Positives of the ISS

[earth_bound_misfit]

"(die-hard anti-metric supporter I am!)"<br /><br />Lol, we'll drag you screaming and kicking into the 21st century <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"$130 billion TOTAL on the ISS (if that is correct).<br /><br />$230 billion A YEAR for welfare.<br /><br />Which has produced more positives?"<br /><br />The $230 billion a year of welfare of course, unless you like seeing the poor and luckless starve?<br /><br />Though that shows how little of the budget is spend on this venture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<font color="yellow">The $230 billion a year of welfare of course, unless you like seeing the poor and luckless starve?</font><br /><br />Or more likely eating the rich <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I guess a problem with several ISS achievements is that you have to be an expert to appreciate how difficult they were in the first place. Whats so difficult about bolting a thing to another thing anyway? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">It is my observation that ISS critics fall into one of five categories. <br /><br />1) The ultranationalists who hate it because it is international. <br />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. <br />3) The me firsters, who hate it because it is not their project. <br />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. <br />5) The anti spaceflight lobby who oppose it because it because it is space spending. <br /><br />I have zero sympathy with any of these positions. <br /></font><br /><br />Jon, I also am a supporter of manned space exploration and the ISS. But I think you left off the biggest critic category:<br /><br />6) The undereducated majority whom mistrust science in general, don't understand what science really is, failed or failed to take math and science in school, have learned their only 'science' from pulpit creationists and that everything 'scientists teach is a big lie', and basically have never dreamed about what is space or stars or planets or the moon or how to get there. <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>

 

[mi2again]

"The undereducated majority whom mistrust science in general, don't understand what science really is, failed or failed to take math and science in school, have learned their only 'science' from pulpit creationists and that everything 'scientists teach is a big lie', and basically have never dreamed about what is space or stars or planets or the moon or how to get there."<br /><br />It has nothing to do with religion. You could have left that out and everything else still applies.

 

[mi2again]

What about 7) the educated spaceflight supporter that realizes that the science and tasks could be done better and cheaper and therefore would allow more manned missions to do other things

 

[silylene old]

<font color="blue">"The undereducated majority whom mistrust science in general, don't understand what science really is, failed or failed to take math and science in school, have learned their only 'science' from pulpit creationists and that everything 'scientists teach is a big lie', and basically have never dreamed about what is space or stars or planets or the moon or how to get there." </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">It has nothing to do with religion. You could have left that out and everything else still applies. </font><br /><br />Look above and you will see that I said 'pulpit creationists', not religion.<br /><br />This is off topic, but yes mistrust of science and scientists and therefore big science programs has a lot to do with creationite fundamentalist religion teaching. The pulpit creationites basically teach that you cannot trust science and scientists to get anything correct. They belittle and misuse scientific method and basic science concepts, and they belittle much of what we have learned in science. I could post hundreds of links if you don't believe. And now polls show that about 60% of the US public believes the pulpit creationites, and this support is slowly increasing yearly. In Europe, China and Japan where they are not bombarded with this crap, there is a much stronger support for scientific endeavor. <br /><br />Not going off topic on this again. If you want to discuss start a new thread. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

I know a guy who thinks that exact way. He believes the Apollo missions were hoaxed not because there's any evidence that they were, but because scientists and the government were involved, and therefore it was all Satanic. After all, it's science that tells us that Genesis isn't word-for-word explicitly accurate, isn't it?<br /><br />Sad, really. But it's a symptom of a larger mistrust of "the establishment", not limited to religious fundamentalists -- and general tendency away from critical thinking, IMHO.<br /><br />So to bring us back to the topic, I think one of the positives of the ISS is that it is *cool*. Is this worth $130 billion? Not by itself, perhaps, but given what else is done with it (real science), it does serve a big purpose. How many people have been inspired to study science because they watched rockets blast off and spacewalking astronauts on TV? Lots. And every one of them is someone who has thus been exposed to critical thinking. That's a good thing, with a value that is very hard to turn into a dollar figure. <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>

 

[mithridates]

I agree with that. One of the best things I think the ISS will do is to create a really bright object in the sky. I've never been able to find out exactly what the magnitude will be once construction is finished but with a variety of components and more large solar arrays left to go it should be quite spectacular.<br /><br />I also have a small sense of wonder every time a new module is added on to the station where people are able to enter and breathe. However small, the new area that the astronauts can enter now was last month just another part of uninhabited space, and the thought that we can just up and create new spaces to live in is quite remarkable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

"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"<br /><br />That may be true, but for the average person living their life, they see schools and hospitals in poor condition, then the next day they hear about Nasa sending a $200 million dolar space craft to Mars or whatever. For many they cant understand why that money cant be used on more worthwhile things like improving living conditions for the tax payer

 

[baktothemoon]

>That may be true, but for the average person living their life, they see schools and hospitals in poor condition, then the next day they hear about Nasa sending a $200 million dolar space craft to Mars or whatever. For many they cant understand why that money cant be used on more worthwhile things like improving living conditions for the tax payer <br /><br />People said that about the apollo program, it's been 40 years since it got axed and I don't see that extra .2 percent of the budget making that much of a difference. People can't seem to grasp that splitting 2 billion dollars three million ways is not going to help anyone much. I see the biggest impact of human space flight in how america's math and science education along with interest in engineering improved drastically with the start of the space program. Right now those areas are lagging behind here, maybe another Apollo is just what we need to shake things up again. Inspiring a generation to do better in school and get more interested in science is far better than another drop in the welfare well.

 

[bobblebob]

How much does the space program(s) and ISS construction get covered in schools? I would have loved to studied similar things when i was at school, but we never did. Getting kids into it early at school can only help space exploration in the future

 

[baktothemoon]

>How much does the space program(s) and ISS construction get covered in schools? I would have loved to studied similar things when i was at school, but we never did. Getting kids into it early at school can only help space exploration in the future <br /><br />Almost zero percent of the time, I my history class the space program took five minutes to cover. I think kids today hardly know the space station exists.

 

[usn_skwerl]

The reason so few kids care about science and space is because there are no commercials for it. There are several commercials about be-a-pilot, A&P schools, ATT Tech, DeVry, etc. There is NO mention of space in ANY commercial, short of a Michellin tires advertisement about the tires on the shuttle a few years ago.<br /><br />If new.space were to have commercials; Armadillo, Falcon, etc, and even NASA itself were to air interesting commercials on MTV like the military does, or even during shows like South Park, House, ER, Law and Order, and so on, the awareness would increase, and there would be an influx of interest.<br /><br />Space.com or NASASpaceFlight as entities don't exactly scream "rocket science is cool too!" they scream "It's nerds like us that make the world go 'round, using conservation of angular momentum!"<br /><br />There arent many things short of pwnage, mentos/diet coke rockets, and dry ice bombs on youtube that kids actively look for. that can be changed with more exposure. <br /><br />Wallops is a good spot to launch the shuttle to the ISS from. It's at a good latitude. space science needs to generate an active interest in the fact that people from New York to North Carolina - and then some - can see rockets launch. A lot of people still film cape launches from Tampa and Miami. The same could be done if there were more knowledge of Wallops Island.<br /><br />We have an acre of shiny metal and stuff neatly organized over our heads, but no one down here cares, unless they call into the media saying they saw a UFO. Why can't that be changed? <br /><br />edit: spelling, punctuation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mi2again]

Commercials are to sell products. The military has commercials for recruiting. "Armadillo, Falcon,etc" have nothing to sell to the general public. The occasion Boeing and LM commercials are usually associated with science programs

 

[erioladastra]

"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; "<br /><br />First of all, I would take any peer-reviewed professionally published article, not just a magazine article or anything.<br /><br />Second, I agree with Griffin - the path may have been wrong and was very driven by political anega. However, that is a far cry from saying that ISS's design is wrong.

 

[Testing]

Thank you for bringing up long term material science on orbit. You cannot simulate everything. We do not know what we need to know for space travel beyond a few months yet.<br /><br />http://see.msfc.nasa.gov/fliexp_workshop/aztech.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

Well, there's Jack Horkheimer, but he's all about the stars, and is on PBS. If Carl Sagan's "<i>billions</i> and <i>billions</i> of stars" shows were brought back to local access, or a less-than-major cable channel, like TBS or maybe Speed, Spike, or Sci-fi, that too would increase interest. Bill Nye (even if he IS Newtonian physics oriented), Doctor Tyson, Mae Jemison, Sally Ride, Wayne Hale, Shannon Lucid, Burt Rutan, and a few others. <br /><br />Bring at least one of them on once a week (a rebirth of GOOD saturday morning knowledge?), explaining different aspects of space flight, exploration, point out websites like heavens-above explaining when to expect to see the ISS or a -3 magnitude Iridium flare show up and how to find it in your sky, aerospace engineering, advancements, knowledge gained through the space program, etc etc. Keep it informative (and interesting), but not dry. Make it fun, but not childish. Once that format is set up, it's all about exposure.<br /><br />If you get kids to look up, their interests will pique. Ironically, back in the 60's and early 70's everyone looked up, wondering "what's up there?, "can we see it?" These days, there are literally thousands of things flying overhead; dead comsats, Iridiums silently keeping an ear open as they slip over the terminator, rocket bits coming back in with flashes of greens blues and yellows, and sadly, no one looks up.<br /><br />once the seed is planted - when eyes look to the night sky - the right answers will help it grow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[richalex]

From the time that I was a little boy, I have been fascinated with space exploration. I've read the books, attended club meetings, traveled to exhibits, demonstrations and lectures and advocated manned and unmanned space exploration to critics. But, the older I get, the more critical I look at what we are doing and why we are doing it. Frankly, I've had the position for several years that ISS is a waste of money. True, it gave the Russians something to do in the '90s, so their aerospace engineers and scientists did not starve (or defect to questionable political pursuits), but Russia's space program is very much alive today (we could talk about Putin's complaints about our missile defense program when Russia already has such a program of her own, which equipment it actually sells to other nations; it is not exploration, but it is still employment). <br /><br />I would like to see some references to peer reviewed articles showing significant scientific or engineering achievements brought about by research on ISS. Challenging critics to provide peer-reviewed articles opposing ISS is wrong-headed; it is the ISS that needs to be justified, not the critics. <br /><br />The claim that ISS provides us with info on long-duration human space flight is wrong-headed, because 6 months in orbit does not give us such information. The claim is just a sound bite meant to make the advocates feel good. <br /><br />We could very well have sent up much less expensive hardware to assemble, if we wanted to learn how to assemble objects in orbit, and done so with less risk to human life. <br /><br />There is virtually no scientific research aboard ISS, because the 3-man crew has to spend almost all its time keeping the station functional. <br /><br />One thing we have learned from this is that Russians do not confess engineering faults quickly or accurately, witness the power shut-down several months ago, which was the result of condensation corroding the control system on the Russian side. <br /><</safety_wrapper>

 

[halman]

earth_bound_misfit,<br /><br />One of the most discouraging things I see is that we are going go on spending 230 billion dollars a year on welfare forever, unless we can create new jobs, and motivate people to improve themselves. The International Space Station is an effort to learn about an environment which offers more potential for wealth creation and new jobs than anything on Earth.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

mi2again,<br /><br />Yes, 6 months is too short of a time to keep a person in zero gravity to learn the effects of long term exposure, but asking someone to spend even that amount of time away from Earth merely to study the effects upon them is difficult. Until we have developed a craft which we think is capable of extended duration missions, I think it is unlikely we are going to see anymore 1 year missions on a space station. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[docm]

We already know that long missions cause massive physiological effects that no degree of rubber band exercises can mitigate. End of story.<br /><br />The money would be better spent on developing a rotating spacecraft and/or hab that can maintain even 1/2 G. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

It would useful to know if Mars surface gravity (about one third G) is sufficient. No point in going all the way to Mars to find out living there is going to be impossible.<br /><br />

 

[thereiwas]

We just learned something from ISS today: don't make your solar panels out of tissue paper. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Commercials are to sell products. The military has commercials for recruiting. "Armadillo, Falcon,etc" have nothing to sell to the general public. The occasion Boeing and LM commercials are usually associated with science programs <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />One of the major problems facing NASA in this area is that they are forbidden by law from competing with the private sector. Commercials could constitute unfair competition. But honestly, I would think they could do *something*. State tourism boards get to advertise; why not NASA? Heck, you could consider it public awareness announcements. <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>