Congress biggest mistake of the century :Multi Billion International Space Station to be abandoned

[lovuian]

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/NASA-s-chief-confirms-it-Without-Russia-space-6115338.php

George Bush and his Congress retired the Space Shuttle without having a substitute
Instead of giving Americans jobs building a Rocket .....they gave Russia hundreds of millions and probably billions to use their rockets built in the Ukraine

as a result of Congress failing of America .....we now have allowed Russia the upper hand in giving them advantage of walking away from their commitment leaving us the only option of evacuating the ISS and abandoning it to it's fate


the cost of the ISS is hundreds of Billions of dollars of which will be useless like throwing up all of America's wealth into space
instead of giving it to American infrastructure and job creation

Meanwhile Russia is leaving the ISS in 2026 if it abides by it's commitment ...and we all know commitments can be broken
and they will build their OWN Space station .....and China and Russia will be the ones with space programs while we are still building rockets.....

It's almost like Congress from 2009 to 2014 is working for Russia and not America

Bolden basicly said we are screwed Congress....
The economic sanctions placed on Putin has caused him to lose money.....but if we lose the ISS ..then we just lost hundreds of Billions.......thanks Congress

sorry had to vent

[BP2]

1. We had all of Congress and the White House from 2009-2011. It should have been fixed then. n/t

[Octafish]

11. + Infinity amd Beyond

Put NASA , space exploration, science, engineering, and environmental clean up into a massive public works program and we'd have a Democratic majority for a long time.

[TeeYiYi]

32. Rec post...

re: Put NASA , space exploration, science, engineering, and environmental clean up into a massive public works program and we'd have a Democratic majority for a long time.

What a great idea!

Vice News has written some good expose' material on coal ash. Here's a link to a 20 min. vid from them that I just watched yesterday:

https://news.vice.com/video/toxic-waste-in-the-us-coal-ash-full-length

TYY

[Warpy]

2. Those old boys were all betting on private enterprise to step in

and do something so colossally expensive that other countries join together to have their governments do it.

Dogma has completely blinded the Republican Party.

[cstanleytech]

3. No, having their heads up their butts has blinded the republican party.

[Moliere]

10. How is that any different from *their* dogma?

[cstanleytech]

51. Because its a fact in that if they would pull their heads out of their butts they would admit that

alot of their ideas have failed like for example cutting the taxes on the rich to create jobs failed, they havent stepped up and admitted it however.

[lovuian]

17. Yep it didn't happen and the reason

we need a "Space Program" is because of the future Star Wars coming ....China is working on taking out our satellites and if we lose those we are blind. Space programs are important ....it's what superpower countries do and America is no longer a super power in Space. Thanks to the blinded and corrupt Congress. America will pay for their shortsightedness and we could have had healthcare for all and pensions for all with all the money spent given to the Russians for sending astronauts up.


We lost the Space War because of their idiocy .....and for the record many engines used for our rockets parts came from the Ukraine!

[davidn3600]

4. It's not just Repubs. There are a lot of morons in the Democrat party too concerning this

There are idiots who think the space program is a waste of money. I've seen these people right here on DU.

[politicman]

9. lets be honest.

Well, lets be honest for second.

A space station is a good idea in theory but the reality is that it costs and arm and a leg for a space station that will ultimately only serve the powerful and elite if it is ever needed.

There are 6 billion plus people on earth, 300 million in the U.S alone, so no amount of developing a space station will ever benefit the ordinary people like you and me, instead it will only benefit those with power and money.

And I for one am glad that the powerful and elite will not have an escape hatch to leave this world if they end up destroying it with their policies and greed.

[A Little Weird]

12. The space station was never designed to be an 'escape hatch'

It was designed to conduct research and advance space exploration technology. Some of the research done on the space station has led to improvements in medical ultrasound technology and given new insights into the process of how bone loss happens and muscles atrophy. Besides medical research, they've done studies in the realm of physics, plant and animal biology, testing alloys, environmental monitoring, etc.

[politicman]

14. couldnt it have been done with zero gravity chambers here on earth?

All those experiments and innovations could have easily be done in zero gravity chambers here on earth for a hell of a lot less money.

Whatever advances were made in the space stations, could have easily been replicated in the chambers that astronauts train in here on earth, after all we are able to simulate the affect of zero gravity here.


As I said, the rich, powerful and elite saw the space station as a escape hatch for them after they got through tearing our world to shreds, because if we were really after the innovations we made in zero gravity space, we could have replicated it here with special zero gravity chambers that we use to train and acclimatise astronauts to.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that we shouldn't keep exploring the depths of our universe and space in general, just that a space station that had no purpose but to orbit the earth was an escape hatch/idea for the powerful and elite once they got through destroying our world with their greed.

[A Little Weird]

15. No

It just doesn't work that way. It is difficult and expensive to simulate zero gravity on earth and I don't think it can be sustained for very long at a time. Many of these long term studies are conducted for months or even years which is not something we can do in a simulator. I would check out NASA for some more information about the research being done and why it can't be done on earth.

If the rich and elite saw the space station as an escape hatch then they were not thinking things through. The space station is not a self-sustaining entity. It relies on spacecraft from earth to replenish supplies. They can't survive up there for very long if we don't send help to them. Whether rich or not, humans are a long way from having a place to go if the earth becomes uninhabitable.

[politicman]

19. I disagree.

But the point remains, that when the rich and powerful get through making the world uninhabitable, they would have access to the space station far more easily than we would have.

Now even if I accept your advice that the technology and innovations we got from the space station have advanced our way of life, I still cant accept that the space station could one day be an escape hatch for the rich and powerful to escape to once they have destroyed the world which we all rely on.

Pleas don't get me wrong, I am all for science and research that improves our way of life, but these days I am so anti the 1% that anything that benefits them more than us is a no no in my thinking.


I am so sick of the 99% fighting for the crumbs while the 1% use their money and influence to make their lives even better than they are at the expense of the 99%.

For instance, yes we might have and still could potentially gain having a space station orbit earth, but our gains would be miniscule compared to the gains of the 1% who would have an escape hatch to retreat to once they have ruined our lives on this earth with their greed.

I have come to the point of realising that anything that benefits the 1% more than it does us the 99%, is just a way to distract us while the 1% go about getting everything they dreamed off using our tax payer dollars as a way to get it.

Off topic, that's why I won't support any third-way democrats in any election, because the above theory applies with democrats who take big amounts of donations from corporations and the 1%.
The 1% would not be giving away a fair chunk of there money to anyone if they did not think that their money/investment in any candidate would not benefit them more than it benefits the 99%

[A Little Weird]

24. I think you could benefit from doing some research about the space program

I think it has helped a lot of people and not just the 1%. There are many legitimate arguments about whether or not it is a good investment compared to other things but it is dishonest to say that it is an escape hatch for the 1%. That has absolutely no basis in reality; I think you mixing up science fact with science fiction.

We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on but I don't think we are going to make progress in discussing this one any further.

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. Please explain how it is you think a "Zero Gravity Chamber" would actually work on the surface.

It simply is not possible.

The ony way to simulate zero G is to CHEAT it by being inside a diving or climbing aircraft.

There is no such thing as a zero gravity "CHAMBER".

It is a physical impossibility.

And for what its worth, even the ISS is essentially cheating gravity by nature of the orbit it is in. It is in a constant state of falling, it's just that the falling occurs at the same rate as its travel across the surface at its altitude. If I took you straight up 200 miles but did not accelerate you into an orbit, do you think you would just sit there?

No. You wouldn't. You would plummet straight back down like a turkey from a WKRP in Cincinnati episode.

[politicman]

20. If it can benefit the 1% more by becoming an escapoe hatch for their greed, then I am against it

I've seen videos of astronauts being trained in chambers that simulate zero gravity to prepare them for space travel.

Whether that chamber is adequate enough I don't know, but one thing I do know, is that the 1% control every lever of power in this country, and so any funding for a space station that benefits them more than it does the 99% by giving them a better chance to escape any hell-hole they create on earth through their greed is not on in my books.


And I am at the point of opposing everything that would benefit the 1% more than the 99%, because frankly I am fed up with seeing American taxpayer dollars go to advancing the banks account fo the ultra rich more than it ever does the back accounts of normal Americans.

[A HERETIC I AM]

22. The "Chamber" you are talking about is known as "The Vomit Comet"

And it is, as I mentioned, an aircraft that is performing a parabolic flight pattern. It is by no means a stationary chamber on the ground.

There is even a private company offering the same as a thrill ride to anyone with the cash.

And no, it is not in any way, shape or form adequate for extended experimentation in the way the ISS is.

[politicman]

25. I ask you, who would benefit the most from a space station?

Us the 99% who might get some advancement to our way of life from it, or the wealthy and powerful who will have an escape hatch to retreat to once they destroy our plant with their unending greed?

As long as we give the wealthy and powerful a way out to avoid the destruction they re reaping on our planet, then we can continue to watch the greed of the powerful and wealthy destroy our planet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Your conception of an 'escape hatch' doesn't work at all

Any space station is a precarious environment to live in, in which your body gradually deteriorates, and which also needs extensive support from the ground to keep going. It's an austere lifestyle up there - food is limited to what can be prepared with their extremely limited facilities, water is rationed, you are very limited for space, and you don't get to walk outside. You don't get to walk, in fact.

Anyone rich who wants somewhere to 'escape' to would take the old fashioned route of stockpiling arms and seizing a bit of land to rule as they want to with the threat of force, giving a good enough life to their minions that they'll stay loyal rather than join the chaos outside. That's a lot easier to do, and a lot more comfortable life, than starving to death after your launch pad is destroyed and no-one can send you food and vital replacement parts.

[politicman]

34. the space station is not self sustainable now, but with taxpayer money and years to make it so...

Ok, well what about the people that love war and have no problem with a nuclear exchange that would destroy all life on the planet?
Surely they would look at a space station as an escape hatch to retreat to when their warmongering results in nuclear destruction on earth.

And at this point in time the space station needs earth to keep is functioning.

But as with all advancements in technology throughout the years, at some point in the future, with the help of untold tax payer money, they will find a way to make space stations self sustainable and more habitable for a limited amount of humans.

There has been talk of colonies on the moon and mars (sure these may not seem doable at this point in time but they certainly could be doable in the future), so if we spent untold taxpayer money on colonising the moon or mars, who do you think will get first dibs at escaping a deteriorating earth or a nuclear winter earth?

Certainly not you and me or the other 99%, but most certainly the rich and powerful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I don't want any country to throw away the trillions that would be necessary

to make a space station self-sustaining.

No, life on a space station is far, far worse than anyone with the ability to help start a war faces now, or would face even if we did have a nuclear winter. It's practically prison. You are confined to a few cubic metres, with a restricted diet, no visitors, a very uncertain future for any baby unlucky enough to be the first to be the first to try and undergo a pregnancy and birth under zero gravity, and your body deteriorates. People do it for the love of the science, not because it's a cushy billet.

Self-sustaining colonies, in space, a moon or planet, are far in the future. Life here is better for the foreseeable future - especially if you're rich. If they want a guaranteed good life, it would be cheaper and easier for them to solve all the problems on Earth.

[spanone]

31. science would benefit most.

[politicman]

36. science wins for now, 1% wins in the long term knowing they have an escaoe hatch to retreat to..

And in this instance, science is providing us a better way of life whilst at the same time potentially providing the powerful and elite an escape hatch so that they can continue their greedy ways which will just end up destroying our way of life that science is for now improving.

Why is it so hard to understand that for the rich and powerful to at least have in the back of their minds that the things they do will not only destroy our way of life but they will be stuck in it with us, give them a space station that advances over the years to be self sustainable solely on the back of taxpayer money, and the rich and powerful have a way to escape the consequences of their greed while we perish in it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. I have no idea how old you are, but this is something I have been interested in since the 70's

and trust me when I say this, we are a CENTURY away from being able to put more than a few dozen people AT MOST into orbit for an extended period of time.

And that is not because of the lack of the appropriate technology (which has existed since the 70's) but rather political and financial will.

You watched the Movie "Elysium" I take it and think it is going to be reality. It won't be.

Google Gerard K. O'Neil. Get his book "The High Frontier"

Google "Colonies In Space"

Buy that one too.

Search for the July, 1976 National Geographic. The cover story was this subject matter.

Here's what a space station that could sustain several thousand people (Edit) Actually several million) would look like from the inside. Ten miles long and 4 miles across;



Here is a rendering of a Toroid style station;



We as a nation could have had these facilities 30 years ago, or at the very least 20 years ago and be building more as we speak, but we don't. O'Neil spelled out, nearly 40 years ago, how stations of that size could be built and how they would pay for themselves. His ultimate vision was that humans would move off the planet and it could be turned into a global nature preserve/wildlife park and allow humanity to survive and flourish in space. He was a great man and a revolutionary thinker.

The ISS is a NECESSARY first step in this long process and the process MUST CONTINUE, not just for the 1 % but for the future of mankind.

Before you go spouting silly notions about subjects you clearly have no real idea about, please do a bit of research.

I am so far ahead of you on this subject at the age of 55 it isn't even funny.

[lovuian]

53. We are behind and the Republicans is dragging

their feet instead of embracing space exploration and a person has to wonder
is it because the Christian Right can't handle it

[EX500rider]

21. "zero gravity chambers" ?!

There is no such thing.... They can briefly produce zero g's in a airplane but only for about 30 seconds. Certainly not long enough to conduct experiments. They train in a simulated low g environment in pools but that is not zero g.

[Codeine]

23. There is no such thing

as a zero-gravity chamber. If we had the technological capability to manipulate gravity we'd be a spacefaring species instantly.

Such a chamber does not exist.

[politicman]

26. correct me if i am wrong.

You sound like you know more about this than me, but I have with my own eyes seen videos of people floating and training in chambers that I assume have been adapted to zero gravity.

Now I might be mistaken as to the amount of gravity or lack of gravity I have seen in these videos, but it certainly seemed to me that these people in these chambers were floating like they would be in space.

[jeff47]

28. You already replied to the post explaining that it is an airplane

that simulates zero gravity by going into a dive for a short period of time. It is not a "zero gravity chamber".

You can't do a "let's study what happens when you do this in zero g for weeks" when you are in zero g for minutes.

[politicman]

33. You are right about the zero gravity, I did some reasearch and concede.

But it still doesn't change my mind on who would benefit the most out of a space station.

Sure we the 99% may get some advancements to our way of life, but in the long run when they spend untold taxpayer money to make the space station self sustainable, the rich, powerful and elite will have first access to escape the damage they leave behind on earth through their greed.

As I said, anything that benefits the 1% more than it does us the 99% is a no go in my book.


Not to mention that if untold taxpayer money helps to develop a self sustaining space station in the future, this will only embolden the powerful and elite to speed up their destruction of our planet through their greed, because they will have an escape hatch to retreat to when their greed catches up to the world we live in.

[jeff47]

41. It doesn't change your mind because you don't know what you're talking about.

Sure we the 99% may get some advancements to our way of life, but in the long run when they spend untold taxpayer money to make the space station self sustainable, the rich, powerful and elite will have first access to escape the damage they leave behind on earth through their greed.

Why would they escape?

It's very hard and expensive to create a massive space station. The ISS you are so upset about has a crew of six in very spartan conditions. You are arguing that they would choose to build a station to hold thousands in comfort.

If they have the wealth and resources to do that, they'd do it on Earth. If you can make something as hostile to humans as space comfortable, you could much more easily do the same on Earth.

[jeff47]

27. :facepalm:

First, there are no "zero gravity chambers" on Earth.

Second, our country is not on a fixed income. We elected people to cut taxes, which means we no longer have the money to be a great nation. We don't have to keep electing those people.

Third, the space station was never "an escape hatch". It can't support life on its own. It has to be supplied from Earth. If less than a dozen "powerful and elite" fled to the ISS, they'd starve to death.

[politicman]

30. for now, but what about in future.....

Right now they would starve to death, but years down the track, the would have used taxpayer money to find ways to sustain life on a space station without the need to resupply from earth, and they would have first access to such a space station once their greed destroys our planet.

Sort of like if we started to form colonies on Mars or another planet, who do you think would have first access to these colonies when their greed ends up destroying the one planet that nearly all of us rely on to live.

[A HERETIC I AM]

38. I would swear on my 12 years as a member you are another poster reincarnated.

I have come across several like you in my decade plus as a DU'er.

Astounding.

[jeff47]

40. :facepalm: again.

Right now they would starve to death, but years down the track, the would have used taxpayer money to find ways to sustain life on a space station without the need to resupply from earth, and they would have first access to such a space station once their greed destroys our planet.

To say you do not know what you are talking about is an insult to people who do not know what they are talking about.

Sort of like if we started to form colonies on Mars or another planet, who do you think would have first access to these colonies when their greed ends up destroying the one planet that nearly all of us rely on to live.

Ever hear of Roanoke?

Colonization is really fucking dangerous, and quite likely to end in disaster. The rich and comfortable are not going to do it. In your environmental catastrophe scenario, the rich and powerful would create a comfortable place on Earth. If we could build a dome on Mars to create a habitable environment, we can much more easily build a dome on Earth to do so.

[haikugal]

5. FFS I'm speechless..... N/T

[MattSh]

6. One correction.

Russia is no longer using rockets built in Ukraine. Why should they send their money to a hostile country when they have similar, or better rockets made in Russia?

[phantom power]

7. I hate living in the new Dark Ages

[n2doc]

8. Well, it is more important to buy more inoperative F-35's

National Security, ya know. Maybe by 2026 the fighters will actually be able to use their weapons! Of course, by then we will be on to the F-37 or whatever is the latest boondoggle.

[Thor_MN]

13. There is absolutely nothing preventing Russia from annexing the ISS

There isn't a damn thing we could do except blow it up if Putin decided to grab his own orbiting love nest, where he could pose in Zero Gee with no shirt on.

Thanks, W.

[lovuian]

16. You know Thor that's a damn good point

They could try to take it and your right not much we could do about it

[bluedigger]

42. You really don't think we could take operational control of the ISS from the ground?

I do, and if they didn't allow for that then NASA are idiots. Space is still far too dangerous a place for anyone to be fighting over it.

[Thor_MN]

46. I like your bluster, but

control of the ISS would rest in the hands of whoever is up there.

Your bravado caused you to entirely miss my point. We currently don't have a way to get there. We are completely reliant on Russian spacecraft to transport personnel.

One can't have "operational control" of something you can't touch.

[bluedigger]

47. Bluster and bravado?

You sure read a lot into a short post. You ever hear of radio signals?

[Thor_MN]

48. You ever hear of turning off a radio?

[bluedigger]

49. I don't think you understand much about space telemetry actually.

Just because the Russians can get to the ISS doesn't mean they have the global network in place to operate it.

[Thor_MN]

50. You seem to be under the delusion that the ISS can't operate without

radio signals from the ground, that the radios can't be turned off, retuned, antennae repointed...

The Russians, by virtue of being able to get there, could do any damn thing they please. And we could do nothing except destroy it.

[MisterP]

35. don't worry, we'll find another money pit

[Turbineguy]

43. Solution:

Get the astronauts to look like Jesus. Republicans will fall over themselves to fund it.

[AZ Progressive]

44. There's a huge price to pay for electing stupid people into office

We're still paying the price for having an idiot like Bush in office.

Granted, Bush didn't legitimately win, but still, millions of people voted for him in 2000 and 2004.

[lovuian]

52. Congress is responsible and Privatization

has it's downfall.....having the Ukraine and Russia making our rocket engines and being our only ticket into
space ......is unAmerican....

America's Space program was top in the world and lets face it
not anymore

Thanks Republicans and Austerity measures.....weakens your country's defenses ......this is one example

Instead of hiring Americans we decided to hire Russians......and privatization works in peaceful times

but doesn't when war comes

[AZ Progressive]

45. Also, you have to thank the NeoCons for whipping up this new cold war with Russia

Neocons, another consequence of the Bush Administration (though Obama's at fault also for not kicking them all out when he came into office.)