特朗普政府希望在2025年之前结束对美国宇航局关于国际空间站的资助 [美国媒体]

Trump administration wants to end NASAfunding for the International Space Station by 2025
The end may be in sight for thetwo-decade-old program

特朗普政府希望在2025年之前结束对美国宇航局关于国际空间站的资助
这个持续20年之久的项目可能即将迎来终结



The International Space Station Image: NASA

国际空间站图片：美国宇航局

The Trump administration is preparing toend support for the International Space Station program by 2025, according to adraft budget proposal reviewed by The Verge. Without the ISS,American astronauts could be grounded on Earth for years with no destination inspace until NASA develops new vehicles for its deep space travel plans.

根据前沿网（The Verge）的评估的一份预算草案，特朗普政府正准备在2025年之前结束对国际空间站项目的支持。在没有国际空间站的情况下，美国宇航员缺乏太空基地，可能要呆在陆地上许多年，直到美国宇航局（NASA）为其深空旅行计划开发出新的航天器。

The draft may change before an officialbudget request is released on February 12th. However, two people familiar withthe matter have confirmed to The Verge that thedirective will be in the final proposal. NASA says it won’t comment on therequest until it’s released. “NASA and the International Space Stationpartnership is committed to full scientific and technical research on theorbiting laboratory, as it is the foundation on which we will extend humanpresence deeper into space,” a NASA spokesperson said in a statement to TheVerge. “We will not comment on any leaked or pre-decisional documents priorto the release of the President’s FY19 budget, which is scheduled for February12.”

在2月12日正式的预算要求公布之前，草案可能会有所改变。不过，两名知情人士已向前沿网证实，该（结束资助的）指令将出现在最终提案中。美国宇航局表示，在预算要求公布之前不会对其发表评论。美国宇航局的一名发言人在一份声明中说：“美国宇航局和国际空间站合作伙伴们致力于对轨道实验室进行全面的科学和技术研究，因为这是我们将人类的存在扩展到深空的基础。”他说：“总统的FY19预算预定于2月12日公布，我们不会对在此之前的任何泄露的或预先决定的文件发表评论。”

Any budget proposal from the Trumpadministration will also be subject to scrutiny and approval by Congress. Buteven announcing the intention to cancel ISS funding could send a signal toNASA’s international partners that the US is no longer interested in continuingthe program. Many of NASA’s partners still have yet to decide if they’d like tocontinue working on the station beyond 2024.

特朗普政府的任何预算提案也将接受国会的审查和批准。但是，即使是宣布取消国际空间站资助的意图的这一举动，也可能向美国宇航局的国际合作伙伴们发出一个信号，即美国不再对保留该项目感兴趣。美国宇航局的许多合作伙伴还没有决定是否愿意在2024年以后继续在空间站工作。



Image: NASA

图片：美国宇航局

The International Space Station has been anongoing program for more than two decades. It costs NASA between $3 to $4billion each year, and represents a more than $87 billioninvestment from the US government. It’s become a major hub for conductingboth government and commercial experiments in microgravity, as well as testingout how the human body responds to weightlessness.

国际空间站是一个持续了20多年的项目。美国宇航局每年在该项目上的花费在3到40亿美元之间，这意味着美国政府的投资总额超过了870亿美元。它已经成为了在微重力环境下进行政府和商业实验的主要枢纽，同时也对人体对失重的反应进行测试。

NASA pledged to keep the InternationalSpace Station program funded through 2024, thanksto an extension made by the Obama administration in 2014. But after that,the station’s fate has been up in the air. Congress has openly discussed whatto do with the ISS after its funding runs out, but has not made a firm decisionon a plan. Many in the commercial space industry want NASA to extend theprogram again through 2028: the year that many consider to be the end of itsoperational lifetime. That would give NASA time to figure out a way totransition operations of the ISS to the commercial sector full-time or time forcompanies to establish a commercial module in lower Earth orbit. However,commercial companies have indicated theymay not be ready to do this by 2024.

得益于奥巴马政府在2014年做出的一项延期计划，美国宇航局承诺将保持对国际空间站项目资助的资助直至2024年。但在此之后，空间站的命运悬而未决。国会已经公开讨论了在资金耗尽后如何处理国际空间站的问题，但还没有给出具有明确决定的计划。许多商业航天领域的业者希望美国宇航局能将该项目延长至2028年：许多人认为空间站的运作寿命将在这一年到期。这段延期将使美国宇航局有时间找到一种使国际空间站的运作完全商业化的途径，或者为企业在近地轨道上建立一个商业化舱段留下时间。然而，商业公司已表示，它们可能还没有准备好在2024年之前完成此举。

The NASATransition Authorization Act that President Trump signed last year directedthe space agency to come up with a way to transition the ISS away from mostly NASAfunding. The plan was due to Congress by December 1st, 2017, however NASA didnot release any public information as to whether or not it had delivered thereport.

去年，特朗普总统签署的《美国宇航局过渡授权法案》要求宇航局提出一种方式，将国际空间站从美国宇航局的大部分资金支出中抽离出来。该计划原定于2017年12月1日在提交美国国会，但美国宇航局没有公布任何关于该报告是否提交的公开信息。

Congress and others are eager to get theInternational Space Station off of NASA’s dime, to help fund the development ofvehicles needed to explore deep space. NASA has been developing both a giantrocket, the Space Launch System, and a crew capsule, Orion, to take astronautsbeyond lower Earth orbit. But with Trump’srecent directive to return NASA astronauts to the Moon, the space agency isgoing to need a lot more hardware to pull off its human spaceflight plans.Going back to the Moon and establishing a more permanent presence there willrequire a lander, habitats, and more technology needed to keep astronautsalive. And NASA is facing flat budgets in the years ahead; gettingrid of the ISS would potentially free up billions to help fund thosetechnologies.

国会和其他机构迫切希望将国际空间站从美国宇航局的资助中抽离，以（节省资金）资助开发用于探索深空的航天器。美国宇航局一直在研发一种巨型火箭，即“太空发射系统”，以及一个名为“猎户座”的载人太空舱，用以将宇航员送入近地以上轨道。但是，随着特朗普最近将美国宇航局宇航员送上月球的指示，太空总署将需要更多的硬件来支持完成其载人航天计划。重返月球，并在其上建立一个更持久的基地，将需要一个着陆器、生活舱以及更多的技术来保证宇航员的生存。而美国宇航局在未来的几年里面临着预算的缩减；摆脱国际空间站可能会释放出数十亿美元来资助上述技术的开发。

But canceling the ISS too early without aviable replacement could lead to a gap of human activities in lower Earthorbit. A similar scenario played out in 2011, when the Space Shuttle programended. The Obama administration had canceled NASA’s initiative to return to theMoon, known as the Constellation program, leaving the space agency without away to get its astronauts into space. The plan was for commercial companies tostep in and start sending astronauts to lower Earth orbit, instead. That ideaevolved into the Commercial Crew program, where two companies — SpaceX andBoeing — have been working on spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from theISS. But nearly seven years after the end of the Shuttle program, the companiesaren’t ready to carry people to orbit and likely won’t be for another yearor more. That has left NASA to rely on Russian vehicles to carry humans tospace.

但是如果没有一个可行的替代方案，过早地取消国际空间站会中断近地轨道上的人类活动。2011年，当航天飞机项目终结时，也出现了类似的情况。奥巴马政府取消了美国宇航局重返月球的计划，即所谓的“星座计划”，导致太空总署没有办法将宇航员送入太空。该计划的目的是让商业公司介入，并开始代替宇航局承担将宇航员送入近地轨道的任务。这一想法演变成了商业载人计划，两家公司——太空探索技术公司（SpaceX）和波音——一直在研究航天飞船，以便将宇航员往返于地面和国际空间站。但是在航天飞机项目结束将近7年之后，这些公司还没有准备好将人送入轨道，并且可能再过一年或更长时间也仍然做不到这一点。这使得美国宇航局不得不依靠俄罗斯的航天器将人送上太空。



Commercial partners, such as SpaceX, are tasked with regularly launching cargo to the ISS Image: SpaceX

SpaceX等商业伙伴的任务是定期向国际空间站发射货物：SpaceX

Losing the ISS would be a major loss to thecommercial space industry, which has come to rely on the station to test outnew technologies. Small satellite operators have launched their probes from theISS, while the weightless environment of the lab allows companies to see iftheir hardware is ready for space. Bigelow Aerospace, which builds inflatablespace habitats, has been testing out a prototype of one of its modules on thespace station for nearly two years now. NASA has also used the station to learnmore about how long-duration space flight affects the human body, keyinformation that will be needed when people make the lengthy journey to Mars.

失去国际空间站将是商业航天产业的一个重大损失，因为它依赖空间站来测试新技术。小型卫星运营商已经从国际空间站发射了探测器，而空间实验室的失重环境让企业可以看到它们的设备是否已经完成了进入太空的准备。建造了膨胀式太空基地的毕格罗宇航公司（Bigelow Aerospace）已经在空间站上测试它的一个模块原型近两年的时间了。美国宇航局还利用空间站进一步了解了长时间的太空飞行对人体的影响，所得到的关键信息将被用于开展前往火星的载人长途飞行。

Additionally, the Commercial Crew programwill be getting into full swing just as the ISS is about to end. A recentgovernment audit found that both SpaceX and Boeing won’t be certified to startsending astronauts to the ISS until late 2019 or early 2020. That gives themjust five years to do regular runs to the space station.

此外，随着国际空间站即将关闭，商业载人项目也将全面展开。最近的一项政府审计发现，要到2019年底或2020年初，SpaceX和波音公司才会获得向国际空间站运送宇航员的许可。这只给了它们5年时间来执行空间站的定期往返任务。

Beyond all of its scientific and commercialbenefits, the ISS has been a cornerstone of international cooperation. NASAoperates the ISS in partnership with Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, andastronauts from Canada, Europe, and Japan have all lived on the station. It’spossible NASA could get those same benefits by partnering with other countrieson an ambitious lunar return, but this move would sacrifice what has become astaple of the US space program.

除了所有的科学和商业利益外，国际空间站一直是一个国际合作的基石。美国宇航局与俄罗斯太空署，即俄罗斯联邦航天局（Roscosmos）合作运营国际空间站，并且来自加拿大、欧洲和日本的宇航员们都进驻了空间站。美国宇航局在雄心勃勃重返月球的过程中，通过与其他国家合作而获得同样的好处也是有可能的，但此举将牺牲掉美国太空计划现有的主要内容。



samthebox  
the end of the world in sight
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 8:58 PM

世界末日

Dirty_Dogg   
Just plain stupid!
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 9:00 PM

蠢透了！

tm8
In a word, no. NASA,and DOD have their own budgets. And the DOD budget doesn’teven include things like the department of homeland security, etc. Not tomention the "black" projects that aren’t mentioned in the budget. Bythe way the department of justice has a budget twice the size of NASA.Where does THAT money go?!
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:03 PM

两个字，不行。美国宇航局和国防部都有自己的预算。国防部的预算甚至不包括国土安全部之类的部门，更别提预算中没有提到的“黑色”项目了。司法部门的预算是美国宇航局的两倍。那些钱去哪里了？！

Trackster
The defense budget goes to pay for manylarge corporations and thus workers in those companies. The defense industry isa huge backbone of the country and supports a huge number of families.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:26 PM

国防预算用于支付许多大公司的费用，以及这些公司的员工。国防工业是这个国家的一个巨大支柱，并且支撑着大量的家庭生计。

Mergatroid Mania
For those who might not know.
Up until about four or five years ago, since NASA wascreated, the military budget was more every year, and what NASA gotfor that total amount of time.
That’s right, 1 year military budget =about 50 years NASA budget.
So, if you ever hear anyone spouting offthe tired old argument of how we should stop giving NASA so muchfunding and spend that money on people, tell them that we could stop militaryspending for one week and likely get as much as NASA gets in a year.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 3:35 PM

写给那些可能不知道的人。
直到大约四、五年前，自从美国宇航局成立以来，军事预算每年都在增加，而美国宇航局在这段时间里又得到了什么。
没错，1年的军事预算=大约50年的美国宇航局预算。
所以，如果你听到有人在说我们应该停止给美国宇航局这么多的资金，把这些钱花在老百姓身上，告诉他们我们可以停止军事开支一个星期，就可能得到美国宇航局一年的资助。

fxspec06
I think we should end funding for Trump’soxygen supply
If he wants oxygen, he should have to paythe taxpayers $1/second of oxygen
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 9:13 PM

我想我们应该停止资助特朗普的氧气供应
如果他想要氧气，他应该支付纳税人每秒氧气供应1美元

Generic_User
It says the ISS should beterminated in 2028 because it’s too old anyway. Considering it already lastedlonger than initially planned, I can see why they want to end it in 2024.
They just added "Trump" in thetitle so that people against him would oppose the idea without thinking,guessed it worked. Sad to see whether people are for or against him, they’reeasily manipulated by simply mentioning him. Even when it’s his administrationand not even him himself taking the decision.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:30 AM

据说国际空间站应该在2028年终止，因为它太老了。考虑到它的持续时间已经超过了最初的计划，我可以理解为什么他们想要在2024年结束它。他们只是在标题中加入了“特朗普”，这样一来，反对他的人就会不加思索地也反对这个设想，猜测空间站是正常运行的。看到人们是支持或者反对他让人感到悲哀，只要提到特朗普，他们很容易就被当枪使了。即使只是他的政府，而不是他自己做的这个决定。

pallentx
You don’t need "Trump" in theheadline. Just put "ending funding" with any kind of important spaceresearch project and people wont be unhappy. Are the people currently runningthe ISS program wanting to end it by 2024? I and many others weren’thappy with Obama era funding for space programs either.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 10:30 AM

你不需要在标题里加上 “特朗普”。只要用任意一种重要的空间研究项目来“结束资助”，人们就不会不高兴了。目前正在运行国际空间站项目的人想要在2024年结束它吗？我和其他许多人对奥巴马时代资助的太空计划也不满意。

Trackster
From my limited knowledge, much of thecomponents and design aren’t rated for life after 2024. At that point, the costto repair and replace to sustain proper and safe conditions becomes greaterthan what I think NASA could get budget for.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:28 PM

根据我有限的知识，许多组件和设计在2024年之后都不会被认定为是永久的。在那个时候，维修和替换来维持适当和安全的环境比我所认为的美国宇航局能得到的预算要大得多。

BausFight
Why are there so many people up in armsabout them mentioning Trump? It’s his administration that willmake the call, just like everyone that reported about Obama ending the spaceshuttle program. It’s the same.
Some sensitive folks here.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 11:24 AM

为什么有那么多人在谈论特朗普呢？是他的政府会打这个（指示）电话，就像所有报道奥巴马结束航天飞机项目的人一样。这是一样的。
这里的一些敏感的人。

Trackster
I recall people being up in arms againstObama when that occurred.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:56 PM

我记得当时有人在反对奥巴马。

ItWasMe
Makes sense Trump wants to get back tomoon, like they (the USA) did in 1969.
His other policies are also something outof 1969, specially in terms of Civil Rights.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 11:56 AM

特朗普想要重返月球，就像他们（美国）在1969年所做的那样。
他的其他政策也是1969年时代的事，特别是在民权方面。

Kizipotamus
Yeah, like that time the democratic partyvoted against the Civil Rights Act. Or founded the KKK. Or established JimCrow. Or fought a war for slavery.
Trump is literally Hitler! He hates gays,and Jews, and Trans people, and blacks, and women, and South Americans, and hispolicies show it irrefutably! That’s why they’re being lynched, just like thegood ole days he wants to bring back.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 5:28 PM

是的，就像那个时候民主党投票反对民权法案。或建立了三k党。或建立了黑鬼组织。或者为奴隶战争而战。
特朗普简直就是小胡子元首！他讨厌同性恋，犹太人，变性人，黑人，女人，南美人，他的政策是无可否认的！这就是为什么他们被处以私刑的原因，就像他想要带回来的美好旧时光一样。

ItWasMe
Yeah, like that time the democraticparty voted against the Civil Rights Act. Or founded the KKK. Orestablished Jim Crow. Or fought a war for slavery.
Conspiracy theories marred withwhataboutism. A classic.
Trump is literally Hitler! He hatesgays, and Jews, and Trans people, and blacks, and women, and South Americans,and his policies show it irrefutably! That’s why they’re being lynched, justlike the good ole days he wants to bring back.
Not literally Hitler. After all,the USA still have a few checks and balances in place. For now.
Posted on Jan29, 2018 | 7:05 AM

“是的，就像那个时候民主党投票反对民权法案。或建立了三k党。或建立了黑鬼组织。或者为奴隶战争而战。”
阴谋论和“那么主义”（译注：“whataboutism”，“那么主义”，源自前苏联，指试图用伪善的方式来诋毁对手的立场，而不直接反驳他们的论点）狼狈为奸。太经典了。
“特朗普简直就是小胡子元首！他讨厌同性恋，犹太人，变性人，黑人，女人，南美人，他的政策是无可否认的！这就是为什么他们被处以私刑的原因，就像他想要带回来的美好旧时光一样”
还不算真正的小胡子元首。毕竟，美国仍然有一些监督和制衡的存在。至少现在如此。

Evil13rt
The ISS is getting old. Theydidn’t plan for it to last as long as it has and, at some point, it will becomedangerous to inhabit (same as Mir did). Now I don’t know where that point is orhow long it can be extended, but the repairs and upgrades will no doubt cost apretty penny. If the new owners don’t take care of their white elephant then itmight crash on someone’s house or kill it’s own crew by accident. 
If launch costs are dropping then replacing the station may be the betteroption. So We should have created a plan for what comes next. Spending money tokeep an aging station in orbit just to say it’s there is unwise.
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 9:36 PM

国际空间站正在老化。他们不打算让它延续到它的使用寿命那么久，而且，在某个时刻，在它上面驻留会变得危险（就跟“和平号”空间站一样）。现在我不知道那个时刻究竟何时到来，也不知道它能延续多长时间，但是修理和升级无疑会花费一大笔钱。如果空间站的新主人不照顾这块鸡肋，那么它可能会撞到别人的房子上，或者意外地杀死自己的宇航员。
如果发射成本正在下降，那么更换空间站可能是更好的选择。所以我们应该为接下来的事情制定一个计划。花钱保持一个老化的空间在轨运行，只是说这种做法是不明智的。

Evil13rt
Well, maybe I read Trump differently. 
I think vanity is his primary sin, but I suspect he’s no monster. He wants tobe known for great things. Were it entirely on him he’d try to rebrand thespace effort so that it looks like it’s greatness is his doing. He’d probablywant the lunar mission and he’d want to keep the iss…
…But there’s a cost to this, and he needs lots of other things to happen on thesame budget. The iss retirement was in the planning long before he came along.Going to the moon, if the mission starts soon, would be seen as his doing whileKeeping the iss wont. Losing the iss isn’t really his fault since all of ourpartners planned for it to end soon. 
If the stations time can be monetized then we can pay for some maintenance andmake a better argument for keeping it. Otherwise you’d be making anadministration choose between a dying project that gets them no accolades vs abrilliant new project that will capture the voters attention. 
I think we know what he would choose, so the best we can expect is that they’llkick the can to 2025 just so the deorbit doesn’t happen during his watch.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 5:33 AM

也许我对特朗普有不同的解读。
我认为虚荣是他的主要罪过，但我也怀疑他并不是恶魔。他想以伟大的事物而闻名。如果完全在寄托在他身上，他就会尝试重新塑造太空计划的努力，以至于让他看起来更伟大。他也许想要开展月球任务，并且他想要保留国际空间站。
……但是这是有代价的，他需要在同样的预算上做很多其他的事情。在他来之前，国际空间站的退役就已经计划了很长时间。如果重返月球的任务很快就开始的话，在保持国际空间站运行的同时就会被认为是他的成绩。失去国际空间站并不是他的错，因为我们所有的合作伙伴都在计划很快终结空间站项目。
如果空间站的运行时间可以用钱买，那么我们就可以支付一些维护费用，并提出更好的理由来维护它。否则，你最好在一个垂死的并且不会给他们带来任何赞誉项目，以及一个能吸引选民注意力的出色的新项目中做出一个政府选择。
我想我们知道他会选择什么，所以我们能想到的最好的结果是他们会把这个目标踢到2025年，这样空间站脱轨的一幕就不会出现在他们的任期里了。

theagentsmith
This is the problem of political dynamics.From an image point of view is better to fund new initiatives than maintenance.But given the 87B$ invested in the ISS I would try to maximize thatinvestement as much as possible. Eventually there would be no need forthe ISS with a permanent base on the Moon, no?
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:28 AM

这就是政治动态的问题。从给选民的印像的角度来看，最好是为新项目提供资金，而不是维护老项目。但鉴于用在国际空间站上的870亿投资，我将尽量最大化这一投资的效果。最终，有了月球上的永久基地就不再需要国际空间站了，不是吗？

E'Bahn
The ISS provides a platform forlong term experiments in microgravity. It will always be cheaper to get toEarth orbit than to the moon, so removing the capacity to perform those kindsof experiments is short sighted.
Furthermore, from a space explorationstandpoint, some form of orbital way-station will likely be necessary for theforeseeable future. The kinds of technologies being developed forinterplanetary travel would be best deployed from orbit, and so having somekind of pre-existing station there would be logical.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:31 PM

国际空间站为微重力的长期实验提供了一个平台。而前往地球轨道总是比前往月球要花费更少，所以荒废进行这些实验的能力是很短视的做法。
此外，从太空探索的角度来看，在可预见的未来，拥有某种类型的轨道空间站可能是必要的。为行星际旅行而开发的各种技术将在轨道上（的空间站中）得到最好的应用，因此拥有某种预先存在的空间站是合乎逻辑的。

Evil13rt
I don’t disagree, but I recall the issorbit isn’t ideal for interplanetary missions. As a laboratory it’s a greatinvestment but it’s also got a limited lifespan and, as launch costs drop, wehave to weigh its remaining utility against its replacement. 
I think the deep space gateway was an effort to show the path forward byputting a station in lunar orbit. Were I Trump I would try and get Spacex andBigelow to make a new earth orbital station in a better inclination to workwith that, and do it before the iss is retired so there’s continuity. 
Your idea is logical but the question boils down to money and timing.
Posted on Jan26, 2018 | 4:55 AM

我不反对，但我记得，国际空间站的轨道并不适合星际任务。作为一个实验室，这是一项巨大的投资，但它的寿命也很有限，随着发射成本的下降，我们不得不权衡它的剩余效用和它的替代品。
我认为“深空门户”是通过在月球轨道上放置空间站来展示前进的方向。如果我是特朗普，我就会试着让Spacex和Bigelow建立一个新的地球轨道站，更好地加以利用，并在国际空间站退役之前完成此举，以保持（空间探索科研的）连续性。
你的想法是合理的，但问题的关键归结于钱和时机。

E'Bahn
I still don’t think it’s fair to say thatlaunch costs ‘are coming down’ although they are less than in the past, but Idon’t want to argue semantics. A station in lunar orbit is really great, but nomatter what, it will always be cheaper/easier to get to Earth orbit and thereare a lot of experiments currently underway on the ISS that don’tneed to be in orbit around the moon to work. Material development, healthstudies, etc.
There are plenty ofexperiments/developments that need to happen on the moon, for example thesuccessor to the SKA radio telescope will need to be on the dark sideof the moon to avoid radio interference from Earth to any significant degree.
I’m not saying we need to keepthe ISS at all costs, but so long as we have a presence in space wewill need an Earth orbit station.
I’m saying if you can’t have both, haveEarth orbit.
Posted on Jan26, 2018 | 8:35 AM

我仍然不认为发射成本“正在下降”这种说法是公平的，尽管比过去低了，但我不想争论语义。在月球轨道上的空间站真的很好，但是不管怎样，前往地球轨道总是会更容易，而且目前在国际空间站进行的很多实验都不需要在月球轨道上运行。（比如）材料的开发，健康研究等。
有大量的实验/发展需要在月球上进行，例如，新一代斯卡（译注：平方公里阵列射电望远镜国际组）射电望远镜的继任者将需要部署在月球背面，以避免地球上的无线电干扰。
我并不是说我们需要不惜一切代价维持国际空间站，但是只要我们在太空中有所存在，我们就需要一个地球轨道空间站。
我是说如果你不能同时拥有这两种东西的话，就选择地球轨道空间站吧。

guaip
The problem is not upgrading. It’s not likea car that shows the problem and the you replace it. Some wires, panels, modulesare 20+ years old, and replacing everything could easily take another 10 years.
It may get expensive and the resoursescould aim for more ambitious goals. Just the fact that Obama’s administrationextended ISS’s lifespan shows that the original plan was to end it earlier. Asgregorian said above, it would be interesting to know what Nasa thinks of it.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 5:52 AM

问题不在于升级。它不像一辆汽车，出了问题，然后你换车了。一些电路、面板、模块已经有20多年的历史了，更换任何东西都很容易再花掉10年的时间。
这么做可能会代价高昂，而且资源也能分配给更加远大的目标。奥巴马政府延长了国际空间站的寿命，这一事实表明，最初的计划是要提前结束它。正如格里高里所说的，了解美国宇航局的想法是很有趣的。

tm8
I think in this case what’s important isnot the age of the hardware but its usefulness/integrity. Is it functioningproperly? Then it makes sense to keep it going. It may become dangerous at somepoint, but it seems unlikely that will be by 2025. 
It’s true that repairs are expensive but creating a new station from scratchwould be more expensive, and take longer. Plus what the article doesn’t mentionis that there are still modules slated to be added to the current station.Russia is preparing one now. If the ISS is scrapped it’s very likelythey’ll just make it part of their own station, just like how China is doingtheir own thing. Seems like a waste to descend into nationalism in space yetagain.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:14 PM

我认为，在这种情况下，重要的不是硬件设备的已用时长，而是它的有效性/完整性。它能正常工作吗？那么保持它的运行是有意义的。在某些时候，这种做法可能会导致危险，但到2025年，这种情况似乎不太可能发生。
的确，维修费用昂贵，但从零开始创建一个新空间站会更贵，而且花费更长的时间。此外，这篇文章没有提到的是，目前仍有一些模块将被添加到当前的空间站中。俄罗斯正在准备一个。如果国际空间站被废弃，俄罗斯很有可能就会把国际空间站变为自己的空间站的一部分，就像中国正在建造自己的空间站一样。在太空中再次陷入民族主义的行为看起来是一种制造浪费的方式。

tm8
If the goal really was to be innovative andland on the moon NASA could cancel the SLS program (whichI’m still not convinced will ever fly) with it’s projected 1.5 billion perlaunch costs, and funnel that money into private initiatives. You’re barking upthe wrong tree. While the ISS’s usefulness is debatable, it’s already a donedeal. On the other hand SLS (and the constellation program before it)were projects to keep people employed designing outdated and inefficienthardware that no one asked for. 
The great irony here, is that Obama (who many Trumpers loved to call asocialist) at least started a move to a public/private partnershipfor NASA, while Trump the so called businessman is about to screw updecades worth of international cooperation, in favor of funneling money into agiant government program with dubious chances of success.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:37 PM

如果我们的目标真的是创新，并且在月球上着陆，那么美国宇航局可以取消国际空间站项目（我仍然不相信它会保持运行），因为它的发射成本预计将达到15亿美元，并将资金投入到私人项目中。你找错了攻击目标。尽管国际空间站的有用性是有争议的，但它已经是既成事实的项目了。另一方面，国际空间站（以及它之前的星座计划）都是旨在让人们设计没人提出要求的过时且效率低下的硬件设备的项目。
其中的巨大讽刺是，奥巴马（许多特朗普支持者喜欢称他是一个社会主义者）至少对美国宇航局开始了一个公共/私营伙伴关系计划，而所谓的商人特朗普却即将毁掉数十年的国际合作，以支持将资金投入到一个前途未知的巨大的政府计划中。

Disdain
Yet some people want to take a quarter ofthat money and spend it on a wall.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 8:00 AM

然而，有些人想把四分之一的钱花在一堵墙上。（译注：指美墨边境墙）

HajjDavid
Maybe because the US government and stategovernments pay a nearly 100 billion dollars a year on services for illegalimmigrants. The wall could pay itself in a few months with removal of millionsof illegals
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 9:49 AM

也许是因为美国政府和州政府每年为非法移民提供近1000亿美元的服务。这堵边境墙可以在几个月内支付数百万非法移民的费用。

pallentx
which is a big part of the opposition forthe wall. The wall won’t remove anyone and it wont keep anything out. There’salready a wall across much of the border. Its just to make people feel goodthat there’s a wall.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 10:37 AM

这是反对边境墙的重要组成部分。这堵墙不会把谁移开，也不会保留任何东西。在很多边境地区已经有了一堵墙。这只是为了让人们感觉好一些：看，有一堵墙。

BausFight
The wall is short sighted; it’s all aboutPR rather than purpose (as most walls of it’s type are). If it gets built (notpaid for by Mexico, mind you), it will do little more than be a talking pointfor the president.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 11:42 AM

这堵墙很短视；这一切都是为了公关而不是目的（因为大多数这种类型的墙都是这样的）。如果它建立起来了（注意，墨西哥没有为其买单），它只会成为总统的一个谈资。

AkornFarmer
Then, How about selling ISS offto other countries, like EU or China? I guess that Peoples Republic of Chinawill pay decent price for US share on ISS.
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 10:35 PM

那么，把国际空间站卖给其他国家，比如欧盟或中国怎么样？我猜，中国人民共和国将为美国对其转让国际空间站的份额出高价。

NothingUnknown
The EU needs to fine a lot more Americancompanies to afford our asking price and China could rebuildour ISS for 10 cents on the dollar so they have no need for it.
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 10:40 PM

欧盟需要对更多的美国公司进行罚款，来支付我们的要价，而中国能以10美分的价格重建我们的国际空间站，因此他们不需要买它。

MCP1804
EU barely have enough money to utilizetheir share of the ISS, they are relying on US and Russia for both humanand cargo.
China is already building their own "private" 3 module station, withmore lab room than US and EU share on the ISS combined, I doubtthey’ll be interested in wasting money on maintaining someone elses apartment.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 3:20 AM

欧盟几乎没有足够的资金来利用其在国际空间站的所属舱段，它们依赖于美国和俄罗斯的人力和货物。
中国已经在建造自己的“私有”3号模块化空间站，这个空间站拥有的实验室数量比美国和欧盟的加起来还要多，我怀疑他们是否有兴趣在维修别人的“公寓”上浪费钱。

Hifi74
Because all the other countries that use itin conjunction with us have all but said they don’t want to pay for it either. Nowmaybe a private company may want it and if they do I say sure let em buy it,but countries involved with it have thus far shown 0 interest in it once theeffective life and our funding ends.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 4:19 AM

因为所有其他和我们一起使用空间站的国家都说他们不愿意为此出钱。现在，也许一家私营公司会想要它，如果他们真的这么做了，我肯定会说：让他们买吧，但是一旦空间站的有效运行以及我们的资助终结了，那些参与其中的国家就会对它丧失兴趣。

Robojerk
The USA doesn’t own the ISS,the partnering countries don’t want to pay the lions share.
China wants to build their own I believe, even now their space program is more secretivethan a what we’re used to. Russia cant afford it and don’t want it either
The ISS is old. the tech behind is really outdated.
It needs to be re-boosted to orbit or eventually it will come down as gravitypulls it down. That costs money as you need to supply fuel.
I believe the best scenario is when weannounce that the ISS will be retired. Private companies like Axiom,Bigelow, Boeing, Nano Racks, Lockheed Martin will step like and soon we hearthere will be at least one "private" space station in LEO (LowEarth Orbit) coming soon after the ISS is down (that will probably bea lot cheaper to maintain since it will be built with newer tech, and lessonslearned from the ISS). This allows science to continue, launch serviceslike SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin will continue to get revenue to put peoplein LEO, and it frees up the NASA budget to push to the moon ormars.
However NO Deep Space Gateway!!!!
It’s a dumb idea. It will be too complicated, and cost too much to use it as away point to either moon or mars. Because you will need to use fuel to goto DSG, slow down (more fuel and time) then accelerate again to yourtarget location, then use more fuel to land. The DSG will become thedestination and we’ll be stuck maintaining another Space Station without any ofthe benefits of it being close to earth
Posted on Jan26, 2018 | 12:42 AM

美国没有国际空间站的所有权，合作伙伴国也不愿为大部分份额买单。
我认为中国想要建立自己的空间站，即使是现在，他们的太空计划也比我们过去所进行的更加隐秘。俄罗斯负担不起，也不想要它。
国际空间站老了。其身后的技术已经过时了。
它需要被重新拉升到轨道，否则最终它会随着引力的拉动而掉落。这就需要钱，因为你需要提供燃料。
我认为最好的情况是，当我们宣布国际空间站将退役的时候。如Axiom、 Bigelow、波音、Nano Racks、洛马公司等私营企业将有可能会跟上脚步，很快我们就听到会有至少一个“私营”空间站运行在近地轨道（这样，维护成本可能会低很多，因为这个空间站将用更新的技术建造，并吸取了国际空间站学到的经验教训）。这让科学（发展）得以继续，像SpaceX、联合发射联盟（ULA）、蓝源公司（Blue Origin）这样的发射服务商将继续进行载人低轨发射任务以获得收入，并且将美国宇航局的预算释放出来推动探月和火星任务。
但是，不要出现“深空门户”！！！（译注：指俄罗斯和美国计划在月球轨道上建造的一个新空间站）
这是一个愚蠢的想法。用它来作为探测月球或火星的一种方式，太复杂了且成本高昂。因为前往“深空门户”要消耗燃料，减速（耗费的燃料和时间更多）然后再加速到你的目标位置，接着再用更多的燃料来着陆。“深空门户”将成为目的地，而且我们将会被困在另一个因为离地球很近而毫无裨益的空间站上

theflint
Trumps requested Military budget FY 2018 is639 billion US Dollars.
I can see how those 3-4 billion a yearfor NASA are hard to get. I mean, lets cut the military budget for0.5 percent and we are there.
Posted on Jan24, 2018 | 10:43 PM

2018年的军费预算为6390亿美元。
我能看到美国宇航局每年的30-40亿预算来得有多困难。我的意思是，我们把军事预算削减了0.5%，那么我们就能拿到空间探测预算了。

Hifi74
Funding is stopping because in 2024 it isat it’s agreed upon and of functional and mission life. Why keep dumping thatmoney into something that the other countries currently involved with it’smanagement and upkeep want nothing to do with it. At this point we would bebetter served and benefit from utilizing new tech in new ways accomplishingmore forward goals like inhabiting the moon or Mars, or even further out likeTitan or Enceladus or Europa.
Or do you think we should just keep dumpingmoney into parking in low earth orbit for forever?
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 4:28 AM

资金之所以停止，是因为在2024年已经到了空间站功能和运行寿命的约定期限。为什么要把这些钱投入到其他目前参与管理和维护的国家却想要撇开关系的空间站上呢。此时此刻，我们将会更好地利用新技术来实现更大的目标，比如居住在月球或火星上，或者更远的地方，比如土卫六、土卫二或木卫二。
或者你认为我们应该永远把钱投入到停留在近地轨道吗？

pallentx
As long as we are gaining valuableinformation from it, why not? That’s really the only question that should beasked about the ISS – is it providing value to us? As long as it is,I think it should be funded.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 10:42 AM

只要我们还在从空间站获得有价值的信息，为什么不继续资助该项目呢？这是关于国际空间站唯一的问题——它是否为我们提供了价值？只要是这样，我认为空间站项目就应该得到资助。

Smartyflix
As stated in the article, cutting fundingfor the ISS without a viable plan for "what’s next" forhuman activities in space is as short-sighted as cutting funding for theshuttle before any meaningful replacement is actually implemented.
The main difference now is that, instead ofrelying on the Russians for a ride to space, there will simply be nowhere forus to go. As limited as the ISS is, the one thing it has going for itis that its a destination, which unlocks all sorts of activities related togetting humans into space. Remove that, and space simply becomes a place topark commercial satellites.

正如在文章中所述，在没有一个可行的“下一步”人类活动计划的前提下，削减国际空间站的资金，与在任何有意义的替代方案实施之前削减对航天飞机的资助一样短视。
现在的主要区别是，除了依赖俄罗斯去太空旅行，我们根本没有地方可以去。尽管国际空间站有限，但它所要做的一件事是，它是一个目的地，它开启了各种与让人类进入太空有关的活动。废除空间站，太空就变成了一个只能放置商业卫星的地方。

MCP1804
Seen then before
Cancel Apollo, so money can be better spent on the Space Shuttle and Freedom/ ISS
Cancel the Space Shuttle , so money can be better spent on Constellation andcommercial
Cancel Constellation, so money can be better spent on deep space / Mars
Cancel deep space and ISS, so money an be better spent on return to themoon / SLS
Decades later, still waiting on that supposedly higher ROI.
In the mean time China is building it’s own3 module station for 2020, doing half a dozen unmanned lunar missions by 2025and designing a lunar base for 2030s, for some reason they don’t have to choosebetween space station and moon landing. Maybe, just maybe, its because theydon’t have a habit of canceling projects every 4-8 years just to restart themin another 4-8 years.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 3:13 AM

熊捡芝麻、玉米、苹果、西瓜的故事。
取消阿波罗计划，以便钱可以花在航天飞机和“自由”空间站/国际空间站上
取消航天飞机，以便钱可以花在“星座”计划和商业上
取消“星座”计划，以便钱可以花在深空探测/火星上
取消深空探测和国际空间站，以便钱最好花在重返月球/太空发射系统上
几十年之后，仍在等待投资回报率更高的项目。
于此同时，中国正在为2020年打造自己的3舱段空间站，2025年前完成5、6个无人登月任务，并为2030年设计一个月球基地，因为某些原因，他们不必在空间站和月球登陆之间做出选择。也许，只是也许，这是因为他们没有这么个习惯：每隔4到8年就取消项目，只是为了在另一个4到8年的时间里再次重新启动它们。

Sixth clawed demon
The real problem of cause isthat NASA keeps on designing and building crafts which are 1 goalcapable, a ship that will go to Mars but can’t land on the Moon or can go tothe moon can’t go to Mars rather than building a vehicle capable of going tothe moon and to Mars.
Like the Mars vehicle Space X design, itmay be design to go to Mars but it could equally land on the Moon or aasteroid.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:00 AM

真正的问题原因是美国宇航局继续设计和建造只有单一目标的载人航天器，即一艘能去火星，但无法登陆月球的，或可以去月球但不能去火星的飞船，而不是建造一艘既能够去月球又能够去火星的飞船。
就像Space X设计的火星飞船一样，它可能是设计为前往火星，但它同样可以登陆月球或小在一颗小行星上着陆。

Smartyflix
The real problem of cause isthat NASA keeps on designing and building crafts which are 1 goalcapable
No, the real problem isthat NASA is beholden to the capricious whims of the Executive andLegislative branches of the US government. Every 4-8 years, they are directedto completely scrap their current plans for the next special interest’spet-project. Add to that, those pet-projects often have a goal of creating jobsin various locations around the country, rather than anything having to do withspace exploration.
If NASA simply had a budget andthe ability to guide their own destiny, we never would have ended Apollo, we’dhave a Moon base with 30+ permanent residents, and we’d probably be watchingthe first humans set foot on Mars this year. Instead, we have a retired spaceplane with a legacy of killing 14 astronauts, a space station that serveslittle purpose other than providing a destination for spacecraft to dock at,and about a dozen half-baked-then-canceled space projects scattered across 8different Presidents’ administrations.
The saddest part of all is that this willlikely continue going forward.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 10:34 AM

“真正的问题原因是美国宇航局继续设计和建造只有单一目标的载人航天器”
不，真正的问题是，美国宇航局受制于美国政府行政部门和立法机构的反复无常。每隔4-8年，他们就会被要求完全放弃他们当前的项目，而准备下一个有着特别兴趣的重点项目。此外，这些重点项目的目标往往是在全国各地创造就业机会，而不是与太空探索有关。
如果美国宇航局有预算，并具有自主权，那我们永远也不会终结阿波罗计划，我们将会有一个拥有30多名永久居民的月球基地，我们很可能会看到今年第一批踏上火星的人类。可现实却是，我们有一架退役的航天飞机，带着14名宇航员遇难的坏名声，一个除了提供一个航天飞机停靠的目的地之外没有其他用途的空间站，还有大约12个在8个不同的总统任期内被取消的太空计划。
最让人难过的是，这种情况很可能还会持续下去。

fasteddie2020
We need something like a Space Council toget some long term thinking going.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 1:39 PM

我们需要像空间委员会这样的机构来执行一些长期的（战略）考量。

Read
Stop being a sheep, and educate yourself.Trump is not why we are leaving the ISS. Baseless rhetoric about removingthe president simply because you don’t actually know anything about a subjectdoesn’t help anything or anyone.
Find a way to educate yourself before youcontribute to ruining everything good on this world…
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 5:36 PM

别再做小绵羊了，要自我学习。特朗普不是我们离开国际空间站的原因。毫无根据的关于取消总统的言论仅仅是因为你对某一话题一无所知，这对任何事或任何人都没有任何帮助。
在你做出破坏世界上一切美好事物的举动之前，先找到一种教育自己的方法。

ddn123
The Space Station was not rational. TheSpace Shuttle was not rational. Sending humans to Mars is not rational. SendingHumans to the moon is not rational. NASA can never be an efficientsteward of resources. NASA should incentivize the development oftechnology that private enterprise can leverage to expand human possibilities.
NASA could spend money developing thetechnology that reduces the risks and cost of human operations in space on themoon/mars. Robotics, AI, Materials processing, 3D printing, etc.
It is always easy for politicians to spendother people’s money.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 8:38 AM

空间站是不合理的。航天飞机是不合理的。把人类送上火星是不合理的。把人类送上月球是不合理的。美国宇航局永远不能成为一个有效的资源管理者。美国宇航局应该鼓励发展技术，私营企业可以利用这些技术来扩大人类（空间探测）的可能性。
美国宇航局可以花钱开发这项技术，减少在月球/火星上人类活动的风险和成本。机器人学、人工智能、材料加工、3D打印等等。
政客们总是很容易花别人的钱。

superaaron99
NASA receives less than half a percentof the US budget. That half a percent has given humanity its greatestengineering and exploration achievements.If you can’t see the value in thatthat’s your problem. The entire private space industry wouldn’t even existtoday or would be years behind if NASA hadn’t set the groundwork inthe 60’s, and 70’s. What would SpaceX be doing without the ISS? 
I have more of a problem with politicians spending trillions to invade anddestroy other countries than spending pennies to further the advancement of thespecies.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 12:13 PM

美国宇航局收到的预算不到美国总预算的0.5%。0.5%的预算给了人类最伟大的工程和探索成就。如果你看不到价值，那就是你的问题。如果美国宇航局没有在60年代和70年代打下基础，整个私人空间产业甚至都不会存在。如果没有国际空间站，SpaceX能做什么？
我有更多的问题，政客们花费数万亿来入侵和摧毁其他国家，而不是花费几分钱来促进人类这个物种的进步。

ddn123
Sure.
I worked at NASA long enough tosee the enormous waste of resources and lots of missed opportunities, which iswhy I left the institution. In 1991, I worked on the first in-house effort toreplace the Shuttle. My specific task was designing a launchpad hold downsystem for the new rocket. Worked with a half dozen private contractors to workout the overall design. Clinton moves in and says, Shuttle full steam ahead.Thanks for all your work but never mind. Fair enough, his call. Bush moves inand says the Shuttle has to be replaced. Obama says sorry, private sector takesthe lead. Where are we now?
Go back further, the Saturn and Appolloprogram was working great, pretty big rocket for sure. But Nixon decides tothrough all that work out the window and design the Shuttle, which neveraccomplished any of the original goals. Musk is largely successful because heis using technology that has more roots in the Saturn program than the Shuttleor ISS program.
All the advancements you state do notrequire a Government run, Government Managed Human Space Flight program.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:11 PM

肯定的。
我在美国宇航局工作了很长时间，看到了巨大的资源浪费和很多错失的机会，这就是我离开这个机构的原因。1991年，我做了第一个内部的工作以取代航天飞机。我的任务是为新火箭设计一个发射平台。与六家私人承包商合作，设计出整体的设计方案。克林顿来了，说，全力推进航天飞机项目。谢谢你的工作，但没关系。他的号召说得好。布什来了，说航天飞机必须被替换掉。奥巴马说，对不起，私营部门占主导地位。我们现在的位置在哪里？
再往前看，土星和阿波罗工程运行得很好，的确是非常大的火箭。但是，尼克松决定把所有的工作都荒废掉，并设计出了航天飞机，它从来没有实现过任何最初的目标。马斯克（译注：特斯拉公司CEO）非常成功，因为他使用的技术相比航天飞机项目和国际空间站项目，更加源自“土星”项目。
你所讲的所有的进步都不需要政府地运作，而政府却管理着人类太空飞行计划。

Forebode
If US pulls out, then companies or othercountries will buy in.. Although, why not keep funding it, and try to turn aprofit with it. Charge other countries/companies to have tests performed.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 8:39 AM

如果美国退出，那么公司或其他国家就会买入。尽管如此，为什么不继续为它提供资金，并试着从中获利。对其他国家/公司进行测试。

RyHerbs
One thing Republicans are actually good onis space policy. Most people assume they’re against it because they generallydon’t like "non-essential" government spending, but that isn’t thecase. Heck, Newt Gingrich even got laughed at for proposing a moon colony, andhe’s definitely one of the more conservative Republicans. Anyways, as far asthe ISS is concerned the Trump administration probably knows whatthey’re doing. They brought back the space council at the request of people whoare very much in favor of the space program, which shows they’re listening topeople who actually know what they’re doing when it comes to space policy.The ISS is old, and they probably know its funds can be better spenton bigger and more exciting projects like a future moon base. Keeping it aroundjust so SpaceX can finally put humans in space way behind schedule isn’t a goodenough justification.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 11:29 AM

共和党人真正擅长的一件事是太空政策。大多数人都认为他们反对太空开发，因为他们一般不喜欢“不必要”的政府开支，但事实并非如此。见鬼，纽特·金里奇（译注：共和党总统参选人）甚至因为提议建立一个月球殖民地而受到嘲笑，他绝对是最保守的共和党人之一。不管怎样，就国际空间站而言，特朗普政府可能知道他们在做什么。他们按照那些十分支持太空项目的人的要求，重设了空间委员会，这表明他们在倾听那些真正了解太空政策的人的意见。国际空间站已经老了，他们可能知道它的资金可以花在更大更令人兴奋的项目上，比如未来的月球基地。让它保持运行，因此SpaceX最终延期将人类送上太空，这并不是一个充分的理由。

AvalonSunspot
Are you kidding? Republicans lie to getvotes, just as Bush did, just as Gingrich did.
This is just another Republican smokescreento make their lazy supporters think America is still a leader in spaceexploration while they quickly syphon the money off to pay for theirmistresses.
You need to stop falling for their con,it’s just sad to watch now.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 1:36 PM

你在开玩笑吧？共和党人撒谎是为了得到选票，就像布什一样，就像金里奇的所作所为。这只是共和党的另一个烟幕弹，让他们懒惰的支持者认为美国仍然是太空探索的领导者，而他们却迅速地把钱花出去为他们的情妇买单。你不要再被他们欺骗了，现在看着你就让人感到很悲哀。

Trackster
And Democrats don’t do the same? Thegeneralization that one side is the ‘good guy’ and the other is the ‘bad guy’is what is wrong with the country. Both sides have pros and cons.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 2:51 PM

民主党人难道不在干着同样的勾当？对一方是“好人”而另一方是“坏人”的普遍归纳是整个美国的错误。双方都有好坏。

ddn123
History does not support your view. Everyadministration has tried and largely succeed in setting a new policy. Nixonditches Saturn for the Shuttle. Bush 41 tried to ditch the Shuttle for a newvehicle. Clinton ends that policy and keeps the Shuttle flying. Bush 43 triesto replace the Shuttle with Constellation. Obama cancels Constellation, groundsthe Shuttle and moves to private launch services. What has Trump suggested?Impanel l the Space Council, keep Obama’s private launch services, try to getthe SLS flying, and let’s figure out what to do beforethe ISS falls apart. Yeah, Trump is gutting NASA.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:18 PM

历史不支持你的观点。每届政府在制定新政策方面都进行过尝试，并且在很大程度上获得了成功。尼克松为开发航天飞机废弃“土星”火箭。老布什试图为开发一种新航天器而废弃航天飞机。克林顿终止了这一政策，并让航天飞机继续飞行。小布什试图用“星座”计划代替航天飞机。奥巴马取消了“星座”计划，搁置了航天飞机，并转向私营发射服务。特朗普建议什么?太空理事会，保留奥巴马的私人发射服务，试图发展出太空发射系统，让我们搞清楚在国际空间站解体之前，当务之急是什么。是的，特朗普正在毁掉美国宇航局。

Sixth clawed demon
NASA doesn’t need a space council.
It needs more independence, it needcongress to just set the budget and a board set of goals not to start designingrockets and suggesting how to pork barrel NASA to the point where itcan’t complete anything until another round of port barrel politics happens.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 7:00 PM

美国宇航局不需要空间委员会。
它需要更多的独立性，它只需要国会制定出预算和一套目标，而不需要国会开始设计火箭，并建议如何对美国宇航局搞“猪桶政治”到它啥事也干不了，直到下一轮“猪桶政治”开始。（译注：“pork barrel politics”——“猪桶政治”，美国政界高频词，政界把议员在国会制订拨款法时将钱拨给自己的州（选区）或自己特别热心的某个具体项目的做法，叫做“猪肉桶”）

cpod
Surprised no one here hasmentioned—probably haven’t heard—the Russian’s announced this week theirsection will be expanded with new modules in 2019/20 and on terminationof ISS in 2024 decoupled from the remainder of ISS to formthe core of a new Russian station.
While Rome fiddles the worldmoves on.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 11:58 AM

很惊讶，在这里居然没人提到——可能还没人听说——俄罗斯本周宣布，他们的舱段将在2019/20年用新舱段来改扩建，并在2024年国际空间站项目终止时，与国际空间站的其他部分分离，以形成一个新的俄罗斯空间站的核心舱。
当罗马在折腾的时候，世界在前进。

ddn123
Glad they want to use their own money to doso. Or are we still reimbursing them for their efforts, which Gore so famouslydid in 1996 when the Russians were late and unable to complete the firstsection and demanded another $500 million.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 6:21 PM

他们想用自己的钱来做这些事，这让人很高兴。否则，我们还得为他们的工作而补贴他们。1996年，当俄罗斯人迟到，无法完成他们的第一个舱段时，又（向我们）要了5亿美元的时候，戈尔（译注：前美国副总统阿尔•戈尔）就是这么做的。

Sixth clawed demon
The real aim of ISS in the 90sfor the Americans was to keep russian scientists employed and not see them alllook for employment opportunities in Iran, North Korea, China, Iraq.
Posted on Jan25, 2018 | 7:02 PM

90年代的国际空间站项目的真正目的是留住俄罗斯科学家，而不是看着他们跑到伊朗、朝鲜、中国和伊拉克找工作。

​