Positives of the ISS

bobblebob · Oct 28, 2007

We hear quite abit of talk in the media and on these forums that the ISS is a waste of money. So what positives have come from the ISS? What (if any) significant scientific breakthrough/discoveries has the ISS brought us? I must admit although i watch closely the construction of the ISS, im not really sure what they do up their on a daily basis

MeteorWayne · Oct 28, 2007

One undeniable benefit is that of the learning process of doing construction in space. Those ~600 hours have taught us an awful lot, which will be invaluable in the "future". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

bobblebob · Oct 28, 2007

True, the construction has taught me an awful lot and im just a spectator <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

docm · Oct 28, 2007

One thing that construction has taught us is that we need to find a simpler, better way to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

flynn · Oct 28, 2007

The long term effects of microgravity on the human body <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - Chuck Palahniuk. </div>

bobblebob · Oct 28, 2007

True, but does it take a $130 billion (source: ESA) space station to find this out? What were the primary objects of the ISS during the planning stage?

themanwithoutapast · Oct 28, 2007

True, but does it take a $130 billion (source: ESA) space station to find this out? What were the primary objects of the ISS during the planning stage? ------------ 1. Build a 7-crew space station (now it is down to 6) and operate for at least 10 years in its complete state. 2. Do research on that station, including biological, material science, medical etc. research. 3. Gain further spacewalk and long duration spaceflight experience. Inofficial: 4. Have a destination for the Shuttle to go to. 5. Recycle the European Columbus orbital station. 6. Get Russia involved and thus strengthen political ties. 7. Keep people working on high-tech spaceflight in the US, ESA, Canada and Japan. I don't remember that anyone said the station needs to yield a positive return on investment, that is yield commercially exploitable science worth more than 130 billion USD.

MeteorWayne · Oct 28, 2007

"I don't remember that anyone said the station needs to yield a positive return on investment, that is yield commercially exploitable science worth more than 130 billion USD. " Very true, it really is a big long experiment, much like most of what manned spaceflight has been by we humans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

docm · Oct 28, 2007

Skylab had a habitable volume of 283 cubic meters. IF that concept had been evolved instead of canceled just 3-4 of them launched using ELV's could have been assembled in relatively short order using hub(s) and we'd have been where we are now decades ago and at a much lower price. As usual: penny wise and pound foolish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

themanwithoutapast · Oct 28, 2007

Skylab had a habitable volume of 283 cubic meters. IF that concept had been evolved instead of canceled just 3 of them could have been assembled in relatively short order using hub(s) and we'd have been where we are now decades ago and at a much lower price. ------------ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E3D6133FF930A25756C0A9659C8B63 According to that article the Skylab project costs were 2.6 billion USD at that time or about 11 billion in 2003 dollars. If you multiple that by 3 (because you said just dock 3 Skylabs) you have 33 billion in 2003 dollars. Looking at what the maintenance costs for the ISS (ground staff costs) are right now, I doubt that those would be much cheaper for a large 3-times Skylab space station. Also, for crew exchange NASA would have required to keep up production of the Apollo capsule and the Saturn. All in all, I somehow doubt that it would have been much cheaper than the ISS project.

JonClarke · Oct 28, 2007

Several Skylabs docked together would not have been equivalent to the ISS. First of all you could not have docked three Skylabs together the structure was wrong. Second, if you did could, the combined strcuture would not have generated anywhere near the power o the ISS. Third, Skylab could not have supported long duration space missions, completely lacking as it was in reboost and resupply capability. Using Apollo hardware you coudl have buot the equivlent of the ISS. But it would have been a completely new spacecraft, equally expensive. 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 · Oct 28, 2007

I think the ISS is a magnificent and aboslutely essential project. I am inspired every tiome a mission goes to the station, when I see it overhead, when I read of its expansion. Are people interested in missions to the planets, exploiting asteriods, developing orbital commerical platforms, or not? If the answer is no, then the ISS is a waste of time. If the answer is yes, then it is not. The ISS builds on experience of earlier state staions like Mir in all these fields and provides a bridge to future spacecraft that will actually use them on missons to Mars and the asteroids, in orbital hotels and other favourites of the altspacers. Ironically, most of the critics seem to support these things. I would very much like to see them find a way of developing orbital construction techniques, long duration space flight experience, plant gowth expertise, long duration life support, and the neccessary management skills without the ISS. they want to run before they can walk. It is my observation that ISS critics fall into one of five categories. 1) The ultranationalists who hate it because it is international. 2) The ideologues who hate it because it is NASA and thus represents government spending. With no ISS they would hate the next big item. 3) The me firsters, who hate it because it is not their project. 4) The anti human space flighters, who hate it because is is manned. If there were no ISS they would attack any human space program. 5) The anti spaceflight lobby who oppose it because it because it is space spending. I have zero sympathy with any of these positions. Does this mean that the ISS is above criticism? of course not. No human enterpriseis. There are lots of things that we now know could have been done differently. But that is why we do things, to learn how do and how not do them. 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>

erioladastra · Oct 28, 2007

"One thing that construction has taught us is that we need to find a simpler, better way to do it. " Based on what assessment, analysis or review?

bobblebob · Oct 28, 2007

I agree with everything, and that the ISS is very important for future space travel, however there may be another reason people are against it and its simply down to cost. Not being from the US i dont know the details of government spending, but here in the UK if the government spend any money on something the public think is wasting money, they will moan. Arguing that money could be spend on more important things like hospitals, schools whatever. People who are interested in space exploration will clearly believe spending the vast amounts Nasa do isnt wasting it. But for the rest of the public who dont care about space exploration in their eyes its wasting a large amount. They dont understand how the government can justify spending billions to build something in space, when there are more important issues on Earth. Even some of my friends and family think this The media will always moan so i jsut ignore things they say

halman · Oct 28, 2007

bobblebob, Outer space is a completely foreign environment, where none of our past experience on Earth can be expected to be applicable. Any serious program of off planet exploration will require knowledge of zero gravity construction techniques, the effects of vacuum on materials, including temperature swings of nearly 400 degrees F., and the long term impact of zero gravity on human beings. When someone first goes into space, their thinking is based entirely upon experience in a 1 gravity field. Not until they have spent some time off planet can they begin to think in terms of zero gravity. A person may know something intellectually, but that knowledge is of limited value until it is backed up with experience. Studying how chemical reactions work in a zero gravity environment, what is possible in materials processing when density differences have no impact, and just looking for things that we have never seen before are all part of the objectives of the International Space Station. What we are learning up there right now will affect everything that we do in the future as we explore off planet. That knowledge is priceless, in a way, because, without it, we have no hope of ever leaving this rock. There are many people who do not see any value in off planet exploration. I believe, personally, that most of them have a mental image of the Earth as being limitless, all of creation, impossible to use up. They think that whatever we need, we can find here on the planet. That used to be true, perhaps, but there are a lot more of us than there used to be, and all of us want a slice of the pie of life. Unless we can make that pie bigger somehow, by utilizing resources outside of our current sphere of activity, everyone's slice is likely to shrink. The ISS is the the first baby step in enlarging the sphere of human activity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

usn_skwerl · Oct 28, 2007

About 1% of earh's water is potable. In the news this morning, three states; Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama were short on water due to drought. Between using the water for crops to feed people, water for animals for people to eat, and people watering their lawns, showers, and other personal uses, it's no surprise we're running short, even if on a local scale for now. Using the ISS as the first baby steps to extending our reach is one thing. I support the idea of one day having spacecraft hundreds of feet (die-hard anti-metric supporter I am!) long to explore space. the knowledge aquired with the ISS is ultimately valuable if we ARE going to build a bigger, better, faster, interstellar capable spacecraft. When it comes to long term evaluation of the bone density issues, the forces imparted by the atmospheric drag, the knowledge is there to determine if we could build an even bigger orbiting lab. Maybe even add nodes to the ISS itsself, turn it into a larger commercial and somewhat private facility. Who knows what else can come from what we've learned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bpfeifer · Oct 28, 2007

"What were the primary objects of the ISS during the planning stage?" I did a little research on this a couple of years ago. The ISS was first concevied as "Space Station Freedom" under the Reagan administration, and it was an outgrowth of the Cold War. As such it was supposed to demonstrate our technical superiority to our Communist enemies and our valuable allies. I was also supposed to have significant commercial facilities, among them was to be a bay for satellite repair (not practical due to orbital mechanics). You'll notice that science was a secondary political reason for construction. Of first importance were international relations and commercial development. Under Clinton, the project budget was ballooning uncontrollably, but we already had commitments to JAXA and ESA. We couldn't really back out, but we didn't need another Cold War monument. So the plan was modified to include Russia, and drastically reduced in scope. It's main political reason for existing is improving international relations (which I believe iss has accomplished), and proving technology, and as previously noted it keeps our high tech industries in business. Again, you'll not that science is not it's primary reason for existing. For those who use ISS, science may be one of the most important things on their mind, but it isn't for those who hold the purse strings. For those who think spaceflight is a waste of money, I'd like to point out the actual NASA budget. I haven't check recently, but in 2005 the US spent more on refugee releif than they did on NASA. It certainly doesn't appear that NASA is a drain on our precious resources. NASA's budget is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of either the Department of Defense, or the Social Security Administration. We spend more on the federal court system then on the national Science budget. NASA's rank on the national budgeting process is very low. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

bobblebob · Oct 28, 2007

"you'll not that science is not it's primary reason for existing" So just like how the 'space race' started, polictics is behind it all. Very interesting post, cheers

docm · Oct 28, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"One thing that construction has taught us is that we need to find a simpler, better way to do it. " Based on what assessment, analysis or review?<hr /></blockquote> That it took so many years to build it using a spaceship that was poorly conceived, as defined by NASA itself. It never met the safety goals, flight rate goals or most certainly the economic goals. Nooo.....instead we build an overly expensive, unsafe, hard to maintain combined crew/cargo system and only now are we getting back to basics....and even that process shows signs of the same poor decision making processes. Using evolved Apollo's and Skylab's (with modules that could be docked to a hub....note the term "evolved" in both cases) on a more economical heavy lifter would have made more sense. Don't like evolved Apollo crew vehicle? How about the Gemini B version called Advanced Big G? Crew = 9+. Launchable on a Titan III All they did to expand Gemini B was extend the spaceships cone to a 4.27 m diameter and add updated systems. Advanced Big Gemini mockup image..... Advanced Big Gemini + lab image..... The point is they had options and didn't make the best of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

erioladastra · Oct 28, 2007

"That it took so many years to build" Keep in mind many of the years of delay were due to Russians. "It never met the safety goals, flight rate goals or most certainly the economic goals. " You are talking Shuttle, this thread is on ISS. Rest of your post irrelevant. As to the other station options - Mir essentially did that and I think ISS will get a heck of a lot more science and research out of it then Mir ever did or could have. But this is one of those 'the road not traveled debate'. Short of going down both at the same time you can never really say which is better. Point me to a peer reviewed published article and I will listen more intently.

docm · Oct 28, 2007

You are talking Shuttle, this thread is on ISS. Rest of your post irrelevant. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> The STS and ISS are so intertwined with each being used to justify the other that they're inseparable. Typical government circular logic. As for peer review; pro-ISS'ers would only accept peer review from NASA, and until recently there was little will do that. Nevertheless Griffin has himself stated that both were mistakes; Tech Republic article.... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake The space shuttle and International Space Station â€” nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades â€” were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday. In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth. "It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can." The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1981. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished â€” in 2010 or later â€” may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that. /> Joe Rothenberg, head of NASA's manned space programs from 1995 to 2001, defended the programs for providing lessons about how to operate in</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Oct 29, 2007

bobblebob, "People who are interested in space exploration will clearly believe spending the vast amounts Nasa do isnt wasting it. But for the rest of the public who dont care about space exploration in their eyes its wasting a large amount. They dont understand how the government can justify spending billions to build something in space, when there are more important issues on Earth. Even some of my friends and family think this" It never ceases to amaze me how people have this picture of NASA spending huge amounts of money. Of course, 8 billion dollars a year sounds like a lot to you and me, but in the Big Picture, it works out to about .5 percent of the federal budget. The whole NASA budget, which includes much that has nothing to do with off planet exploration, amounts to about 18 billion dollars a year, currently. The Department Of Defense is getting a little over 600 billion in straight appropriations, which do not count money allocated specifically for the occupation of Iraq. If you got an offer to make an investment which would pay back 7 for every 1 put in, would you jump at it? Most investments pay back less than 1 for every 1 put in. Off planet exploration has had such a tremendous impact on the American and the world economy that some estimates of returns reach as high as getting back 14 for every 1 invested. How can this be? Every microprocessor owes its existence to the Apollo program, because no other need for a small, puny, computer existed. By putting all of the bistable multivibrators, registries, adders, half-adders, and biasing components on a single silicon chip, the power requirements for this simple computer were reduced to the point where it was possible to power the device for a few hours with primitive fuel cells and batteries. Without that need, the microprocessor almost certainly would never have been developed, because the main frame computer was adequate for any computing project anyone c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

webtaz99 · Oct 29, 2007

$130 billion TOTAL on the ISS (if that is correct). $230 billion A YEAR for welfare. Which has produced more positives? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mi2again · Oct 29, 2007

"Do research on that station, including biological, material science, medical etc. research. " "The long term effects of microgravity on the human body" Weren't these the two main reasons and yet the current durations for crew are too short to do any good and after 25 years of shuttle flights no real breakthroughs from microgravity research

steve82 · Oct 29, 2007

"The ultranationalists who hate it because it is international." Careful. Many of those who are critical of the internationalization of the ISS are that way for practical, not ultranationalistic reasons. The technical and legal hassels of conducting business and interfacing hardware across international boundaries were a major contributer to the escalation of costs and will likely remain so.

Positives of the ISS

bobblebob

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

bobblebob

Guest

docm

Guest

flynn

Guest

bobblebob

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

docm

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

bobblebob

Guest

halman

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

bobblebob

Guest

docm

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

docm

Guest

halman

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

mi2again

Guest

steve82

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page