Positives of the ISS

halman · Oct 30, 2007

docm, "We already know that long missions cause massive physiological effects that no degree of rubber band exercises can mitigate. End of story. The money would be better spent on developing a rotating spacecraft and/or hab that can maintain even 1/2 G." Yes, but first we have to learn how to build and maintain structures in space. It is all well and good to say that artificial gravity is requirement for long duration missions, but knowing little or nothing about the effects of the space environment on materials means that building complex structures from the git go is likely to result in costly failures. I get incensed when I read articles about how we have the technology to go to Mars today, when all that is being considered is the amount of velocity change needed to get there, and not the engineering problems involved in creating a ship that will be relatively maintenance free for three or four years. Most people just do not understand how primitive our off planet science is. Folks who would never consider flying in a prototype aircraft are clamoring to go to Mars in their lifetimes. Such a mission is likely to be assisted suicide for many years to come, as we learn the basics of surviving off planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

bobblebob · Oct 30, 2007

"The reason so few kids care about science and space is because there are no commercials for it" Or the fact the media never report on it? Ive said this in mission threads, but in the UK the only time you will hear about anything space related is when something goes wrong. You may get a brief report on launch/landing, but the rest of the mission you hear nothing. The ISS computers that failed a few months ago, was reorted on the BBC main news. They never reported they fixed them tho. Before i had the Internet it was impossible to find out the latest news. The media only want to report on bad things that happen in space

vulture2 · Oct 30, 2007

I agree with you that current spacecraft aren't sufficiently reliable for a human flight to Mars. In addition, lighter systems for radiation shielding are needed for any long-duration misions beyond LEO. However weightlessness itself is not a roadblock. Of course, researchers are reluctant to suggest that any problem is solved, since it makes it hard to apply for another grant. However intense resistance exercise has been shown (in bedrest on earth) to be fully capable of maintaining muscle strength and bone mass. The main problem has been the lack of a reliable resistance exercise machine for space. And despite loose assertions that bone loss continues indefinitely, studies in spinal cord injury, and indeed studies of the recovery of bone density after spaceflight, show that it approaches a steady state in about 18 months after a significant change in loading. The final level would of course depend on activity level. In flights up to 14 months, bone loss has not reached levels that indicate a significant risk of fracture. While it is almost impossile to maintain 100% of initial bone density, there has never been a published report of osteoporotic fracture after spaceflight, and exercise even with available resistance machines would keep the equilibrium bone density at levels where no increased risk of fracture is likely. Muscle and cardiovascular deconditioning can likewise be minimized by exercsies and are fully reversible. Astronauts won't have 100% of their normal strength, coordination, and endurance the moment they land, but the deficits they have are for all practical purposes fully reversible and can be accomodated within a reasonable mission plan. For example, after months in weightlessness the sense of balance takes a few days to return to normal. The ISS could be useful in proving that the risk really is minimal and the countermesures effective, assumong we can find people who are willing to spend three years or so in orbit.

docm · Oct 30, 2007

At least one cosmonaut showed a 19% reduction in calcaneous bone mass after just 140 days in microgravity, and God knows what would happen after the 1000+ days a Mars mission would last. Granted individuals vary, but on both sides of the curve so some people would do worse. Exercise etc. might flatten that curve a bit, but not much. IMO you cannot have a Mars mission without either a rotating spaceship delivering at least .3 to .5 G or a centrifuge in which the astro/cosmonauts could get a few hours of 'gravity' on a daily basis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Oct 30, 2007

docm, I fully believe that no extended duration mission is likely until a centrifuge can be incorporated into the design. Something that I have wondered about is the effectiveness of sleeping in a gravity field for preventing bone loss. Spending time in a centrifuge with nothing to do is about the same as torture, I would bet. But a sleeping person would not notice the passage of time, allowing for much longer periods of induced weight. Of course, the ideal is to have the entire crew section in rotation, but that may prove unworkable. The design of the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey incorporated a centrifuge which held the sleeping quarters, recreation/eating area, and a console for working. The command section, pod bay, and storage areas were all in zero gravity. I feel like one of the Wright brothers discussing how to accommodate passengers on the airplane that they wanted to build someday. We are dealing with so many unknowns that there is just no way to say what will eventually be decided upon. But there is no doubt that the International Space Station is providing valuable data on the effects of prolonged exposure to zero gravity on a large enough group of people to be able to create some general rules. It is far from ideal, and definitely much more expensive than need be, but it what we have, and it is still better than nothing. The Apollo program distorted perceptions about off planet exploration so severely that I sometimes wonder if it did not set us back considerably. Every person who was interested in space flight in the 1950's assumed that the first goal would be construction of a space station, and then trips around the Moon, before attempting any landings there. I consider it ludicrous to discuss using the Apollo systems for any serious development on the Moon, as the costs of sending spacecraft direct to the Moon and back are so high. Even if the program had not been canceled, it would have be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

richalex · Oct 31, 2007

halman, you say "there is no doubt that the International Space Station is providing valuable data on the effects of prolonged exposure to zero gravity," but have you actually seen this data? Do you know who is collecting it or what they are doing with it? Indeed, do you even know for certain that any systematic data collection is taking place, and, if there is, are we getting any data that extends what we already know? You aslo state that the costs of sending spacecraft directly to Moon and back would be too high w/o a space station. However, you do not show how adding a $200 billion station to the trip would make the trip any less expensive.

vulture2 · Oct 31, 2007

>>At least one cosmonaut showed a 19% reduction in calcaneous bone mass after just 140 days in microgravity The Russians had no effective resistance exercise equipment on Mir, and many cosmonauts simply do not exercise in space. Shackleford et al (J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jul;97(1):119-29) showed clearly in a bedrest model that an intense resistance exercise regimen could completely prevent bone loss. You can read the article here: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/119 On a less optimistic note, if we have suddenly concluded that the ISS is of so little value, what exactly makes the moon landing program any more worthwhile? It seems to me we are saying the same optimistic things about the moon landing that we were saying twenty years ago about the space station. What will we do in ten or twenty years when the public again decides the moon landings are not worth the money, just as they did 35 years ago?

usn_skwerl · Oct 31, 2007

if the public deems it pointless to send astronauts to the moon, nasa gets budgetcut YET AGAIN. if that happens, this is where private space explodes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

holmec · Oct 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What will we do in ten or twenty years when the public again decides the moon landings are not worth the money, just as they did 35 years ago? <hr /></blockquote> I think it was Congress that said Apollo was too expensive to continue, but that was in light of a Cold War. Now its different. Many countries are doing their part to explore space. Some will dismiss this fact as political stunts. But it has a cultural effect as well. As I see it its kind of like sports, for example FIFA. Each country has people rooting for their team and that was starts the interest. Then when their team is knocked out of the race, some still follow the results and may even root for another country's team. To me what is emphatically different about ISS than any other space project is that many countries participate and many countries send their astronauts to it. I can only hope that landings on the moon will see the same spirit of cooperation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

thereiwas · Oct 31, 2007

Dealing with, and reversing the trends of, global warming is going to take a level of effort and organization on the order of World War II. The change in how people live their daily lives is going to be drastic. Making things very efficient is going to be a large part of that. Lots of new jobs will be created, and lots of old ones will go away. Against that background, moon landings, or space exploration in general, will be supported if they somehow help leverage, or at least do not detract from, the more immediate Earthly problems. It is time for that space program technology to start paying off in practical ways. The people making these decisions will not be starry-eyed Boomers, but practical 13ers.

vulture2 · Oct 31, 2007

>>I think it was Congress that said Apollo was too expensive to continue.. Congress was acting in accordance with public opinion. The overwhelming majority of Americans supported the idea of a moon landing, but less than half were in favor of spending the money necessary to achieve it. (Krugman, Herbert E. "Public Attitudes Toward the Apollo Space Program, 1965-1975." Journal of Communication. 27 Autumn 1977) />>To me what is emphatically different about ISS than any other space project is that many countries participate and many countries send their astronauts to it. I completely agree, which is why dropping the ISS to go to the moon seems absurd. Again, how can we say the moon offers so much more than the ISS? Are we just bored with LEO? />>I can only hope that landings on the moon will see the same spirit of cooperation. I don't see any rush by other countries to participate jointly, having been burned by US plans to terminate ISS after they invested billions. And the US seems to be more intent on simply having another space race.

holmec · Oct 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Congress was acting in accordance with public opinion. <hr /></blockquote> ???? Prove this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

richalex · Oct 31, 2007

vulture2, you don't say who "we" is, but opposition to space programs in general and specific programs specifically is not a sudden change in opinions. I am not opposed to the idea of a space station. I'm not even opposed to the general idea of ISS. But, the day NASA announced that we would need so many shuttle flights (I don't remember the number, but I think the total was something in the hundreds), I knew this project was doomed, even before the first bit of hardware reached orbit. NASA had already spent 15 years flying the space shuttles and had NEVER COME CLOSE, despite its best efforts, to making the required minimum number of shuttle flights that ISS would require to become a useful outpost. It was immediately obvious that NASA was over-promising, and the current situation is the inevitable confirmation. From an emotional point-of-view, I am excited each time I see another piece of hardware added to ISS. But, from a rational point-of-view, I realize this is a horrible waste of money. ISS will never achieve significant scientific or engineering results. It is our white elephant, magnificent but useless. We would have been much better off if we had put the money into the Superconducting Super Collider. *That* would have produced significant scientific advantage and put the U.S. at the forefront of high energy physics research. Both SSC and ISS were killed by Congress, but public outcry resurrected ISS. It was too pretty a project for the public to lose.

richalex · Oct 31, 2007

As for our return to Moon, don't be so naive as to suppose that opposition to it does not exist, and some of that opposition has good reason for its position. But, from what I have seen of the (unflown, untested) hardware proposed, it seems that at least we have a practical chance of achieving the proposed goals of establishing a minimal habitat on Moon's surface and sending man to explore Moon's surface directly. Whether doing so is worthwhile is another discussion entirely; at least we have reason to expect a significant return, even if it is expensive. This is completely different from the situation of ISS.

vulture2 · Nov 1, 2007

>Congress was acting in accordance with public opinion. />>???? Prove this. Congress did not specifically dictate that the landings be halted, but budget cuts in 1970 (sparked by declining public enthusiasm soon after the initial landing) led to termination of Saturn V production. from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.html: "For laymen, one moon landing after another was a little boring. Noting the public's limited interest in Apollo 12, the New York Times concluded that a collective sense of anticlimax was "perhaps predictable considering the intense national emotion spent on the first moon landing four months ago." As I recall, the whole world held its breath for Apollo 11. But by Apollo 17 public interest had waned to the point where TV stations were receiving complaints that the NASA coverage was interrupting repeats of "I Love Lucy." Krugman reports on a rigourously conducted poll that was repeated quarterly for a period of years during and after Apollo. When asked whether they favored landing on the moon, the majority of Americans answered yes. However when informed of the cost, less than half felt it was worth it. (Krugman, Herbert E. "Public Attitudes Toward the Apollo Space Program, 1965-1975." Journal of Communication. 27 Autumn 1977) />>public outcry resurrected ISS. Enthusiasts supported ISS, but Congress only stopped the delays after Russia was invited to join, on the assumption that it would keep thousands of Russian engineers from building missiles for potentially hostile countries. />>we have a practical chance of achieving the proposed goals of establishing a minimal habitat on Moon's surface I agree. but how long can we afford to maintain such a base with slightly modernized Apollo-era technology? />>we have reason t

richalex · Nov 1, 2007

"we said the same thing about ISS. If it's so worthless, why did we [the space enthusiast community] support it?" I don't believe the space enthusiast community is a monolithic block, so I hope that is not what you are claiming. As for the reasons for those who supported it, you would need to ask them, though that is academic at this point. ISS of today is not the system proposed several years ago. I got on the "We must have reliable heavy-lift capability" band wagon back about 1991, and the DC-X Delta Clipper was my beacon of hope (BTW, I was present for the official maiden flight, though it was actually its 2nd flight). I came to that point of view through the National Space Society meetings and our guest speakers (one thing I miss about living in NM is the easy access to top-notch scientists and engineers). It was always clear to me, and probably to many others in NSS, that without a solid heavy launch foundation, any complex manned mission is a wasted effort. The fact is, NASA has killed every heavy lift vehicle it has ever had the power to control, and it shows no sign of putting one up now (I'm hoping Ares proves a change).

qso1 · Nov 1, 2007

JonClarke: I think the ISS is a magnificent and aboslutely essential project....But that is why we do things, to learn how do and how not do them. Me: Well put. You have made some good cases for ISS which I have pretty much always agreed with. My only complaint is that I think we could have done a somewhat less expensive station. But I always say ISS is better than no ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Nov 1, 2007

erioladastra: Based on what assessment, analysis or review? Me: Back in the late 1980s, there were proposals for a simple, single module vehicle called the Industrial Space Facility. NASA saw it as something that could augment a station. Some within NASA saw it as a threat to ISS (SSF in 1989 IIRC). ISS IMO could have been designed and built significantly more efficiently than it was. Now that does not mean I'm anti ISS, it simply means there are more than one way to skin a cat. One peice of data to consider. Launch costs. The cost of launching shuttles to haul ISS components to orbit are significantly more in theory than using heavy lift capability. Whether that heavy lift capability is shuttle "C" or a shuttle derived vehicle or a new HLLV don't matter all that much. HLVs offer the potential for far fewer assembly missions than shuttle. Using the shuttle only for station assembly is like using a Porsche to do the job of an SUV. Even the old plan proposed for station designs based on Saturn-Vs recognized the shuttle as more of a vehicle to transport crews and limited supplies to station while using HLVs to take up bulk elements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Nov 1, 2007

holmec: Prove this. Me: Not an easy thing to prove however...heres what I know and recall. After Apollo 11 landed, Von Braun and his task force recommended a post Apollo scenario calling for shuttles, space stations, lunar bases, nuclear shuttles, and mars bases. All based on continuance of Saturn production as Saturn was required for the heavy lift tasks. This was September 1969. Before the end of the year the backlash against human spaceflight had begun. Notable figures such as the Reverend Ralph Abernathy made their opinions known. Abernathy is said to have been at the Apollo 11 launch protesting it. He and his followers believed the money could be spent fixing earthly problems. In itself a noble cause but history since Apollo has shown the idea seriously flawed. Enter Nixon. Some say he hated Apollo and human spaceflight because Kennedy, who defeated Nixon in 1960, was the one who initiated the moon race. I tend to think Nixon did what he did for other reasons. Or I should say his Administration. That decision was the one that approved shuttle development only, and that development budget was capped at $5.5 B dollars which changed shuttle from a fully reusable two stage liquid system to the solid liquid partially reusable vehicle we know today. The Nixon Admin approved the shuttle because they thought it made sense to develop low cost access to orbit before doing the other reccommendations. The 1973 traffic model for shuttle envisioned 60 flights of 7 orbiters annually. Two prominent politicians, Democrats Walter Mondale and William Proxmire were well known vocal opponents of human spaceflight. In 1971, Proxmire was instrumental in generating the votes that ended the SST program and later introduced his golden fleece award which was awarded to NASA on at least one occasion. IIRC, it was for the shuttle. The award was for the agency he viewed as wasting government money the worst. Whi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

halman · Nov 1, 2007

ThereIWas, "Dealing with, and reversing the trends of, global warming is going to take a level of effort and organization on the order of World War II. The change in how people live their daily lives is going to be drastic. Making things very efficient is going to be a large part of that. Lots of new jobs will be created, and lots of old ones will go away. Against that background, moon landings, or space exploration in general, will be supported if they somehow help leverage, or at least do not detract from, the more immediate Earthly problems. It is time for that space program technology to start paying off in practical ways. The people making these decisions will not be starry-eyed Boomers, but practical 13ers." Public awareness of global warming is finally, after over 20 years of warnings, starting to stir. However, most people tend to think that the solutions lie in cleaner fuels, more efficient engines, and alternate energy sources. I believe that if we are realistic about dealing with global warming in the context of continued economic growth, we are going to have to accept some major changes in lifestyle, such as using mass transportation instead of driving our own cars, except for trips to the mountains, the beach, or other destinations which are not well served by mass transit. Building underground drastically reduces the energy needed for heating and cooling, which far outweighs the initial investment in energy to excavate and bury. Aircraft are the most energy intensive way of transporting people that we have ever utilized, and so will be replaced with high speed trains. But extracting resources and processing them is always going to be an energy intensive venture, in spite of advances in technology. It takes a certain amount of energy to melt a metal ore, or a refined metal to make a casting. Chemical processing is not possible without some energy input. Long term economic growth is dependent upon raisi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

danhezee · Nov 1, 2007

usn_skwerl posted... "if the public deems it pointless to send astronauts to the moon, nasa gets budgetcut YET AGAIN. if that happens, this is where private space explodes." You are saying if the public thinks it is pointless somehow magically their lack of interest will coz the private sector to explode. That is what we call a logical fallacy. Private sector space will be more fragile than NASA will ever be. NASA isnâ€™t directly funded by the people. In case you donâ€™t know or you forgot, people pay taxes, elected officials decide how to spend the tax money, and small groups and organizations (aka lobbies) help this elected officials determine where the money goes. Basically, what I am saying it is a lot easier to sell an idea to over 400 representatives and 100 senators than it will ever be to sell the same idea to 300,000,000 people. Private space will be directly funded by the public. For it to explode the public has to think it is â€œpointfulâ€. BTW, I think private space will explode. Also, I think the general public doesnâ€™t think it is pointless they just think it is boring. The moon landings and space achievements in general are like first transatlantic flights, the very first time it is very exciting but afterwards the excitement quickly tapers into apathy as it becomes more and more routine. I think NASA should be spilt into 2 entities one that creates the necessary infrastructure for a space fairing nations (like the Department of Transportation that creates the highways and the rules for the highways) and the other for scientific research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thereiwas · Nov 1, 2007

The difference is that NASA's funding comes from everybody (whether each individual wants to participate or not) as allocated by congress. Private space is funded voluntarily, only by those people who think it is worthwhile. If there enough people in the latter category, private space will expand.

usn_skwerl · Nov 1, 2007

the general public knows where it's money goes to an extent. Most know that this war is costing ridiculous amounts, yet our leaders keep dumping money into it, and people aren't happy. nasa TV isnt exactly chock full of color commentary, though Clay really does try. So yes, they consider it boring. some folks complain about what a waste it is to go to space, and nearly all of those who complain about it have no clue about the X-prize cup, the rocket racing league, they didn't know about SS1 and its accomplishments, Falcon, SpaceX, Armadillo, etc. All they know about is NASA, and the little bit of information (media mountain-from-mole-hill-syndrome included) the news mentions about it. Case in point; 118's tile damage. If the public doesnt want to put money into the gov't space program, they will let their congressmen know it. Ergo, less money for NASA, which leads to budget cuts, which leads to looking for other ways to launch a payload into orbit; JPL to an extent, and private space. I agree that it should split into two branches as well. I do not, however, think that it should be run as stringently as the FAA is. these days, you cant even float a decent balloon 1500 ft AGL without FAA permission. NASA and it's overseers should allow for some "barnstorming" mentality, as this is where the skills come out. An example; Mr. Rutan. with all the knowledge, R&D he's gained over the years, who knows how many of his idea's were completely denied. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Nov 1, 2007

"NASA isnâ€™t directly funded by the people...people pay taxes..." I understand the point you were trying to make and largely agree with it, but consider what you wrote. NASA is a public entity and is funded through public taxation. How direct does it need to be? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> " Private space will be directly funded by the public." Private space will be directly funded by private companies and individuals until the public starts buying tickets and cargo space and profits are being made. Of course, I assume here that you are talking about human space flight as there is a good deal of money, mostly public, being applied to space already. It isn't necessary to sell the idea to 300,000,000 people when we're talking about private industry. All it takes is enough interest to sell enough tickets or other services for the industry to survive and/or prosper. Those who choose to spend their money in this way are making free choices, whereas, when government does it, there are going to be many of those 300,000,000 taxpayers (or however many there are) who are forced to provide funds for something they feel is a waste of money. With private industry, those who choose to see spaceflight as a waste can happily see their money go elsewhere, while those who think it is worthwhile can support it directly without having to sell anything to anyone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

danhezee · Nov 1, 2007

I agree with you, not enough people know about what is going in the private sector. I am still in school and i know a few journalist majors that have told me they want to report on important stuff like this when they get a job, I hope that they can. I am a centennial challenges advocate, I try to sell the idea everywhere I go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Positives of the ISS

halman

Guest

bobblebob

Guest

vulture2

Guest

docm

Guest

halman

Guest

richalex

Guest

vulture2

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

holmec

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

vulture2

Guest

holmec

Guest

richalex

Guest

richalex

Guest

vulture2

Guest

richalex

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

halman

Guest

danhezee

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

danhezee

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page