ISS discoveries

[spayss]

"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"<br /><br />More or les true. The discoveries in my field, chemistry, are ZILCH. any experiments, papers, etc. just confirmed what we already know. Better science could be accomplished in a high school lab.<br /><br /> Unfortunately the ISS cultists will support the ISS even when faced with these facts. Zealots with religious blindness. I see any value in the ISS as developing a technology to keep humans in space over an extended time...period. Everything else is amateurish drivel for justifying the tens of billions spent. The sad part is 98% of Americans couldn't tell you anything about the ISS and, if pressed, probably see it similar the Enterprise on Star Trek whizzing around. Even the public relations aspect has been a colossal flop. With the shuttle fiasco and the ISS sinkhole, the American people are even less informed about manned space exploration than 30 year ago.<br /><br /> On the positive side we've confirmed that man living is space is a great challenge and a reality check about any potential base on theMoon or 'some day

 

[JonClarke]

"The discoveries in my field, chemistry, are ZILCH. any experiments, papers, etc. just confirmed what we already know."<br /><br />Obviously the reviewers of the papers disgree or they would not have been accepted for publication.<br /><br />"Better science could be accomplished in a high school lab."<br /><br />Do you have evidence for this assertion? A list of equipment found in a typical high school lab and a list of the equipment aboard the ISS would be a good start. And how many high school labs do you know do microgravity research?<br /><br />"Unfortunately the ISS cultists will support the ISS even when faced with these facts. Zealots with religious blindness."<br /><br />A fine example of a rational argument - not. It is the anti ISS people who are denying the fact that a vast body of work has already been done. <br /><br />"I see any value in the ISS as developing a technology to keep humans in space over an extended time...period. "<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />"Everything else is amateurish drivel for justifying the tens of billions spent."<br /><br /><br />Again the funding agencies think otherwise. Do you have evidence, rather than assertion to support your statement?<br /><br />"The sad part is 98% of Americans couldn't tell you anything about the ISS and, if pressed, probably see it similar the Enterprise on Star Trek whizzing around. Even the public relations aspect has been a colossal flop. With the shuttle fiasco and the ISS sinkhole, the American people are even less informed about manned space exploration than 30 year ago."<br /><br />What has the ignorance to the US public got to do with it. They are also probably more ignorant of what happens inj polar and ocean research than they were 30 years ago too, but that is no reason to cancell those programs. Nor is the ISS exclusively US property. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"The discoveries in my field, chemistry, are ZILCH. any experiments, papers, etc. just confirmed what we already know." <br /><br />Obviously the reviewers of the papers disgree or they would not have been accepted for publication.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Jon, I rather agree with Spayss though I wouldn't have used the strong language that he did. The "classic" chemistry research papers from the ISS so far have been of relatively low impact.<br /><br />That said, there have been some good materials science and surface science research done on ISS, especially back when the station had the staffing to support reasearch. Is this "chemistry"? Arguably, yes.<br /><br />Finally I want to point out that Mir did accomplish some very good materials science and even classic chemistry experiments. <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>

 

[brandbll]

We still haven't seen anyone post any major accomplishments or discoveries made possible by the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks for that, Do you have a feel for what has been the most significant of the materials and surface chemistry work?<br /><br />The point about crew size is also important. Roughly a third of the available crew hours get spent on research. At the moment that means 0.66 crew days per day of occupancy. As of next week it will go up to 1, when finished 2. People do forget that the place is still a building site. How many laboratories are expected (and deliver) research results when still under construction?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

" How many laboratories are expected (and deliver) research results when still under construction? "<br /><br />How many laboratories cost 100 billion dollars? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

No matter how major, those who regard anything in support of the ISS as the work of zealous cultists would dismiss it.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

"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." <br /><br />Flatly wrong. The Space Shuttle dates back to the early 70s, the first serious proposal was 1973. Ronald Reagan announced the ISS (albeit he called it Space Station Freedom) in 1984. 11 years, not 30. Even if you argue that is was "conceived" earlier than 1973, are you prepared to say with a straight face that it was "conceived" in 1954!!! Second, one of the major selling points of the shuttle was that it tripled the lift capability over Delta rockets which would allow the US to assemble a permanent space station.<br /><br />"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." <br /><br /> Also wrong. There already was a permanent space station, it was called MIR, and before that a permanent station (at least for several years) called Skylab. I would have no problem continuing to support a permanent presence along the model of Skylab or Mir, but we have limited resources for space exploration, and putting 95%+ into ISS so we can study the effects of 0 g on insects is not a good use of resources.<br /><br />"The ISS has not yet cost 100 billion." Wrong. When all the Space Shuttle costs are also included the price is well over $100 billion.<br /><br />"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." <br /> True for Apollo (although the Russians didn't do too badly with their unmanned sample return mission), False for ISS. Much of the science to date from the ISS could have been done on MIR. Which, BTW NASA desperately tried to get Russia to decommission early so Russia would provide more resources for the ISS. Just another example that politics, not science, is the driving force behind the ISS.<br /><br />In a world of unlimited sc

 

[silylene old]

The ISS Columbus Lab is devoted to materials science research! Unfortunately, we are still waiting for its launch and mating with ISS (supposed to be 2007). It was much delayed by the crash of Columbia.<br /><br />Also, ISS science has been severely impacted by the skeletal crew staffing.<br /><br />Anyways, some random results of chemical or materials science field from the ISS that I can remember of that had impact:<br />- critical point phase change behavior. This is a fascinating area requiring minimal gravity for study.<br />- homogenous alloys<br />- colloidal behaviors and polymer precipitation below theta conditions (reducing A2)<br />- particle counting and sizing in gases. This actually led to the development of improved counter callibration for measuring nano and microparticles (exhaust emission, e.g.)<br />- coatings studies for materials resistant to heat, light, high energy radiation, oxygen plasma, etc. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the development of long duration spacecraft, both manned and unmanned.<br />- Experimental verification of plume physics and model development in zero g. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the development of new thruster technologies for spacecraft, both manned and unmanned...for example, ion drives!<br />- capillary flow behavior in zero gravity. I recall this had interesting results that resulted in modification of some models.<br />- surface crystallization. I recall some cool pictures of rather bizarre results from a journal article.<br /><br />I believe there was a <i>Science</i> journal published about the yr 2000 which was dedicated to ISS experimental results, mostly physical and surface science, IIRC. <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>