ISS National Laboratory starts taking shape

[radarredux]

One of the ways NASA is trying to get use out of ISS is to make it a "national laboratory", where other government and commercial organizations can conduct (and fund) research on ISS. Apparently the first deal (with the NIH) is about to be signed!<br /><br />NASA and NIH Partner for Health Research in Space<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23484<br />

 

[j05h]

It might be a real "research station" after all. It means that ISS will be used for what it was intended. This is the only path forward that can keep ISS (US segment) functioning after 2016. <br /><br />The general interpretation of the NASA charter is that NASA blazes trails then goes on to new things. NIH agreeing to utilize ISS is part of that process. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[askold]

<b>The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S segment of the ISS as a national laboratory and directed NASA to develop a plan to "increase the utilization of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector…" </b><br /><br />It's odd that this designation would be made so late in the game - wasn't that the original intention? If not, what was the intended role of ISS - to just run NASA experiments?

 

[j05h]

<i>> It's odd that this designation would be made so late in the game - wasn't that the original intention? If not, what was the intended role of ISS - to just run NASA experiments?</i><br /><br />It's not odd, IMHO, it's not even late. NASA needs to finish the station before other entities can effectively use it. Starting this process now gives NIH and others the time in planning and budget cycles to start using it. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I keep telling people such as askold these things, but NONE of the manned space flight, NASA. shuttle or ISS critics ever make the attempt to even listen at all to the facts!<br /><br />Fact one, is the ISS is NOT yet completed (just as you stated). In its present condition it has only the ability to have three people on board at a time. This severely limits the astronaut time for experiments, as a certain amount of time is necessary just for maintenance and continued building of the station itself.<br /><br />Fact two, is that by the end of next year the station will be fully capable of handling some six people safely. This then frees up a whole lot more time for experiments, including those of other US agencies than NASA, and of course projects for the other partners also.<br /><br />Fact three, by the end of 2010 (assuming that all goes as planned) the station will be at its completed state, and THEN the other entities that wish to experiment can really get to work!<br /><br />Is all this too very difficult to understand?<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's odd that this designation would be made so late in the game - wasn't that the original intention? If not, what was the intended role of ISS - to just run NASA experiments?</font>/i><br /><br />NASA's vision for its space station has changed over time, especially if you look back as far as 1984 when building a space station was officially kicked off.<br /><br />The same could be same with NASA moon vision today. If you carefully read their documents and speeches, NASA talks about <i><b>developing the ability</b></i> to build a lunar base or developing the ability to put up radio telescopes on the far side of the moon. But NASA doesn't actually say it <i><b>will</b></i> build these things, and Griffin has said these actual applications will be for later Congresses and Presidents to decide.</i>

 

[holmec]

Wow. That's great news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

OK - thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />Because the statement ... directed NASA to develop a plan to "increase the utilization of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector…" could be interpreted by the cynical among us as a solution looking for a problem.<br /><br />Good thing I'm not cynical ....

 

[frodo1008]

When the ISS is up and running at its full capacity, and THEN if it isn't being fully utilized by not only NASA and other US government agencies, but also the agencies of Japan, Russia, and the European union, THEN I will be glad to join you in complaining loudly about it!<br /><br />But that condition will not be reached until at least 2010, so in the meantime why not just wait and see what happens? <br /><br />OK?

 

[vulture2]

Nice. We'll declare it a "National Laboratory" just in time to close it down, or, hopefully, turn it over to other countries willing to support it, so we can use the money to finance the return to the moon. Or .... we'll spend tens of billions to replace the Shuttle with the CEV, which has virtually no life science payload capacity, then cancel the return to the moon so we can use the CEV as a taxi to the ISS.<br /><br />I do not see any funding attached to this agreement. NIH already rejects over 90% of qualified proposals, many of them real medical advances that could really save lives, and NIH research funding has been flat under the current administration. Does anyone seriously think NIH has the spare resources to devote to something as expensive as the ISS? I would suggest that the many researchers who have put blood, sweat and tears into NIH proposals and been rejected would not think so. <br /><br />NIH has previously signed partnerships with NASA that have produced little of substance, and it is difficult to see how this is anything more than an attempt to get favorable publicity for both agencies. Hey, I'm not getting cynical again, am I?<br />

 

[askold]

12 years to build (at least), then 6 years of operation. The list of experiments is always the same - long duration in space studies and microgravity experiments.<br /><br />It's hard not to be cynical.

 

[docm]

Exactly. Other than getting itself built I've seen nothing from ISS that couldn't have been done with an enhanced Skylab. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I've seen nothing from ISS that couldn't have been done with an enhanced Skylab.</font>/i><br /><br />Except Skylab isn't up there anymore. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[vulture2]

A good point. The ISS is _the_ space station. Can the ISS do useful work? I don't know. I am cynical. But the ISS is in some ways a remarkable achievement. If we can't find something useful that humans can do in LEO there is no chance whatsoever that we will find anything useful that humans can do on the Moon that robots can't do at a fraction of the cost. So I suggest we start thinking, and not just about studies of whether humans can live and work in LEO. They can. Case closed. Let's use our imagination.<br /><br />

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">If we can't find something useful that humans can do in LEO there is no chance whatsoever that we will find anything useful that humans can do on the Moon that robots can't do at a fraction of the cost.</font><br /><br />LEO and geology are apples and oranges.<br /><br />Name me one researcher that thinks a robot can do better, faster lunar/Martian geology than a human geologist on the scene with a pick, basic lab and electric car. <br /><br />What Apollo really needed was a platoon of Harrison Schmitts, and Mars is no different. Yes, the rovers have done great work but they are no replacement for a geologists trained eyes and on-scene lab. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"The list of experiments is always the same - long duration in space studies and microgravity experiments. "<br /><br />That statement can only be made if you dont' actually look at the list of experiments! Two of the biggest science payloads (Smoke and Aerosol Measurement Experiment and Analyzing Interferometer for Ambient Air) are development projects for CEV and not long term medical or microg. And that is only 2 examples. Criticize if you want - but please use facts.

 

[askold]

Gimme a break. That's an ISS habitat maintenance activity. Smoke/fire detection and air purification. Hardly breakthrough science.<br /><br />I am informed about science on ISS - I read about it in NASA reports:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168737main_AIAA_2007_ISSandVision.pdf<br /><br />"Long-duration" appears 7 times in the 29-page slideshow and "microgravity" 8 times.

 

[qso1]

The very first page of the ISS link you posted mentions one of the things I think ISS is well suited for. Research into long duration (Did I say that too many times)spaceflight effects on humans. Research that will be required to undertake human missions to mars. No doubt ISS took much longer to build than planned. No doubt it costs more than planned. No doubt it could have been built much more efficiently but the reality is that it wasn't, for whatever reason. Best thing now is to make the best of it that we can and the best use I can see for any space station for now, is research focusing on expanded human space activity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i> Smoke/fire detection and air purification. Hardly breakthrough science.</i><br /><br />And your expertise for judging what is, and is not, break through science is what, precisely?<br /><br />Air quality and smoke detection are very important issues in human space flight. How do you know that this research will not results in significanct improvements in these fields? <br /><br />Or are you simply anti human spaceflight and therefore think such research is unimportant? I suspect that anyone who considers the possibility of a year or more in a spacecraft would this an improtant study, even if it does not make headlines. But then, most research, even very good research, doesn't.<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>

 

[erioladastra]

"That's an ISS habitat maintenance activity"<br /><br />No they are not. ISS already has those things - this is strictly for future vehicles.<br /><br />I will take you word on those counts - but you don't seem to count that there are many other experiments that don't fall into those 2 categories.

 

[frodo1008]

The capabilities of a space facility with six people and more power and volume by at least twice what has ever gone before (to say nothing of entire countries that could use it) almost guarantee truly vast experimentation. After all, isn't that why we built the facility in the first place?<br /><br />The entire area of materials processing leading in to space manufacturing (for space uses itself in the beginning, manufacturing for Earth uses will come much later) is vast in itself. <br /><br />How do you process Lunar Regolith or the materials from NEOS into metals and oxygen in space?<br /><br />Further, how do you machine such metals in free fall conditions?<br /><br />Then, how do you maneuver such manufactured goods into large structures in space?<br /><br />These and hundreds (if not thousands) of other very important questions must be answered before even private industry (probably answered by that same private industry renting out the ISS facilities from the governments that built it) can begin to push human industry into a true space faring civilization.<br /><br />The IDEAL place to find the answers to such questions will be such a facility as the ISS. <br /><br />Do you really think that pure for profit industry is not going to take advantage of this?<br /><br />Please note askold that NONE of this vastly important experimentation requires scientific breakthroughs, just a whole lot of hard work and experimentation. And the given results will be worth far, far more than the expenditure to build and maintain this facility!<br /><br />And neither does this depend on idealism, just pure capitalism and human greed in general. And THAT is a guarantee my friend!<br /><br />