Space Station gets boost from new solar array

It may have taken longer than expected, but the International Space Station is slowly starting to come up to full speed, with a new solar array now fully unfurled after being installed earlier during Atlantis' mission. Measuring 240 feet long, the twin solar panels are the third of four "wings" to be installed on the Space Station, which are required to provide the necessary power to the new modules set to be attached to the ISS later this year and next. Before they can be put into service, however, the astronauts have to retract part of an older solar array in order to make room for the new wings to rotate, which so far appears to be going off without a hitch.

[Via Scotsman.com, photo courtesy of NASA]

[Fatima @ Jun 13th 2007 1:46PM]

If we didn't have this stupid iraq war, Nasa's budget wouldn't be minuscule like it is today. Then when the shuttle retires in 20120 instead of going back to 1960's technology, NASA could have built a newer-cooler shuttle. And focus on Mars instead of the Moon with the CEV.

[Josh @ Jun 13th 2007 2:00PM]

The Iraq war has exactly zero to do with NASA's shrinking budget. Congress (both Dems and Pubs) have been slashing the space budget for decades now.

You're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on the wrong continent if you're trying to bash the Bush Administration on NASA's budget.

[david @ Jun 13th 2007 2:56PM]

Josh, You are correct there are so many other things we can blame the Bush administration for. But since the President presents the budget to Congress, I think we can start the NASA budget blame there.

[Josh @ Jun 13th 2007 3:50PM]

Dave, your point is just as ridiculous as the original poster's: namely, that the Iraq War is directly responsible for NASA's inadequate budget. Considering that NASA was no better off in peacetime AND under a different administration, I think that we can write off that statement as just so much inflammatory rubbish.

Your statement that the President is directly to blame is also fallacious, and belies a lack of understanding of the United States' budgetary process. The President's budget is only a proposal, and the final draft of the budget (as drafted by both houses and their respective budgetary committees) does not require the Presidential signature as it is a concurrent resolution. If you're (sophomorically) looking to blame individuals for the state of the US Budget, the Senate and House Majority Leaders during any given fiscal year would be better targets than the President.

Factually, NASA spending peaked in 1966, leading up to the first moon landing. It then sharply fell through the rest of the 60's, petering out to its lowest point ever around 1978. After stagnating for a few years, it received a shot in the arm in 1986 and continued to climb until 1990 when it was cut again. As of FY 2000, the NASA budget has been growing (though not by much), and the President's budget request of FY 2008 calls for US$17.3 billion to go towards manned space exploration (an increase of about $1 billion from the previous year).

Surely you can't forget the hoopla surrounding that announcement? Bush appropriating money to NASA and space exploration and away from the EPA, and all that.

[LordPaul @ Jun 13th 2007 1:58PM]

Umm, the CEV & moon programme is so that they can develop means to go to Mars.
A shuttle is not practical for any kind of planetary landing

[Josh @ Jun 13th 2007 2:47PM]

You mean "any type of extraterrestrial landing," don't you?

It DOES land back on the Earth, you know. ;)

[cburke @ Jun 13th 2007 2:32PM]

Thought you all may find this funny. I went to college with the son of one of the astronauts doing this spacewalk (Patrick Forester). We found it particularly funny that he is the highest ranking Army officer to go into space with the rank of Colonel. So, we figured if there ever were a war in space he would probably command the forces and in following with old British military tradition thus become the "Lord of Space". Good to see he's up there preparing the base of operations for when he has to actually use that government-issued ray gun of his.

In all seriousness - really nice guy, glad to see he was able to go back up and have some fun.

[captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Jun 13th 2007 3:10PM]

Yeah, we're only a "little" late considering the space station was supposed to be fully finished up and running by oct. of 2004.

BUT...thats NASA for you

[jsanders4484 @ Jun 13th 2007 3:27PM]

Eh what bugs me is that NASA pays out the ass for technological rubbish that just ends up breaking down or screwing up costing them even more money to fix. Perhaps they should look into hiring more DIY geeks rather than awarding contracts to companies whose equipment just doesn't get the job done. Oh yeah, and of course get a damned warranty when they buy stuff :-P

[Lance @ Jun 13th 2007 3:52PM]

Glad to see that this made the news. Usually front page NASA news is reserved for when stuff goes wrong, not right.

To the above comment... what do you expect to happen with all the budget cuts occurring, and NASA awarding contracts to the lowest bidder? A lot of labs are being shut down due to not enough contracts being granted by NASA, thus corners get cut so they can submit the lowest bid.

[Kassim Rasoulian @ Jun 13th 2007 6:43PM]

Why does every picture aboard a shuttle or the space station looks like it was taken with a camera from the 70's? Nasa can't afford to go buy a few mega pixel camera to take some good pictures?

[Kenny @ Jun 14th 2007 1:56AM]

It's because its a screen shot captured from NASA TV which only broadcasts in SD...NASA has some great cams, check them out here http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/index.html

[Murc @ Jun 13th 2007 10:02PM]

gee, ho clever of you david....using the ol' Blame Bush card.

now, I relize your a democrat, which basically means you like to have your news hand fed to you, and not see both sides and try to dig up the real truth....But I'll give you a little info (you can plug you ears & close your eyes if you want).

Nasa's budget has gotten bigger under the Bush administration, and back it 04 he layed out a path for Nasa to go down, which entailed retiring the shuttle at 2010, and going to the moon no later then 2020, in which we will stay there permanently, and after around 10+ years we will have the tchnology and know-how to also go to Mars.
Under the clinton administration Nasa had no such planned path....and they wasted money by handing out a bunch of futuristic spaceplane concepts, none of which were very good, and all of them failed. Nasa obviously needs someone pointing them in the right direction.

I think the Mars mission shouldn't happen before we get something in place to speed up the trip...whether thats done by using a better engine to get us there, or using something I like, called Magbeam, which would allow you to arrive at Mars in just 45 days....which current tech it takes around 7 months!

[XAVIER @ Jun 14th 2007 4:15PM]

I have to disagree with you a little there murc , I believe the clinton administration was very generous to nasa , I also believe those future space plane concepts will pave the way for better space exploration in the future.

Regards,
~X

[Spherehead @ Jun 14th 2007 6:42PM]

@Kassim Rasoulian

Is this high res enough for ya!
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/179736main_iss015e11712_hires.jpg