ISS discoveries

brandbll · Jun 18, 2006

I'm just wondering, what major scientific advances the ISS has contributed to that weren't covered by earlier space stations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

JonClarke · Jun 18, 2006

Goggle scholar identifies ~10,000 papers published from the ISS program. Most of these would be on new results. 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>

brandbll · Jun 18, 2006

Come on, how hard could it be to point out some major accomplishments!? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

JonClarke · Jun 18, 2006

Your orginal question was what have been the "major scientific advances" of the ISS The ISS research is in fields that are not my area of expertise, so it's not for me to say what is significant. However you now have changed the requirment to "major accomplishments". This is a different request to the original. Just some of these, IMHO, are the assembly of the largest and most complex spacecraft in history, getting more than a dozen nations to work together on this project (some former enemies), The completion and publication of research by crew in orbit, becoming a regular destination for commercial passengers (although there was one such passenger to Mir) and maturing of the US space program to the point of accepting 6 month missions and continuous space habitation as routine. 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>

dragon04 · Jun 18, 2006

Personally, I find the ISS as an ill conceived notion compared to the same project being applied to a moon base and settlement. I don't know the exact to-date costs of the ISS, but it seems to me that for the same price, we could have 2 or 3 people manning a lunar outpost for the same money. The needed technology is almost 40 years old. And the potential benefits of being in situ on the Moon speak for themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

doubletruncation · Jun 18, 2006

From the physics side of things, there have been plans to fly a number of experiments on the ISS that would test lorentz symmetry and probe for beyond the standard model of particle physics. In particular the AMS experiment will search for very high energy cosmic rays (the existence of such particles is perhaps at odds with our current understanding of particle physics/cosmology). I don't know how many of these missions have actually flown so far, but they have been planned. My impression is that most of the experiments done on the ISS are on the biology/human adability to weightlessness side of things - I really don't know what advances have been made on that end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jun 18, 2006

Some anti-matter detection experiments have already been flown and the results published. You can find them with google scholar. 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>

brandbll · Jun 18, 2006

"My impression is that most of the experiments done on the ISS are on the biology/human adability to weightlessness side of things - " Wasn't this accomplished by other space stations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

enigma10 · Jun 19, 2006

possibly the biggest discovery still being discovered is if over a dozen countries can work together to accomplish one goal, no matter the political strife that may exist. That in itself is worth it all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

ve7rkt · Jun 19, 2006

> I don't know the exact to-date costs of the ISS, but it seems to me that for the same price, we could have 2 or 3 people manning a lunar outpost for the same money. It'd be pretty tough. Launching your station components to LEO: ~8.6km/s Launching and returning crew capsule: ~8.8km/s Launching your base components to Lunar surface: ~14.9km/s Launching and returning crew: ~21.4km/s Numbers taken from this image on this page, using a 0.2km/s deorbit burn and aerobraking from LEO to Earth surface.

JonClarke · Jun 19, 2006

"Wasn't this accomplished by other space stations?" Research is never "accomplished". Each project sets the stage for the next level of investigation. The first investigations (Salyut 1, Skylab) let to later investigations in the early Shuttle science missions and on Salyuts 3-6. These led the work on Mir and the later Shuttle missions, these in turn formed the basis for ISS research. If research was "accomplished" so easily nobody would have been back to the Moon after the first Luna missions or to Mars after the Mariners. 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>

vandivx · Jun 19, 2006

if you have to ask about what came off it (ISS), that means that nothing important came off it, else it would have been touted so loud nobody could miss it. As with anything, one has to look at what it cost, I am sure ISS can be defended by showing some results that we wouldn't have had otherwise but at what cost, that is the question. IMO the cost doesn't warrant what might have been 'purchased' by it. I see ISS as illconcieved boondogle that in aftersight nobody would go into building it but its too late now as money is sunk in it and it will be like financial black hole till somebody courageous enough will give it mercifull last blow on day (lets hope it will be sooner than later) and abandon it, in meantime its yesterdays technology will continue always to be patched with todays technology in everloosing race to catch up and there will be no end to it times are simply not ripe for permanent station in orbit yet, not with our so far too feeble means of getting to orbit. vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

harmonicaman · Jun 19, 2006

vanDivX - "I see ISS as illconcieved boondogle that in aftersight nobody would go into building it but its too late now as money is sunk in it and it will be like financial black hole till somebody courageous enough will give it merciful last blow and abandon it..." I pretty much agree with your assessment. If there was unlimited public support and funding available for space exploration this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, the reality is that our national priorities have shifted away from space exploration. In light of the severe funding limitations, the ISS and STS are indeed too expensive because they eat up all the money that would be better spent on other space science ventures. When the ISS was first conceived, it seemed like a great idea; but the Bush administration has blown the national treasury on foreign meddling and we can no longer comfortably afford the luxury of our costly manned space program. I'm hoping that down the road things will change and space science will again receive the funding it deserves and we will be able to fully fund both manned and unmanned space ventures... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

JonClarke · Jun 20, 2006

"if you have to ask about what came off it (ISS), that means that nothing important came off it, else it would have been touted so loud nobody could miss it. " How many people could name major discoveries from the billions spent on polar or ocean research? Just because the average person is unaware of what has been achieved does not mean that the work is unimportant. "I see ISS as illconcieved boondogle that in aftersight nobody would go into building it but its too late now as money is sunk in it and it will be like financial black hole till somebody courageous enough will give it mercifull last blow on day (lets hope it will be sooner than later) and abandon it, in meantime its yesterdays technology will continue always to be patched with todays technology in everloosing race to catch up and there will be no end to it" So how would you learn to how to live and work in space? Specifically to obtain the necessary knowledge in space radiation and microgravity medicine, space assembly and operations, management of long duration and continuously operated human space missions, and the design and operation of life support systems for such missions. "times are simply not ripe for permanent station in orbit yet, not with our so far too feeble means of getting to orbit." You may not have noticed but permanant stations have been about for the last 20 years and periodically crewed ones for 35. This is not premature technology. This should not degenerate into another ISS bashing thread, there are lots of those already. It should be to discuss the science results. 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>

vandivx · Jun 20, 2006

What I meant is that if some decent discoveries were made that could be pointed to being due to space station and only to it, then it would be touted so much and so loud that even common folks would hear about it because there's many out there who would like to show it is all justified. Still there is probably some value as you guys say, its just that it is very dearly bought value, perhaps so dearly that it is not worth it. Problem of such large project like ISS is that technology gets obsolete on it by the time another section of it gets put together and you'd wish to redo what was done few years back or at least upgrade it (which may be actually necessity) and it is loosing race with time, we can't go up there often enough and with enough of payload to properly develop and likely even maintain project like that. It was different with previous smaller projects that got flown up once and were more or less complete right away. We should also have enough of learning from those smaller projects and from space shuttle trips to make a 'fast jaunt to Mars and back' because that's what it will be, I would think that this 'further' research is motivated by excessive concerns for well being of potential astronauts that would really be warranted if we already would be making more or less regular trips to planets with large crews and that is not the case yet and won't be for some generations yet, very likely. With current approach of doing things NASA way, mountain climbers would never have conquered mountains as they did and do, they would still be stuck on the level of studying aclimatizing of human body at high elevations now LOL (and potential Columbuses would have stayed on shore studying long term effects on human life of sailing on ocean faring boats), I mean that if you expect to return from 8k mountain or Mars healthy like a fish and not risk anything serious, even your life, then you better not go. I am sure there would be astron <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 21, 2006

What I meant is that if some decent discoveries were made that could be pointed to being due to space station and only to it, then it would be touted so much and so loud that even common folks would hear about it because there's many out there who would like to show it is all justified. Unfortunately, a lot of people do think that way -- that fame is an indicator of quality. But a lot of very critical research is being done, and not just on ISS, but the average Joe doesn't know a thing about it. This is for two reasons: 1) the average Joe isn't particularly interested, and 2) scientists, by and large, are more interested in research than in tooting their own horns. They're not going to waste effort advertising their latest discovery. Not when that effort could be spent furthering the discovery and learning even more. Besides, what's the yardstick for a "decent discovery"? Most people would have a hard time understanding the point of neutrino research. It's pure physics; today, it doesn't really have much of a point beyond understanding our universe better and what makes the Sun tick. But it might pay off decades or centuries down the line when we can finally usefully exploit fusion for power generation. There are huge discoveries being made all the time. But you're not going to find out about very many of them if you just sit passively and wait for it to be mentioned on the evening news. And if you do hear about a discovery this way, odds are you won't get a very good picture of it. The media doesn't tend to do a very good job on science stories, alas. I don't think it's really fair to pillory the ISS for that. So CNN ignores them when things aren't going wrong. It's not their fault. In fact, it's completely beyond their control. NASA puts out wonderful news releases, but they can't make the media do anything with them. If you do want to pillory the ISS for being a waste of money, take the time to fin <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>

doubletruncation · Jun 21, 2006

Wasn't this accomplished by other space stations? With much more room I think you can perform more experiments at once, and with a permanent space station you can run long term experiments (something you can't do with individual missions, or with a jet on a parabolic trajectory). I am no expert on the ISS by any means, but looking at the results from the google scholar search Jon mentioned, it seems like there are many "small" results. There are many small experiments that you might want to do or simple ideas that you might want to test, and having a permanent laboratory makes all the little experiments much more feasible than if you had to build a separate satellite to fly each one. So I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any single big results that you can point to, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the cummulative effect of having such a resource is fairly significant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jun 21, 2006

I agree, it is very expensive. And it is hard to compare research value. For example I could do a study of the regolith in the Tidbinbilla hills about 30 minutes from here or a similar study in the Vestfold Hills in Antarctica. Similar studies in terms of methodology and time input, but one is perhaps two or three orders of magntiude more expensive than the other because of the logistics. Which is more valuable as a piece of research depends on your assessment criteria. Obsolesence once built is a problem of any research infrastructure, it is not unique to the ISS. However the It is not the basic structure that is obsolete, but rather individual systems and experiments, most of these are designed for replacement, so it's not a big problem, as I understand. If we are to send people to Mars and the NEAs we are going to need the knowledge of radiation medicine, microgravity conditioning, orbital assembly, high reliability semi-closed life support systems and all the issues of management of long duration spaceflight. Even a sprint mission to Mars is going to take 12 months round trip. I can't see any way of learning these skills except on a platform such as the ISS. It need not have been the ISS, in an alternate history it could have been Mir 2, or Freedom, or both. But the ISS is what we have so we had better use it. Remember that even Columbus did not set sail with untried ships, but relied on almost a century of ocean navigation expertise. 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>

vandivx · Jun 21, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Basically I think those money would be better spent on sponsoring basic physical discoveries of potential next new Newtons, Einsteins etc., because we need some serious advances in basic physics before we might be able to do enough space exploring that would warrant any such thorough research of long term space exposure on living organism.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The ISS experiments are not exclusively biological. There are physics experiments too. Your comment is interesting, because it implies you feel that pure physics is worth spending money on. Yet you object to a mission which in your opinion simply hasn't been jazzy enough. Perhaps you simply feel that physics is more important than biology?<hr /></blockquote>I just can't get rid of this sense that our means of traveling to orbit are too primitive and inadequate for us to effectively run something like ISS out there. And that's where the high costs come in. And getting to orbit more sensibly will take some basic (and major at the same time) physics advances, not biology (with adendum - it is conceivable that biology might be the way although that smacks of science fiction almost). I see science of physics sorely lagging behing sciences like biology for example. Last time things were really 'moving' in physics was over fifty years ago. Its not like I don't see tons of very good and usefull physics discoveries made in the past half century but they are not fundamental discoveries, it seems like we are waiting all that time for somebody to open gates to new horizons in physics on which then another multitude of scientists will be able to make their own smaller and not so basic discoveries for another half of century. And hopefully those gates leading to new horizons would include or lead in some way to better ways of getting up there to orbit. Of course there is always som <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Jun 21, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If we are to send people to Mars and the NEAs we are going to need the knowledge of radiation medicine, microgravity conditioning, orbital assembly, high reliability semi-closed life support systems and all the issues of management of long duration spaceflight. Even a sprint mission to Mars is going to take 12 months round trip. I can't see any way of learning these skills except on a platform such as the ISS. It need not have been the ISS, in an alternate history it could have been Mir 2, or Freedom, or both. But the ISS is what we have so we had better use it. Remember that even Columbus did not set sail with untried ships, but relied on almost a century of ocean navigation expertise. Jon<hr /></blockquote> well, then I would call the manned mission to Mars (that necessitates the ISS) as another boondogle except that if it happens, it will be the climax of this long development and the very adventure of it will make people forget the costs. And they better forget them. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I still can't see the development of ocean going ships leading up to Columbus trip as analogous to ISS and trip to Mars. ISS is 'laboratory' any way you look at it but those ships before Columbus were always practical undertakings in their own right, the shipmakers and their financiers didn't gangup in years leading up to an anticipated Columbus jurney and didn't launch some boat anchored far offshore to use it to study long term effects on human organism of long stay on rolling boat, how their knee joints will take it and how they will overcome long periods of close confinement and lonelines LOL and how to prevent afflictions of scurvy (or what was the name of that famous disease) etc., they just went along with whatever they got out of it at the time and got experience from it and boat builders got better at building boats and it lead slowly to Columbus trip when the t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

brandbll · Jun 21, 2006

Ok i got a couple of questions. First off, when you talk about physics experiments, couldn't teh results of a lot of those experiments be affected by the other forces caused by the rotation and what not of the Earth? Basically, isn't there a good possibility some of those experiments could have very different results outside our Earth's orbit? Secondly, i see a lot of talk about radiation medicines and what not, but isn't the ISS low enough to still be protected for the most part by our magnetic field? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

robnissen · Jun 21, 2006

The Space Shuttle exists for one reason: to go to the ISS (and yes I know it has serviced Hubble and a few other missions, but that is not its main purpose). The ISS exists for one reason: to give the Space Shuttle some place to go. NASA lost its way (in terms of manned space flight) in the '70s, when it decided to put all its eggs in the Space Shuttle basket. The Space Shuttle was never about science, it was about politics. The Space Shuttle was a massive jobs program for govt. contractors and it was sold in Congress as a jobs program, not a science program. (In fact, I was offered a job by IBM in 1982 after I recieved my masters in Comp. Sci. to work on the shuttle). The Space Shuttle was sold as a cheap $20 Million/flight way to get in space. But those numbers were crap then, and everyone knew it. The actual cost came in around $500 Million per launch (not counting the cost of the orbiters) and now its up to about $650 Million. This is not 20/20 hindsight, the very famous Easterbrook article discussed all these issues in 1980, including a pretty chilling description of both Shuttle disasters. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html Unfortunately, we can't go backwards, and it is true for our $100 billion we got 10,000 papers (a mere $10 Million PER PAPER!!!!), but for that kind of money we should have got a lot more. It is now spilt milk, but I don't think the ISS can be justified based on 10,000 papers at a cost of $10 Million a piece.

JonClarke · Jun 21, 2006

"well, then I would call the manned mission to Mars (that necessitates the ISS) as another boondogle except that if it happens, it will be the climax of this long development and the very adventure of it will make people forget the costs. And they better forget them." Am I correct from this in concluding you are therefore opposed to all human spaceflight? That's OK, I think you a wrong, and that's OK too. But that's not the discussion here. The discussion is supposed to be about what the results of the ISS to date have been. the value or otherwise of human spaceflight have been (and aree being) discussed elsewhere. Same with whether or not it is value for money. "I still can't see the development of ocean going ships leading up to Columbus trip as analogous to ISS and trip to Mars. ISS is 'laboratory' any way you look at it but those ships before Columbus were always practical undertakings in their own right, the shipmakers and their financiers didn't gangup in years leading up to an anticipated Columbus jurney and didn't launch some boat anchored far offshore to use it to study long term effects on human organism of long stay on rolling boat, how their knee joints will take it and how they will overcome long periods of close confinement and lonelines LOL and how to prevent afflictions of scurvy (or what was the name of that famous disease) etc., they just went along with whatever they got out of it at the time and got experience from it and boat builders got better at building boats and it lead slowly to Columbus trip when the time was ripe." No historical analogy is perfect. But there was a long research program to develop ocean going ships on the Iberian peninusula in the 15th century. Henry the navigator is a fascinating character. And you are right, they did not worry about the human factors stuff much in the 15th century. But then a voyage was successful if anyone came back. Magellan's circumnavigation is a case in point. <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 · Jun 21, 2006

"Secondly, i see a lot of talk about radiation medicines and what not, but isn't the ISS low enough to still be protected for the most part by our magnetic field?" Most of the protection against cosmic radiation we experience on the earth's surface is from the atmosphere, not the magnetic field. The atmosphere provides ~ 1000 g/cm2 of shielding, equivalent to 3 m of solid rock. As far as cosmic rays are concerned, LEO exposures are roughly half what you would experience in interplanetary space, equivalent to what yould be experienced on the surface on Mars or the Moon. This is because of nadir shielding from the earth. The terrestrial magnetic field provides some protection against the solar wind, but not complete. During solar flares the crew of the ISS spend most of them time in the most shielded parts of the complex. 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>

JonClarke · Jun 21, 2006

"The Space Shuttle exists for one reason: to go to the ISS..." Wrong. the Shuttle was conceived near 30 years before the ISS and mas flown a vast range of missions in addition to those to the ISS. "The ISS exists for one reason: to give the Space Shuttle some place to go...." Also wrong. The ISS exists because for 30 years the human spaceflight community in NASA, ESA, Japan and Russia have pushed for a permanat station in LEO as an essential project. Such a facility has existed for the past 20 years. The end of the cold war made it eminently desirable to collaborate on the latest iteration, rather than building separate stations. "Unfortunately, we can't go backwards, and it is true for our $100 billion we got 10,000 papers (a mere $10 Million PER PAPER!!!!), but for that kind of money we should have got a lot more. It is now spilt milk, but I don't think the ISS can be justified based on 10,000 papers at a cost of $10 Million a piece." Factually wrong. The ISS has not yet cost 100 billion. That's is lifetime cost to 2017. To date it has cost about half this. By the time it does cost 100 billion a whole lot more research will have been published, and results will continue to emerge long after the complex has been deorbited. Using the same search methodology, Apollo generated 6000 papers in the past 30 years. At ~50 billion in today's terms, that is 8 million a paper. In both the case of the ISS and Apollo the results being published are ones that would have been difficult to obtain in any other way. 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>

ISS discoveries

brandbll

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

brandbll

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

dragon04

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

brandbll

Guest

enigma10

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vandivx

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vandivx

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vandivx

Guest

vandivx

Guest

brandbll

Guest

robnissen

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page