Positives of the ISS

holmec · Nov 8, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I would like to see manned space flight reach Moon and Mars, but you must admit, human space flight has not had a major success, comparable to the Mars rovers, since the Apollo era.<hr /></blockquote> Aren't you comparing apples to oranges? ISS standard stay is 6 months. This if far longer than previous standard stays. Apollo was measured in days and weeks, Shuttle alone missions were just days long. So yes this is good info. ISS construction is not complete. So while construction is going on lessons are learned (ie recent solar panel incident/repair). ISS is used by many countries. Hence the lessons learned are learned on a broad audience. There has been some scientific/engineering experiments done which have been beneficial. But the major experiments are yet to come. Without lessons from ISS we will not be able to take the trip from the Earth to Mars and back. After the ISS next step is a lunar base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

richalex · Nov 8, 2007

"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." Maybe, it does not give any positive information to you. But specialists of space-related medicine have another opinion. Do tell? Please share feel free to provide some examples. "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." Huh, after Columbia disaster and following two years-long moratorium for STS flights all talks about "faults of russian engineering" look out merely short-sighted, if not plain stupid. Don't make me bring up Chernobyl. Or Kyshtym. Or Tupolev-154. Or the Kursk.

qso1 · Nov 9, 2007

There are examples of triumph and tragedies on both sides of the Atlantic. <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>

CalliArcale · Nov 9, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Do tell? Please share feel free to provide some examples.<hr /></blockquote> The six-month increment is very valuable for long-duration spaceflight study -- both physically and psychologically. Bone loss and muscles loss remain serious challenges, though considerable strides have been made in that area. Probably the best strides forward have been in the area of workload management, though. NASA has learned a great deal about this from its partnership with Russia, which has more experience with long-duration missions. It's not a trivial problem; if you don't manage workload appropriately, you end up with astronauts going nuts. And that's really dangerous. It was a major problem in the Salyut days, and even caused some problems on Mir. Six months is long enough to cause serious problems. If we can't manage a six month increment, then what that tells us is that we are not ready to go to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vulture2 · Nov 9, 2007

There is certainly no reason personnel could not remain longer than 6 months on the ISS; Polyakov stayed on the Mir for 437 days; longer flights would be reasonable as requirements for future missions develop. At this point however six months is sufficient to get useful data on physiological changes and the effectiveness of countermeasures, and allow crewmembers to become proficient without excessive personal and family stress.

vulture2 · Nov 9, 2007

"It takes a brigade of workers weeks to months to get a space shuttle back in flying condition, and that's in an environment that does not require space suits or life support systems for most tasks." While certainly true with the shuttle, there is no physical reason why a reusable spacecraft cannot be designed to require relatively little servicing, as is the case with both manned aircraft and unmanned spacecraft. Even the Space Station, which is rapidly becoming more complex than the Shuttle, is maintained in space by only three people, half its intended crew. The Shuttle was the first reusable spacecraft ever built, and it is unfortunate that the lessons learned from it were not applied to a new reusable launch vehicle, but most of this labor is required because of design decisions made before the system had any flight experience. There is simply no physical reason that a reusable spacecraft shuttling between LEO and the Moon could not, with reasonable flight experience and design evolution, be practical to maintain in space with a very limited crew. The alternative, continuing to use expendables, is unfortunately, beyond political stunts and a handful of billionaire tourists, not economically viable.

richalex · Nov 10, 2007

"Even the Space Station, which is rapidly becoming more complex than the Shuttle, is maintained in space by only three people, half its intended crew." It is my understanding that these 3 people must spend all their work time keeping ISS functioning, so much so that they don't have time to do any significant experiments. It is exactly because there are only 3 people on ISS that no significant science is being done on ISS. Yet, you and CalliArcale claim that we are learning great amounts of information from studies on these folks, even though they don't have time to collect detailed data in orbit. We can only examine them before and after they return from orbit. IOW, ISS currently is useless as far as science research goes. Again, I would like to know who is collecting the supposed data that we are supposedly gleaning from ISS? My understanding of the situation is that this data is not being collected. We are not getting anything scientific out of our time in orbit, whether 6 months or 6 years. And, even if we did, there is a significant difference between the space environment in LEO and the space environment in deep space. We aren't going to learn about building systems to handle the deep space environment just from LEO stations. Even a station on Moon would be more informative than our LEO station, as far as the deep space environment is concerned. As for the work needed to keep ISS functioning, it is actually relatively simple, because ISS does not go through any critical situations, such as accelerating/decelerating thousands of miles an hour, taking off and landing. She has no significant thrusters, no propellant to load or monitor. She just floats through space, nudged into correct orientation by gyros or external rockets. It won't be so simple to service a lunar lander.

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Again, I would like to know who is collecting the supposed data that we are supposedly gleaning from ISS? My understanding of the situation is that this data is not being collected. We are not getting anything scientific out of our time in orbit, whether 6 months or 6 years. And, even if we did, there is a significant difference between the space environment in LEO and the space environment in deep space.<hr /></blockquote> OK, lets define SCIENCE from dictionary.com <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.<hr /></blockquote> That defines the whole ISS experiment. And that is the big picture. Your right learning in LEO is not enough. ISS is not and end but a beginning. Next comes a moon base and then Mars and hopefully an asteroid manned mission somewhere along the way. Who is recording this? try NASA, ESA, JAXA, RSA..... How are they recording this data? Via mission contorl(s) (ie more than one). Where is the data? Some of it can be found in the following links. NASA ISS article archive ESA manned space articles The thing about this is that there is so much data, you can't see the forest cause all you see is trees. Step back, look at the big picture. It may be bigger than you think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

missile_mother · Nov 10, 2007

"That defines the whole ISS experiment." That was not the intend or the purpose of the ISS, it is not THE experiment, the ISS purpose is to support science experiments, which is failing. If all NASA learns from the ISS is onorbit assembly and operations, then the ISS has failed. The ISS was sold as a lab to perform experiments within. In essence, the purpose wasn't to build a lab but to use it

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

My argument: Apollo is done. It had finite goals. What were seeing in space programs around the world, is the beginning of man's attempt to colonize space. This is a montrous undertaking. And ISS is just a first step. The lessons from ISS will resonate for many years to come. To me this is truly the Great Experiment, and its defined by the question: Can man live in Space permanently? What's involved are multiple government agencies and also private industry on an international scale (hence Virgin Galactic). This effort is way beyond one country or one agency. And we are just starting to scratch the surface. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. - Lao-Tzu <hr /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That was not the intend or the purpose of the ISS, it is not THE experiment, the ISS purpose is to support science experiments, which is failing.<hr /></blockquote> Entre dicho y echo hay buen trecho. Translation: Between what is said and what is done is a long way. Failing? It has barely begun. Will you bail on it before it had a chance? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

missile_mother · Nov 10, 2007

"Failing? It has barely begun. Will you bail on it before it had a chance?" It has failed because NASA has stopped the development of the bulk of experiments originally destined for it. It is now destination without a purpose. Once NASA's dance card is fulled with the required "dances" with the international partners, the ISS will be abandoned

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It is now destination without a purpose. Once NASA's dance card is fulled with the required "dances" with the international partners, the ISS will be abandoned<hr /></blockquote> I don't share your pessimism. The US gov't is not abandoning it, but NASA is pressing on. The fact is its not hashed out what will happen to the US part of the ISS. Too early to say. But there is an intent to make it a National Lab. BTW the "dance" with international partners will probably not end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

missile_mother · Nov 10, 2007

2016 is the end of US involvement in the ISS. No US, no ISS. Why keep it if there are no experiments to fly. "National Lab" is just spin. There is no new money to fund experiments.

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> 2016 is the end of US involvement in the ISS. No US, no ISS.<hr /></blockquote> hear say. Or prove it. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"National Lab" is just spin. <hr /></blockquote> An opinion. Lawrence Livermore Lab is a national lab, and its not just a "spin". And to say "No US, no ISS" is just plain false. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

missile_mother · Nov 10, 2007

2016 is not hearsay. It is NASA's plan. Griffin has stated many times. "Lawrence Livermore Lab is a national lab" Bad analogy. LANL has a defined purpose and the money to carry it out. "No US, no ISS" is just plain false." On the contrary. 1. JSC MCC is need to control the ISS. Russia can't control the US side 2. NASA JSC personnel are needed to "operate" the ISS 3. TDRSS is needed for comm. Russia stations don't provide enough coverage. 4. Boeing is needed for system engineering and logistics of spares No other partner can replace the US. US side of the station shutdown and so does the whole ISS

MeteorWayne · Nov 10, 2007

Jim, 3rd ID in less than a month? You know that's against the rules, right? Your perspective and denigration of any efforts other than your own organization's come through clear as a bell. <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>

richalex · Nov 10, 2007

What I really want to see are published, peer-reviewed reports. I don't subscribe to the literature, so I don't know what is available, but I do know that without those reports, all this talk about what we are learning from the ISS experience is just empty cheerleading hoopla. In fact, I'm wondering what science data is even collected and who is collecting it? But, even collected data is useless if it is not analyzed and published.

missile_mother · Nov 10, 2007

Who? My organization? You don't know me or my organization. "denigration of any efforts other than your own organization's" I was denigrating NASA's half ass efforts to use the ISS as a real lab. NASA is only continuing the ISS because of international commitments and isn't really using its resources to exploit the ISS because it will take money away from Constellation. NASA even dissolved the headquarters organization (Code U) in charge of microgravity research Also as for denigrating the other ISS partners, it wasn't intended. The partners don't have the facilities nor the expertise to run the US segment. I didn't say it could be run without NASA, just with US involvement

MeteorWayne · Nov 10, 2007

Right, I don't know <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> In any case, you make a good point that the ISS so far is not a real lab, except for exploration of "medium term" (~ 6 month) effects on humans, and much useful knowledge about construction and maintainance in "space". Right now, there is no other place to gain such knowledge. <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>

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />2016 is not hearsay. It is NASA's plan. Griffin has stated many times.<hr /></blockquote> No proof? Then hearsay. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> "Lawrence Livermore Lab is a national lab" Bad analogy. LANL has a defined purpose and the money to carry it out. <hr /></blockquote> There are those in Livermore CA who question that. I can tell you no nothing about LLNL (not LANL). Nice guess though. Actually its a good analogy since for a while LLNL had been struggling with its identity since DOD downsized its use of the lab. Now its run by UC Berkley. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> "No US, no ISS" is just plain false." On the contrary. <hr /></blockquote> Its a fallacy on many levels. First on the assumption that the US is leaving it. Second on the assumption that NASA not using it means US is abandoning it. And NASA pressing on to the moon leaving US part of ISS a national lab does not mean guarantee the demise of ISS. MeteorWayne is right Missile_Mother feels a lot like Jimfrom nsf. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

richalex · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />OK, lets define SCIENCE from dictionary.com In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That defines the whole ISS experiment. And that is the big picture. <hr /></blockquote> I am questioning the "systematic" part. If the biological condition of the ISS members is not systematically recorded, analyzed and reported, then it really is not science, just a medical report on their conditions. If it is being reported, where is it reported? What peer-reviewed articles contain these reports, and who wrote them? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Who is recording this? try NASA, ESA, JAXA, RSA..... <hr /></blockquote> These are all organizations, not individuals. I'm really asking for specific reports. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />How are they recording this data? Via mission contorl(s) (ie more than one). Where is the data? Some of it can be found in the following links. NASA ISS article archive ESA manned space articles <hr /></blockquote> I did not see any at those links, nor would those links be the appropriate places for these sorts of reports. You linked to collections of news releases. Those are not research reports.

holmec · Nov 10, 2007

Well, perhaps you have to wait a few years to read reports in science journals. It can take a while to analyze data. But your right in that there are not a lot of experiments going on because...after all...construction is going on and not all the labs are in place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

richalex · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I can tell you no nothing about LLNL (not LANL). Nice guess though. Actually its a good analogy since for a while LLNL had been struggling with its identity since DOD downsized its use of the lab. Now its run by UC Berkley.<hr /></blockquote> ?? LLNL has *always* been run by UC Berkeley! Up until 2 months ago, that is: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a premier applied science laboratory that is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the Department of Energy (DOE). LLNL was managed from its inception in 1952 through September 2007 by the University of California for the U.S. government. LLNL is currently managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/about/ <hr /></blockquote>

bobw · Nov 10, 2007

What I really want to see are published, peer-reviewed reports. There is a list of which experiments flew on which Expedition. It looks like the older ones are more likely to have results research papers listed, but the page may not have been updated recently. It lists principal investigators' names with each experiment so it probably shouldn't be too hard to find out if anything worthwile came from the newer ones. I clicked on a bunch of them and sometimes it was hard to tell if they happened on the station or on the Orbiter during a visit to the station or if they happened at all. It is a big list, though. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Positives of the ISS

holmec

Guest

richalex

Guest

qso1

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vulture2

Guest

vulture2

Guest

richalex

Guest

holmec

Guest

missile_mother

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

missile_mother

Guest

holmec

Guest

missile_mother

Guest

holmec

Guest

missile_mother

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

richalex

Guest

missile_mother

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

holmec

Guest

richalex

Guest

holmec

Guest

richalex

Guest

bobw

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page