As a science fiction fan, when I see a dramatic headline like Computer Flaw Could Imperil Space Station, I can't help thinking of murderous AI's. Sadly, the real problem is much more prosaic:
The [International Space Station] depends on Russian and American computer systems to maintain the attitude of the station as it orbits the earth. The United States computer system runs the network of gyroscopes that provide stability, and the Russian system controls thrusters that correct the orientation of the station when the gyroscopes alone cannot do the job and shift position for operations like docking and avoiding debris.
The problem first emerged on Tuesday as astronauts were connecting a new 17.2-ton truss to the station. The three navigation computers in the Russian section crashed and could not be rebooted.
I'm actually kind of torn about this. On the one hand, it ends up reflecting poorly on all of science when some space-based enterprise fails, particularly when it fails for such a stupid reason. The late-night talk show jokes practically write themselves.
On the other hand, though, getting rid of the ridiculous white elephant that is the ISS, even for an exceedingly stupid reason, is probably the best thing that could happen to NASA. A huge amount of money goes into maintaining this misconceived piece of junk, and if it were to go away, that might free up some funds to do actual interesting science.
(Of course, the nightmare possibility would be that the ISS comes down, and NASA commits to spending billions to put up another one just like it. I give that about an 80% probability with the current administration, so I guess I'm rooting for them to fix the computer systems...)
- Log in to post comments
Even as a child, I always thought that space stations were up there just to prove humans could do it. It seemed like the giant "accomplishment" to show the world, "hey look! we can live up here for stretches at time - isn't that neat?"
I'm sure there are little experiments here and there that contribute to our understanding of "life in space," but we started this in the '70s and '80s, couldn't we move past that and on to something...more substantial?
All that said, I find it highly unlikely we'll ever get farther in our galaxy than the spacejunk we send out. Too much of our money is tied up in that whole arms race. As a race we're too busy fighting to explore in the small window of existence we're given.
I don't think that its fighting that's keeping us from going up there. Its the fact that current space exploration is expensive and yields almost no economic benefits. It would probably be at least 100-200 years before we would have the science and engineering infrastructure to develop something that might produce a net profit.
Brian, i have to disagree with you partially. Yes space exploration is expensive, but there a very profitible enterprises based on it's fruits (satelite communications being the obvious one), and it looks like space tourism will take off in a big way over the next few decades (i would say its a safe bet space tourism will be as common in 40-50 years as air travel was in the mid to late 1960's). Tourism has always been the largest driver in transportation technologies (railroads were originaly concieved as cheap ways of moving coal, but quickly became a huge enabler of tourism in the UK)
One interesting thing is that the only people who could fix the computer are on the station, as the Russians don't have dedicated communications satellites for the ISS like the Americans do. As a result, the Russian ground controllers (who presumably include computer scientists much more familiar with the computers than the guys in orbit) can't get data from the computers until they orbit above a ground station. Which was scheduled to happen this morning.
It's almost certain they'll fix it. Triply-redundant computers that have been running for years just don't all simultaneously break permanently.
I doubt that the current occupant would replace the ISS. More likely he would appoint a study group to make recommendations due on the eve of the inauguration of the new President.
I doubt that the current occupant would replace the ISS. More likely he would appoint a study group to make recommendations due on the eve of the inauguration of the new President.
You have more faith in the man than I do.
My guess is that if the ISS went down, he would gin up some intelligence to blame it on Iranian computer hackers, or possibly Al Qaeda orbital lasers, and declare that it was absolutely imperative to give several billion dollars to Halliburton to build a new one, despite their lack of experience in space. Also, this would require intrusive new security measures at all airports, border crossings, and Starbucks stores.
But maybe I've gotten cynical.
Besides tourism, it is speculated that there is an enormous treasure trove of resources in the asteroid belt. In a century or so, when the oil fields dry up, astroid mining could be the new big industry.
Tom
In the 1970s, dozens of leading space travel enthusiasts predicted space travel would be as common in 30-40 years as air travel was in the 1960s. Much like your prediction.
It's like controlled fusion power - the more we learn about it, the more we learn how much farther we still have to go - and the less enthusiasm funding agencies have for it.
Space tourism has a tiny market, and huge costs. Its growth will be very slow - at best - for many decades. And it would only take a few high profile accidents to permanently ruin space tourism's future.
Asteroid mining will continue to be stymied by the high costs of mining exploration, and the high costs of lifting mining equipment from earth to space - unless and until mining and exploration equipment can be constructed in space from materials found there.
And Brandon, 'when the oil fields dry up' is a non-sequiter, baring a usable fuel source in space. (Which at this point seems to mean either affordable He3 fusion (50+ years away, and getting further away with each reassessment), or other things similarly unrealistic. )
Like many here, I grew reading science fiction, and space-enthusiast rags like the L5 newsletter, following launches of space shuttles and satellites, and so forth. There's a part of me that wants very badly for space exploration, for science, for materials, and for recreation, to be practical, but the evidence is that it's a long way off, and much further off than we thought it was 20-30 years ago.
But isn't it fun to dream? I just read Stephen Baxter's Manifold Time, a sci-fi novel which deals with the long-term future of humanity. Asteroid mining plays a big part in the story. I'd highly recommend it.
Sorry, I was speaking in terms of the economy. Oil can't control our politics and military forever.
This hostility towards manned spaceflight has always stumped me. Say we mothball the ISS and head home. Do you think the money just magically gets freed up for "legitimate" space science?
That's not what happened the last time we let a space station fall from the sky. Instead we got a decade with virtually no new space science initiatives funded (the Voyagers were built from the left overs of the Apollo era, and Reagan's team considered shutting them down in mid-flight).
As for the idea that space exploration is expensive and yields almost no economic benefits, so what. The cost of the Iraq war so far would've funded NASA for about 20 years, and no-one dares question the size of that line item.
Basic science and exploration are rarely immediately profitable and virtually never payoff in the way they were predicted to, but most readers of this site should understand the longterm benefits are enormous to nations that keep up the investment.
Moon landings, space stations, and space ferries were described in old sci-fi, so are moon and mars bases, so my guess is that these things go the traditional route.
Of course, since solar sails and energy farms are later sci-fi, perhaps people will start tinker with that some more.
I am currently enjoying some papers describing the slow restart (wrong dates after boot) and failure analysis of the affected ISS computers. One hypothesis was "noise from the new power source" so one journalist reported it as that the computers couldn't take 'the sound of statics'. :-<
Hmpf! The emoticon was fine in preview.
Again, on the uneducated journalist:
:-<
I think I will switch to japanese style now, they are less sensitive and more expressive:
( > . <)