No Science for ISS ?

[radarredux]

In response to the National Academy of Science's National Research Council's report about NASA not having the funds to do its job, Griffin (supposedly) sends out the following (emphasis added):<br /><br />"<i>We may NOT be able to fund that activity at present; <b><font color="yellow">I consider that almost a fact on the ground.</font>/b> But we can put in place the kind of peer-reviewed science that we WOULD do, given the money, and that we WILL do, when we can afford it.</b></i>"<br /><br />It seems that under the current budget plans, America isn't planning on doing much science on ISS.<br /><br />In general, I like the stories on NRC's report and Griffin's reply. I just wish NASA already had a full response (i.e., what to do when ISS is built or when we return to the Moon) ready to go by now.<br /><br />NRC Stories:<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19764<br />http://www.space.com/news/ap_060504_nasa_science_report.html<br /><br />Griffin's supposed email in response:<br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html

 

[josh_simonson]

Since the US paid the most for the station itself, it's not unreasonable to expect the partners to pay for most of the science. If the science were truely valuable, industry would be paying to send research projects up themselves.

 

[JonClarke]

Science is being done on the ISS and will continue to be done on the ISS. Several have been several thousand papers already on the work to date. And is not even finished. The "no science on the ISS" story is a lie, started by those who are opposed to the project. <br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The "no science on the ISS" story is a lie, started by those who are opposed to the project.</font>/i><br /><br />Like Griffin? Like the National Academy of Sciences?</i>

 

[JonClarke]

The NAS is not opposed to the ISS, it supports it. Read the reports, it thinks it could be better used. Griffin? Apart from some out of context attributions in an interview, I seriously doubt he does.<br /><br />Google Scholar returns over 10,000 references to science on the ISS. Scirus other 2,000 journal references. Experiment lists and programs are found in the websites of NASA, ESA, and various Russian agencies. I assume they can be found on the relevant Brazialian and Japanese sites as well. The NASA sites also list publications. I repeat, saying that no science gets done on the ISS is a lie, and insulting to those who work on the project. I have no more to say on the subject.<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>

 

[spayss]

There was 'manipulation' to get funding for the ISS. The real value is the technology of keeping humans in Space and the response to unexpected challenges, etc. This, however, is a 'no go' yawner for the public so it was sold under a veneer of science that has little value in itself apart from the human technology element. The scientific community sees through the charade and doesn't approve or need grade school level experiments of little or no value. Unfortunately the real value, space technology, just can't be reduced to a dumbed-down level to where the public can understand it.

 

[scottb50]

Pretty much. <br />I think the need to expand outward is inate, it's been done since the beginning, multiple times. Unless your the American President there is little land, here on Earth left to conquer. The only outlet is LEO and beyond.<br /><br />If we could just figure out getting to and from LEO we would solve 99% of the problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was under the impression that not much science was possible on the ISS until is is closer to being finished, because (I was told) the crew must spend nearly all of their time on maintenence of the station. I'm glad to hear that useful work is being done.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The crew cannot devote as much time to science as was in the original plan. It's less science than was planned. But they can still spend a little time at it, and of course there are experiments which actually run unattended or with minimal human intervention. The station can do science, the station is doing science. It's just not anywhere near what could be acheived with a crew of seven.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Perhaps NASA ought to be promoting this information more widely to counter some false impressions.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, one of NASA's biggest problems is in countering that sort of thing. It's not an easy problem to solve. I mean, they get lots of public misconceptions. Should they spend their budget fighting those or doing science? And if they are to fight misconceptions, which ones should they fight first? I'm not sure I'd be able to make that decision myself, so I can't in honesty blame NASA for not making the decision. But you're right -- it's a problem. NASA's budget is controlled by elected officials whose contituents generally have a false impression of NASA's work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Typically, about 5-15 hours a week is done on research depending on what else is going on performing dozens of experiments. Sometimes more.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Typically, about 5-15 hours a week is done on research depending on what else is going on performing dozens of experiments. Sometimes more.</font>/i><br /><br />Prior to the ISS crew being downsized from 3 to 2, NASA was estimating that about 0.5 person time per week was devoted to science, and 2.5 was devoted to maintaining ISS itself. 5-15 hours per week would still jive with that.<br /><br />But that would also jive with the "man-tended" approach to micro-gravity research. A lot of experiments and science can potentially be done without needing a lot of human interaction.<br /><br />Although, IMHO the real point of the two articles I originally posted was that ISS will be under utilized unless Congress coughs up more money. In other words, Griffin is angling for more money for space, and the National Academy of Science is essentially backing this.</i>