Food Shortage On ISS

[zavvy]

<b>With Food Low, Space Crew Must Cut Back<br /></b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />The two astronauts aboard the International Space Station have been asked to curb their calories because of a food shortage, NASA officials said Thursday.<br /><br />Supplies of food and water on the station have fallen so low that if a Russian cargo vessel scheduled to arrive on Dec. 25 has a mishap or is significantly delayed, the astronauts, one American and one Russian, will have to abandon the station and return home months ahead of schedule, the NASA officials said.<br /><br />The space station manager at NASA, William Gerstenmaier, said the situation was manageable if nothing unexpected occurred. But Mr. Gerstenmaier said juggling consumable items like food, water and even light bulbs had been a challenge since the space shuttles were grounded because of the Columbia disaster in 2003.<br /><br />"This is not easy and requires lots of compromises," he said at a televised news conference at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.<br /><br />The coming delivery by the robotic Progress cargo craft, loaded with extra food and water, "is very critical," he said, adding, "There's no question about that." <br /><br />Plans are being put together for the crew to leave, Mr. Gerstenmaier said, in the event that the Progress is destroyed at launching or cannot dock with the station for some other reason. <br /><br />At that point, he said, the station will have 7 to 14 days' worth of food, at current consumption rates, and the crew will begin shutting it down for a departure early next month on its Soyuz rescue craft.<br /><br />The mission flight director, Annette Hasbrook, said the station could be safely left unstaffed for months, though it has been left empty so far only for spacewalks. Such an action would require shutting off some equipment, closing internal hatches and setting up the electronics so the station could b

 

[rogers_buck]

"Yes Moscow, I am much better now. I just ate my Chow ration for the day."

 

[Astrosag]

Yes, they do indeed. Its big news now but I keep hearing that the situation hasn't been any different for the last few years they've been operating the ISS w.o the shuttles. I think the situation is just being blown out of proportion.

 

[meteo]

No kidding they're still eating 2700 calories a day, which is about what I eat and I'm very active swimming,running,ect.

 

[mikejz]

I guess this makes the case for sending fat people into space.

 

[nacnud]

What's the effective altitude on the station, is it perssurized to sea level or less so? I ask because during climbing trips I have burnt more than 10K calories in 24hr and was wandering if pressure was a consideration.

 

[odysseus145]

I believe the air pressure is about sea level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Just load up at Hardee's. Their all-American Monster Thickburger has 1,420 calories and only 107g of saturated fat. Add a large shake, large fries and an apple pie and that's 3000 calories !<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6498304/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[acid_frost]

I hope they abandon it and let it fall, at least then we could focus on something that is worth something but i forgot NASA likes to spend money on worthless projects such as the ISS and Shuttle which has become an endless money pit! At least when the Russia do things they do it with some balls, which NASA doesnt seem to have.<br /><br />Frost

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I hope they abandon it and let it fall, at least then we could focus on something that is worth something but i forgot NASA likes to spend money on worthless projects such as the ISS and Shuttle which has become an endless money pit!</font>/i><br /><br />NASA has many masters. There is the President who has his own goals. There are individual members of Congress who have their own goals or wishes to protect government or commercial jobs in their districts. There are contractual agreements with contractors, suppliers, and other governments. There are managers who work hard to protect the jobs of employees under them.<br /><br />And because NASA efforts span years, all these "masters" may involve multiple people for each role (For the space station: Pres. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush).<br /><br />I don't like much of what NASA does, especially with respect to the shuttle and ISS, but given all the complex issues involved, I am sure if I was promoted to head NASA I could do no better. (Given my lack of political skills, I am sure I would do much worse).</i>

 

[haywood]

At least when the Russia do things they do it with some balls, which NASA doesnt seem to have.<br /><br />Could you elaborate on this please, Acid_frost?<br />

 

[Astrosag]

I can. For one its grammatically incorrect. Secondly, the Russians had the "balls" but they also kept their failures away from their public and the rest of the world. This wouldn't work here in the US - just look at Columbia and that prompted people to abandon the space program- ( I for one think that it was devastating of course, but they were astronauts, they knew the risks, we knew the risks-the failure doesn't justify shutting the program). NASA is awesome, but the way I see it is that it was DESIGNED to operate during the cold war with billions just flowing to it and thru it. I see this NASA having the wrong structure for the job at hand..it just wasn't designed to operate in today's economy and polictial atmosphere. Anyways, NASA needs to stay (even moreso cuz i'd like to work there-possibly)!.

 

[spayss]

The year is 1969 and man steps on the Moon. Now fast forward to the end of 2004. It's a bit sad that our progress to date is the possibility of having to abandon the ISS because sufficient food can't be supplied to 2 astronauts in LEO.<br /><br /> No matter that it was unrealistic an achievemnet, in 1969 the debate would have been whether man would step on Mars by the year 2000. Now in 2004 it's whether or not there will be 'anybody' in space in 2005.<br /><br /> On the positive side, there's now more nations with space capability and private spaceflight is making strong gains. Still, those of us who were kids in the 60's glued to every scrap of news about every American and Russian space mission are feeling a bit 'down'.