ISS Debate

spacester · Oct 30, 2005

Hmmm . . . I think I see what you mean by the "time share" mentality, it's what I would call 'opportunity cost' - because we're doing 'x', we are squandering the opportunity to do 'y'. Is that it? There are many many lost opportunities, not just our own pet projects, and it's all due to a general lack of progress. The key in my mind is to support general progress so that a rising tide floats all boats. At some point, we make enough progress that the 'virtuous cycle' is established, and at that point in time our plans for the ideal solutions will come into play. In the meantime we've got to play the cards we're dealt. There is the ideal world of our visions and then there is political reality. The political reality is that ditching ISS would represent a receding tide and in my judgment would have the opposite effect of what we all want: real progress real soon. *** . . . and many other industrial processes that the ISS will not be working on in any industrial capacity. There are things to be researched in LEO, I'm glad you think so too. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But if ISS isn't doing the industry thing, that's fine with me. Sure, government / university / others can buy time on Bigelow facilities, that was a good catch, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But at the same time, maybe ISS ends up being the final beta test for some industrial technologies before the Bigelow facility in put into operation. Maybe there is pure research that can only find a home on ISS, stuff that just might lead to, um who knows, peace love and understanding, etc. lol. The ISS has a role to play in our space future. A different role is not obsolescence. Cooperation, not just competition, in different measures for different things, that’s the way progress works. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dobbins · Oct 30, 2005

LOL, So when did Boeing cease to be a private enterprise?

JonClarke · Oct 30, 2005

How weakened would people arrive on Mars after a 6 month trip with current knowledge and countermeasures. Fifty people have spent six months or more in zerogravity. My understanding is that people would be able to perform light duties from the time the landing and be capable of a full workload in two weeks. Provided you are on a long stay mission this would fit into the sort of schedule you would have anyway. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

spaceiscool · Oct 30, 2005

scrap the station. doesnt deserve talking about

dobbins · Oct 30, 2005

People have had to be carried on streachers after a 6 month stay in microgravity and needed over a month to recover to the point where they could perform full duties. That is too big a portion of the time on Mars wasted.

dobbins · Oct 30, 2005

It keeps them from doing normal duties. Anything regarding recovery time on Mars is no more than a guess with no data to back it up.

radarredux · Oct 30, 2005

> The problem with the ISS isn't that no science is being done, it's that the WRONG science is being done./i> Or it is too expensive. The Planetary Society recently wrote an opinion piece for AW&ST in which they said they support a space station worth its cost. Their position was neither to complete or discard ISS but to promote an honest discussion of the appropriate approach. In my opinion, NASA has burned through all its good will with its constant reporting of cost overruns. Regarding The Partners, I have little guilt for them too. Before any partners agree to invest money into ISS they should have realized (1) NASA's transportation system was extremely expensive, (2) NASA's 9-year effort to build a space station ended without a single piece of hardware flown, (3) Congress missed cancelling NASA's space station effort by 1 vote in 1993. The Partners invested into a program with a partner with a very poor track record and with a funding support that was very shallow. They should have understood the risks involved. Still, I see STS/ISS as largely a jobs program, and as pork goes, it is pretty good pork. I see the federal government fund so many stupid things all the time (highway to nowhere?), that relatively speaking it doesn't get much better than this and it often gets far worst. In conclusion, I don't really care. In 4-5 years primary funding is going to be all over anyways. I suspect we will still be in Iraq and spending money there.

spaceiscool · Oct 30, 2005

thank you again orreery21.

spacester · Oct 30, 2005

The internationalization of ISS was ALL about keeping Russian high-tech folks occupied in the years after the end of the cold war. The rest was spin, IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nacnud · Oct 30, 2005

Without constant reboost freedom would be a crater on the seabed by now. That’s what the internationalisation of the project got you. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

nacnud · Oct 30, 2005

...so why bring in the Europeans and Japanese for an additional cost-burden? Well ESA was part of the space station project from almost the begining. I'm not sure when JAXA was aproached but I suspect it was before the ISS was thought of. Yep just checked and there is mention of European and Japanese modules from March 1986 In April 1985, the program selected a set of contractors to carry out definition studies and preliminary design; various trade-offs were made in this process, balancing higher development costs against reduced long-term operating costs. In March 1986, the System Requirements Review modified the configuration to the "Dual-Keel" design, which moved the modules to the central truss - placing them at the centre of gravity, providing a better microgravity environment - and increased the amount of truss structure, with two large "keels". As the international involvement became more organised, the number of US lab modules was reduced from two to one, taking into consideration the provision of space in the European and Japanese modules. Space Station Freedom [Wikipedia] You can see the modules Kibo and Columbus in the sketch of Freedom below. They are the two end modules away from the truss, in fact they are very simmialar to the modules planned for the ISS.

nacnud · Oct 30, 2005

Freedom would be boosted into a much higher orbit. Freedoms orbit was 400x400, the ISS is around 350x350. Thats not much difference.

erioladastra · Oct 30, 2005

"Simple physics, been done. " True in a absic sense, but not in an applied, practical and affordable sense for a interplanetary mission. "valuable, and now suitable for a Mars Mission. Anything extra now is a luxury. " Not sure I get your point. It has not been done and tested yet. "Has been done, and can be done in NASA swimming pools, servicing ISS components will not be like servicing Mars components you will need a completely different specialization of skills. " No, hasn't really been done. We are still learning a great deal of unexpected life & materials issues with ISS. Agree it will be a different critter in many respects but still need a good baseline of experience we don't have. The ISS crews have had to adapt and perform some interesting operations not forseen. Even Russia with many, many years has had a number of surprises on the RS. Equipment that was expected to fail has not and vice versa. Stuff that was not designed to be changed on orbit has had to be changed on orbit. With the Shuttle this is rarely an issue. We can afford that hear in LEO but have to be able to predict or deal when farther away. Do I think we have to not start a CEV until we have this - NO. But we need to keep it going for awhile. "logistics are re-invented with every new mission." Point?

cuddlyrocket · Oct 31, 2005

As a British European, it's not for me to tell the US what to spend its money on. If they no longer want to support the ISS, that's a matter for them. However, I do expect them to keep to their agreements with us Europeans, or at least compensate us for any losses incurred. (Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the latter approach. The compensation doesn't have to be in money and immediate - access to future US flights and facilities could be considered.) The ISS will not be scrapped even if the US pulls out. The Russians and the Europeans will keep it going, and will probably try to get other countries (certainly the Chinese) involved. I never thought the professed purposes of the ISS were very valid, other than that of space medicine and testing life support equipment etc (everything else could be done cheaper by unmanned vehicles). And the ISS isn't even the optimum design of station for that - a number of smaller stations optimised for each purpose would've been more efficient. However, it's in existence and it probably would cost more to start over. Most of the 'cost' of the ISS to the US relates to the Shuttle. The Soyuz/Progress personnel and resupply flights are pretty cheap so far as these things go.

dobbins · Oct 31, 2005

I thought the ISS was a huge mistake when it was still Freedom and building it in that high inclination orbit only compounded the mistake. However I'm one of those old fashioned people who believes in living up to your word if at all possible. Once you reach an agreement, be it a treaty, a contract, or a simple handshake, then you do your utmost to live up to it.

CalliArcale · Oct 31, 2005

I think that's very well said, Dobbins. I agree; we should not break our word. We have made committments to the ISS, for better or for worse. If we back out, we weaken future attempts at collaboration. And the one thing I believe very strongly about the future of manned spaceflight is that if we're to have any real shot of colonizing other worlds, it's going to require a multinational approach. It will be too big a job for any one nation to do it. In my opinion, the best thing we are going to get out of the ISS is the organizational groundwork to make future international manned spaceflight possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dobbins · Oct 31, 2005

Over the years I have see various claims that some other European visited America before Columbus did. These arguments overlook the important point that what mattered about Columbus' voyage is there were follow up trips. It wasn't just a dead end. The tragedy of Apollo is the lack of follow up trips after Apollo 17. A return to the Moon that isn't followed up with a base will relegate it to the status of some European that happened across America before 1492 and never did anything else. The same is true for some high risk mission to Mars that isn't exploited for decades. The next logical step after a return to the Moon is a Moonbase, a far harder and more expensive undertaking than a set of there and back trips to the Moon or Mars. An international Moonbase that would serve as the focal point for exploring the rest of the Moon is the best way of achieving this in a reasonable time span. Other national bases would be far easier to archive at a later date if there is an international base to help support them in their early days. Walking out on the ISS would make it far harder for the USA to be a partner in an international Moonbase.

radarredux · Oct 31, 2005

> I'm one of those old fashioned people who believes in living up to your word if at all possible./i> To play the Devil's advocate here... NASA also promised Congress and the American people they could accomplish ISS for a certain amount of money. They failed and promised they could do it for just a little more money. They failed again and promised again they could do it for a few more billion dollars. They failed again. NASA and the STS/ISS contractors have continuously broken their promises to Congress and the American tax payers. Why should European be treated differently? Should NASA and STS/ISS contractors work for free until they fulfill their obligations? If NASA and STS/ISS contractors promised to work for free (or had been forced to remain in a fixed budget), I would have no problems with them continuing to work on ISS. /> Once you reach an agreement, be it a treaty, a contract, or a simple handshake, then you do your utmost to live up to it./i> Continuing the Devil's advocate role: The ISS treaty includes an exit clause. Bailing out of ISS does not break the treaty. Typically a treaty or agreement only remains in place when it provides benefits to both sides. For example, the ABM treaty with Russia made since when Russia was the primary threat, but with North Korea, Iran, and other countries developing ICBM capabilities, the US decided to exit from the ABM treaty. When Russia was in financial trouble in the late 1990s, it defaulted on its debt obligations. It has contractual relationships with others, but when it was no longer in Russia's interest to keep those obligations, it existed from those contracts. There was a near-term price to pay, but over the years Russia has recovered relatively well. It was probably the right decision for Russia.

frodo1008 · Oct 31, 2005

One thing that I sometimes have a problem understanding with the ISS opponents, is this attitude that states that either no science or at best no good science will come of the ISS. Now I would even be quite willing to possibly agree if the ISS was COMPLETED, and there still wasn't any worthwhile science coming out of the ISS. But, people, it is at this moment FAR from being complete! Both many of the labs and much of the power generation capability does not yet exist. Also, I would have to say the one absolute key to getting good science out of the ISS is to increase the number of people on board to at least six. With only two or three people on board the amount of normal maintenance so cuts into science monitoring and operation as to practically destroy any science usefulness for the ISS. However, at least the Europeans and the Russians have stated that they are indeed going to work to giver the ISS this capability. So, with at least six on board, all the projected science lab space available, and the greatest amount of power available that any space craft in history has had, can you still state that the ISS isn't going to accomplish good if not great science? To me at least another very false assumption of the anti ISS group is that congress would take any money thus saved by canceling the ISS, and shutting down the STS system before the planned stop date for the shuttle, and apply that money to the VSE and going on to the moon and Mars? The money will simply go back into the federal treasury. There is the deficit, the war in Iraq, and now the rebuilding after the hurricanes! Even though the amount going back into the federal budget would not even make a start in these areas, the politicians could then say, "Look what good boys and girls we have been, we are cutting the federal budget instead of raising your taxes!" THAT is what will happen to the extra money, and the other programs will not be accelerated even the least amou

radarredux · Oct 31, 2005

> One thing that I sometimes have a problem understanding with the ISS opponents, is this attitude that states that either no science or at best no good science will come of the ISS./i> Just a data point. From today's NASAWatch.com: "As NASA concentrates the use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, some ISS utilization will be deferred. As a result, transitional action is being taken now to reduce and/or discontinue approximately 34 contracts and activities previously planned at $344 million in FY 2006. After termination costs and buyouts, these actions will yield $243 million in FY 2006 that will be applied toward accelerating the CEV and CLV." "Editor's note: I love it when people at NASA use the word "deferred" because they don't have the courage to say that something is being "cancelled." With these actions, NASA is walking away from a substantial portion of its ISS research portfolio - a portfolio it has been using to justify the space station itself for decades./b>"

JonClarke · Oct 31, 2005

"People have had to be carried on streachers after a 6 month stay in microgravity and needed over a month to recover to the point where they could perform full duties. " This is a common misconception. Unless the crew have been very slack with their exercise regime they can walk of the shuttle and climb out of Soyuz, as required, and have done so. The whole stretcher thing is for the benefit of the medical researchers, who like to subject those returning to a full battery of tests in a condition as close to there conditrion in space as possible. They really don't like people who climb down the stairs at the end of their mission, like Shannon Lucid, or a one-armed handstand during his post flight press onference, like Yuri Romanenko after 322 days in space. Also remember that the medical researchers get funding by stressing that it is an unknown problem, not by saying it is a manageable issue, which it is. I am not saying that there is no scope for improvements or better insights. But it is really hard to get information on post missions recovery times. The actual time taken to recover varies according to the individual (and whether or not they have cheated on their ercise regime). Different physiological and neurological systems take differing lengths of time to reajust. The cardiovascular system readjusts in hours, bones in months. As I said, it is really hard to get actual statements on this, if you have a good source if would be appreciated. Actual practice and experience is a good guide. The Russians consider that a person is fully fit for duty in 2 weeks. However most people also take several weeks well earned leave on top of this. I read an abstract, I think from an LPI conference, some months ago, that summarised astronaut experience and said a couple o days to a week would be adequate for a Mars mission. But I have not been able to relocate this, despite much searching. if the pratical readju <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Oct 31, 2005

International participation also got the program an existing resupply craft and crew ferry/lifeboat, space tried technology and years of long duration expertise. Without Soyuz and Progress a US only station would have either reentered by now, thanks to the last two shuttle missions, or be an orbiting mausoleum - assuming it had been built at all. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

dobbins · Oct 31, 2005

Take whatever you see on NASA Watch or any other space ref site with a huge grain of salt. They are all run by a disgruntled former employee who hasn't gotten over getting caught in a RIF for space station Freedom. The man has an ax to grind and he grinds it every chance he gets by using spin to cast NASA management in the worst possible light. Getting news from NASA Watch is like getting your news from Rush Limbaugh.

radarredux · Oct 31, 2005

> Take whatever you see on NASA Watch or any other space ref site with a huge grain of salt./i> NASAWatch.com and SpaceRef.com have been pretty dead-on with the information they have provided. Also, the NASAWatch.com seems to have a lot of inside information that I haven't seen anywhere else. Here is the link for the more detailed information: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18512 By the way, the information supposedly comes from NASA Office of Exploration Systems.

dobbins · Oct 31, 2005

Didn't you notice how inaccurate NASA Watch's story was about there only being 8 shuttle flights left? Some stuff that was placed a TENTATIVE schedule last year wasn't granted funding. Cowing is making it sound like NASA is gutting long standing programs, which is typical of the slant he applies to his coverage.

ISS Debate

spacester

Guest

dobbins

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

spaceiscool

Guest

dobbins

Guest

dobbins

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spaceiscool

Guest

spacester

Guest

nacnud

Guest

nacnud

Guest

nacnud

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

dobbins

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dobbins

Guest

radarredux

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

radarredux

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

dobbins

Guest

radarredux

Guest

dobbins

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page