might not like stepping outside, but would any plants and machinery make it?

[Captain Colon]

I don't think there are any celestial objects other than stars that have enough gravity to have their own system.

[Lord Kelvin]

I don't think there are any celestial objects other than stars that have enough gravity to have their own system.
Well, supposedly there are also black holes, but those hold galaxies.

[Captain Colon]

Black holes are stars nubcaek, or what's left of them anyway

[puke o'hara]

gravity is the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces, quite why you would want to use it to generate energy I don't know.Well, if there would be an easy, effective way to do that - why not? Emphasis on the "if" here ... but maybe the firebox shall discover something the scientists haven't yet thought of yet.I don't think there are any celestial objects other than stars that have enough gravity to have their own system.I'm quite sure there are plenty of objects that have "enough gravity". Planets don't just appear out of nowhere - they form up from shite floating around the star. Would the kind of celestial objects that would have "enough gravity" also have enough of that shite?

[Mirsky]

Could you elaborate on how this energy-from-gravity setup would function?

Er, it's called a watermill

[Bone_Vulture]

Er, it's called a watermill

No, a watermill ultimately gathers the energy of the sun, the heat that causes humidity to vaporize, gather to clouds, rain down, and ultimately keeping the rivers running.

[Mr. Fiend]

I don't think there are any celestial objects other than stars that have enough gravity to have their own system.Perhaps not on the same scale, but certainly a large planet can have a large number of moons. Just a thought.

Also, pulsars are known to have small systems, but they are in effect stars. Sort of.

[theMIKKO]

No, a watermill ultimately gathers the energy of the sun, the heat that causes humidity to vaporize, gather to clouds, rain down, and ultimately keeping the rivers running.

But gravity pulls the hydrogen atoms in the sun together. The fusion reaction then generates energy that vaporizes the water. :p

[Bone_Vulture]

But gravity pulls the hydrogen atoms in the sun together. The fusion reaction then generates energy that vaporizes the water. :p

Yeah, but none have claimed to harness the sun's gravity yet. :rolleyes:

[kreket]

I don't think there are any celestial objects other than stars that have enough gravity to have their own system.

So what you're saying is that gravity sent us towards a sun?

My solarplant theorem still holds!:D

[Bone_Vulture]

So what you're saying is that gravity sent us towards a sun?

My solarplant theorem still holds!:D

Err...

If by "us" you mean a still forming, shapeless mass of molten minerals, then yes.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

Yeah, but it's only at a rate of a few feet or inches per year or so. So even in a hundred years, we'd only have to travel a few hundred more feet or so to get there, which is nothing compared to the thousands of miles it already takes.

i think technically the rate at which the moon moves away from the earth is not a set constant, but rather exponential, because as the moon moves farther away from the earth the earth's gravity (and, if it matters, the magnetosphere) will have less of a hold on it.