The International Space Station turns 10

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If something that achieved so much for such a pweriod of time was "junk" then we clearly need more of it.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Russian equipment is not as sophisticated as US equipment is, but it IS very ROBUST!</p><p>As an example:&nbsp; I remember doing a Quality Audit at the Lab complex set up at Rocketdyne Desoto in the year before I retired from that venerable company.&nbsp; What that Laboratory did was to set up the entire electrical control system for the ISS in a laboratory environment (Rocketdyne was the principle contractor for that system on the ISS).&nbsp; This included both American and Russian equipment. One amazing thing about this was that back in the Apollo cold war era, security would not have allowed a Russian within walking distance of a Rocketdyne facility of any kind, and now we were actually working at such a facility with the Russians, personally, I consider that to be one of the greatest benefits of the ISS project itself !</p><p>At any rate, one of the most interesting things to me was to hear the technicians talking about the relative merits of each countries equipment. which included such items as transformers, capacitors, and relays, in other words, electrical stuff.&nbsp; The American equipment was indeed the more sophisticated, but it also broke down more, for instance the Russian relays were almost of a vacuum tube variety, but they NEVER broke down!</p><p>I remember one very poignant story told to me by an American supervising technician.&nbsp; He had ahighly qualified&nbsp; Russian technician working with him that he liked well enough to go fishing with.&nbsp; The Russian had an old canvas bag that was all he had for his tackle, so the US fellow thought nothing of buying him a new metal tackle box from a sporting goods store.&nbsp; The Russian actually broke down in tears over this as such a tackle box was way out of his ability to afford in Russia, even if he could get one at all!&nbsp; To me this is just another benefit of our being able to work together with our so called former enemies.&nbsp; Thus, the ISS also represents a great deal of what we as human beings can do together, and that may even in the long run represent one of its greatest values!! </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both are excellent questions.&nbsp; I don't know, and I would doubt anyone else knows for sure.&nbsp; I'm going by past history.&nbsp; Skylab, Mir, and now ISS.&nbsp; What does ISS have that some how makes it special, that MIR or Skylab did not have?Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>The ISS builds on experience gained in earlier programs in terms of the technology and the science.&nbsp;&nbsp; The ISS&nbsp; is larger, better designed (as a result of experience), is better equipped than its's predecessors.&nbsp; Future stations will build on the ISS experience.&nbsp; Or do you want space science and technology to remain static?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, individual modules are owned by different countries.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>What is wrong with different countries owning different modules?&nbsp;&nbsp; In case you had not noticed, it is an INTERNATIONAL space station? is this something you object to in principle?</p><p></DIV>Because the oldest modules are Russian made, but owned by the U.S. there aren't any guarantees that they will be replaced when the U.S. heads to the moon the 2nd time around.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Russia owns the Russian built models, not the US.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC, the U.S. wanted to abandon the ISS around 2016.&nbsp; Then what happens? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Originally there as talk of NASA no longer flying missions to the ISS after 2016.&nbsp; But commerical missions could still do.&nbsp; I suspect this has now changed, with talk of US missions continuing at last until 2018, and perhaps longer.</p><p>Jon</p> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Russian equipment is not as sophisticated as US equipment is, but....&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Great stories Frodo.&nbsp; The fishing storywould have been during the worst days of the Russian economic crisis, I assume?&nbsp; They fact that they kept their space program going through such difficult times was a heroic achievement.&nbsp; Now that their economy is booming I hope that spending will increase (and to some extent it has).</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Russian equipment is not as sophisticated as US equipment is, but it IS very ROBUST!As an example:&nbsp; I remember doing a Quality Audit at the Lab complex set up at Rocketdyne Desoto in the year before I retired from that venerable company.&nbsp; What that Laboratory did was to set up the entire electrical control system for the ISS in a laboratory environment (Rocketdyne was the principle contractor for that system on the ISS).&nbsp; This included both American and Russian equipment. One amazing thing about this was that back in the Apollo cold war era, security would not have allowed a Russian within walking distance of a Rocketdyne facility of any kind, and now we were actually working at such a facility with the Russians, personally, I consider that to be one of the greatest benefits of the ISS project itself !At any rate, one of the most interesting things to me was to hear the technicians talking about the relative merits of each countries equipment. which included such items as transformers, capacitors, and relays, in other words, electrical stuff.&nbsp; The American equipment was indeed the more sophisticated, but it also broke down more, for instance the Russian relays were almost of a vacuum tube variety, but they NEVER broke down!I remember one very poignant story told to me by an American supervising technician.&nbsp; He had ahighly qualified&nbsp; Russian technician working with him that he liked well enough to go fishing with.&nbsp; The Russian had an old canvas bag that was all he had for his tackle, so the US fellow thought nothing of buying him a new metal tackle box from a sporting goods store.&nbsp; The Russian actually broke down in tears over this as such a tackle box was way out of his ability to afford in Russia, even if he could get one at all!&nbsp; To me this is just another benefit of our being able to work together with our so called former enemies.&nbsp; Thus, the ISS also represents a great deal of what we as human beings can do together, and that may even in the long run represent one of its greatest values!! &nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Great story, and thanx.</p><p>To grab an old saying, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Each perspective, design strategy,&nbsp;contruction, and maintainance technique&nbsp;has it's advantages and disadvantages. Hopefully, part of the result of the ISS experience is to give all designers and engineers a view of the other ways of doing things. In the long (as in long time or long distance) run everything we all have learned should help design and build the best and most robust systems for wherever we go next.</p><p>MW</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Russian equipment is not as sophisticated as US equipment is, but it IS very ROBUST!As an example:&nbsp; I remember doing a Quality Audit at the Lab complex set up at Rocketdyne Desoto in the year before I retired from that venerable company.&nbsp; What that Laboratory did was to set up the entire electrical control system for the ISS in a laboratory environment (Rocketdyne was the principle contractor for that system on the ISS).&nbsp; This included both American and Russian equipment. One amazing thing about this was that back in the Apollo cold war era, security would not have allowed a Russian within walking distance of a Rocketdyne facility of any kind, and now we were actually working at such a facility with the Russians, personally, I consider that to be one of the greatest benefits of the ISS project itself !At any rate, one of the most interesting things to me was to hear the technicians talking about the relative merits of each countries equipment. which included such items as transformers, capacitors, and relays, in other words, electrical stuff.&nbsp; The American equipment was indeed the more sophisticated, but it also broke down more, for instance the Russian relays were almost of a vacuum tube variety, but they NEVER broke down!I remember one very poignant story told to me by an American supervising technician.&nbsp; He had ahighly qualified&nbsp; Russian technician working with him that he liked well enough to go fishing with.&nbsp; The Russian had an old canvas bag that was all he had for his tackle, so the US fellow thought nothing of buying him a new metal tackle box from a sporting goods store.&nbsp; The Russian actually broke down in tears over this as such a tackle box was way out of his ability to afford in Russia, even if he could get one at all!&nbsp; To me this is just another benefit of our being able to work together with our so called former enemies.&nbsp; Thus, the ISS also represents a great deal of what we as human beings can do together, and that may even in the long run represent one of its greatest values!! &nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p><strong>I'll jump on the band wagon, and also agree that you have a fine story, that shows the indirect benefits, when nations&nbsp; work together for the common good of all.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is wrong with different countries owning different modules?&nbsp;&nbsp; In case you had not noticed, it is an INTERNATIONAL space station? is this something you object to in principle?</DIV></p><p><strong>Not at all.&nbsp; My point was, you can't force another country to fix it's own module.&nbsp; And I'm afraid the U.S. will be the 1st nation to do just that.</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Russia owns the Russian built models, not the US.</DIV></p><p><strong>I'm afraid you are mistaken here:</strong></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya</p><h2><span class="editsection">[<font color="#002bb8">edit</font>]</span> <span class="mw-headline">Construction</span></h2><p>It is owned and paid for by the United States and was built from December 1994 to January 1998 in <font color="#002bb8">Russia</font> in the <font color="#002bb8">Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center</font> (KhSC) in Moscow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Originally there as talk of NASA no longer flying missions to the ISS after 2016.&nbsp; But commerical missions could still do.&nbsp; I suspect this has now changed, with talk of US missions continuing at last until 2018, and perhaps longer.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><strong>I'm going to be optimistic, and say that I hope that does happen!</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.&nbsp; My point was, you can't force another country to fix it's own module.&nbsp; And I'm afraid the U.S. will be the 1st nation to do just that.I'm afraid you are mistaken here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya[edit] ConstructionIt is owned and paid for by the United States and was built from December 1994 to January 1998 in Russia in the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (KhSC) in Moscow. I'm going to be optimistic, and say that I hope that does happen! <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Thank you all for your kind remarks. &nbsp;</p><p>You do know that eventually by far the greater amount of work in space IS going to be done by pure private interests. &nbsp;</p><p>So actually and eventually having NASA turn over much of the manufacturing experimentation on the ISS that I have been talking about to those very manufacturing concerns is going to be not only possible, but even desirable!&nbsp; These are the people that are eventually going open up the space frontier to humanity in general.&nbsp; They are going to mine the moon for the metals that they will then smelt, and turn into the infrastructure of trans lunar space.&nbsp; Space hotels both as large space stations, and as colonies on the moon, and yes even Mars and beyond. &nbsp;</p><p>As I see it the ISS is going to probably be under NASA's (and the other governmental space agencies of the other partners) more or less direct control for the next decade or so, after that for at least the next decade I can indeed see pure private interests taking over almost completely.</p><p>As for some modules getting too old, what is to say that newer modules such as new habitation and experimentation modules by the likes of Bigelow could very easily become more and more popular as not only stations on their own, but even as additions to the existing ISS.&nbsp; Heck, at one time there was a possible plan to have an entire industrial type of park built up around the ISS.&nbsp; I see no reason why that will not be done in the future.&nbsp; I would be perfectly happy if at the end of its useful career, the ISS was NOT just brought down to Earth as some kind of a fireball, but perhaps boosted towards a high enough orbit that it could stay up forever, perhaps being a monument in space to all the people that have given so much to this truly great program! </p><p>A tourist attraction for a nearby space hotel perhaps? </p>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.&nbsp; My point was, you can't force another country to fix it's own module.&nbsp; And I'm afraid the U.S. will be the 1st nation to do just that.</DIV></p><p>This statement is completely opaque.&nbsp; Are you saying that the US will force Russia to fix theirn own modules?&nbsp; if so you are wrong.&nbsp; they have no authority to do that.&nbsp; And the Russians have been maintaining their modules all along.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm afraid you are mistaken here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya[edit] ConstructionIt is owned and paid for by the United States and was built from December 1994 to January 1998 in Russia in the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (KhSC) in Moscow. </DIV></p><p>The Russians built, operate, and maintain it, the US only paid for it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm going to be optimistic, and say that I hope that does happen! <br />Posted by kyle_baron&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>All the indications are that it will happen.&nbsp; It it doesn't the US involvement in the ISS will still have been worthwhile as it gained 18 years experience in space station operations that it would not have otherwise have had.</p> <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>

 

[oscar1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I think you are confused.&nbsp; ATV, HTV and Progress can bring no spare parts, but they cannot bring new modules.&nbsp; Even if they could, you can't just swap out a module nor add on a new one.&nbsp; The ones up there are heavily integrated and dependant upon each other.&nbsp; There is no reason to believe that there will be any serious module problems in the next 7 years.&nbsp; Note that the SARJ issue is not a lifetime issue but a design/construction issue.&nbsp; However, showing that we can fix it demonstrates that we can do some amazing things to keep things going.&nbsp; I am confident ISS will still be in very good shape in 2020 - if we want it to be around then.As to Mir being junk at its end...I don't mean to offend but it was not a whole lot better at its start.&nbsp; SAme with the Russian degment on the ISS.&nbsp; The Russians from day one have spent a huge amount of thier time just keeping it running. <br />Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>Of course the ATV can bring new modules. Heck, the thing itself is a module! You may not be able to swap out a module and add a new one in its place, but you can add all the same, and do so at leasure, for you have ample accommodation and back-up&nbsp;to work from. I can't see any reason why the thing could not stay up there for decades.<br /></p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course the ATV can bring new modules. Heck, the thing itself is a module! You may not be able to swap out a module and add a new one in its place, but you can add all the same, and do so at leasure, for you have ample accommodation and back-up&nbsp;to work from. I can't see any reason why the thing could not stay up there for decades. <br />Posted by oscar1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, ATV could not bring another module.&nbsp; You would have to launch it on another Ariane and rendezvous since you can't lift both.&nbsp; The ATV would have to be redesigned.&nbsp; You can't just leave it up there for years - it is not designed for that - again would require major redesign.&nbsp; You don't have things like computers or comm in there - and you can't just add that.&nbsp; Again a major design.&nbsp; It has features that make it unacceptable for a long term module and there is no need/reason really to go in that direction - as the original post was in regards to replacing agin modules.&nbsp; You can't just replace the functionality of the SM or FGB with an ATV.&nbsp; It is a nice idea but the cost would be very high and the benefit very low.<br /></p>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, ATV could not bring another module.&nbsp; You would have to launch it on another Ariane and rendezvous since you can't lift both.&nbsp; The ATV would have to be redesigned.&nbsp; You can't just leave it up there for years - it is not designed for that - again would require major redesign.&nbsp; You don't have things like computers or comm in there - and you can't just add that.&nbsp; Again a major design.&nbsp; It has features that make it unacceptable for a long term module and there is no need/reason really to go in that direction - as the original post was in regards to replacing agin modules.&nbsp; You can't just replace the functionality of the SM or FGB with an ATV.&nbsp; It is a nice idea but the cost would be very high and the benefit very low. <br /> Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>But we DO have heavy launch vehicles (and if spacex is successful even more such vehicles on the horizon) that are indeed capable of lifting new modules to the ISS.&nbsp; The reason that the shuttle is being used for the current station is that the current modules were specifically designed to be lifted to, and worked on, at the ISS by the shuttle. </p><p>But the Ariane V, the Delta IV Heavy, the Atlas V, and possibly the Russian larger rockets, are all quite capable of taking up such modules, if those modules are so designed.&nbsp; And if spacex is successful with its Falcon 9 Heavy, this will add another alt.space private launch corporation's vehicle to that list.&nbsp; Sorry, if I have even left off other countries Heavy lift capacities, it was not out of disrespect I can assure you, but just out of a lack of knowledge of same.&nbsp; Please feel free to add more if you wish!</p><p>Heck, if Bigelow is indeed as totally successful with his inflatable modules, the even far larger (in size, but not weight) modules that the ISS now have could indeed be taken up is greatly increased.&nbsp; In fact, the inflatable habitat was originally a NASA project!</p><p>And if NASA is successful with the Ares V larger vehicle, then there is almost no limit to the sizes of modules that could be brought up to almost anywhere in LEO!&nbsp; </p>

 

[oscar1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, ATV could not bring another module.&nbsp; You would have to launch it on another Ariane and rendezvous since you can't lift both.&nbsp; The ATV would have to be redesigned.&nbsp; You can't just leave it up there for years - it is not designed for that - again would require major redesign.&nbsp; You don't have things like computers or comm in there - and you can't just add that.&nbsp; Again a major design.&nbsp; It has features that make it unacceptable for a long term module and there is no need/reason really to go in that direction - as the original post was in regards to replacing agin modules.&nbsp; You can't just replace the functionality of the SM or FGB with an ATV.&nbsp; It is a nice idea but the cost would be very high and the benefit very low. <br />Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>I don't understand the difficulty here. The [curent] ATV itself is not designed as&nbsp;a module indeed, but I can't see why an ATV-style-module couldn't be built (with computers and all), and be launched just&nbsp;like the [normal] ATV. When we need a new module, we'd have to build&nbsp;one anyway, never mind how we get it up there. So where&nbsp;do&nbsp;these very high costs you mention come from? </p>

 

[trailrider]

<p>The story of the Russians using vacuum tubes in their electronics, brings to mind the dark days of the Cold War, when the MiG-25 pilot defected with his plane.&nbsp; When the plane was examined by U.S. technicians, they discovered that the electronics were primarily using vacuum tubes.&nbsp; They laughed at the unsophisticated equipment...until somebody pointed out that in the event of a "nuk-u-lar" event, the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would probably fry most of the sophisticated transistor and integrated circuitry in U.S. equipment, whereas the tubes would "heal" themselves once the pulse passed.&nbsp; Of course, nothing was said about the pilot's healing after the EMP!</p><p>The U.S. tends to be very "elegant" in our designs, which sometimes is a detriment to robustness and simplicity. Eventually, hopefully, we will learn from each other...another benefit of the ISS co-operation.</p><p>Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But we DO have heavy launch vehicles (and if spacex is successful even more such vehicles on the horizon) that are indeed capable of lifting new modules to the ISS.&nbsp; The reason that the shuttle is being used for the current station is that the current modules were specifically designed to be lifted to, and worked on, at the ISS by the shuttle. But the Ariane V, the Delta IV Heavy, the Atlas V, and possibly the Russian larger rockets, are all quite capable of taking up such modules, if those modules are so designed.&nbsp; And if spacex is successful with its Falcon 9 Heavy, this will add another alt.space private launch corporation's vehicle to that list.&nbsp; Sorry, if I have even left off other countries Heavy lift capacities, it was not out of disrespect I can assure you, but just out of a lack of knowledge of same.&nbsp; Please feel free to add more if you wish!Heck, if Bigelow is indeed as totally successful with his inflatable modules, the even far larger (in size, but not weight) modules that the ISS now have could indeed be taken up is greatly increased.&nbsp; In fact, the inflatable habitat was originally a NASA project!And if NASA is successful with the Ares V larger vehicle, then there is almost no limit to the sizes of modules that could be brought up to almost anywhere in LEO!&nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read my posts carefully.&nbsp; You are correct.&nbsp; The original post I was commenting on was replacing old modules.&nbsp; Yes, you can add modules, but you can't replace the old ones.&nbsp; You can't undock the exisiting module and put in a new one.&nbsp; Futher, you are very limited on what capabilities the new modules would have.&nbsp; While some things can be accomdated with pain - for example, if you want to add wiring for computers in a new module you can do that either inside our via EVA but it is not a trivial things.&nbsp; Many things like the environmental systems are scoped for the curent modules.&nbsp; So a few new modules could be added but replacing core ones woul dbe extremel;y difficult and costly.<br /></p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand the difficulty here. The [curent] ATV itself is not designed as&nbsp;a module indeed, but I can't see why an ATV-style-module couldn't be built (with computers and all), and be launched just&nbsp;like the [normal] ATV. When we need a new module, we'd have to build&nbsp;one anyway, never mind how we get it up there. So where&nbsp;do&nbsp;these very high costs you mention come from? <br />Posted by oscar1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ok, again, I think you missed my point.&nbsp; Yes, we can add new modules, but you can't just replace an old exisiting one.&nbsp; For example, lets take the Russian Service Module.&nbsp; The SM contains the core Russian computer and propulsion system.&nbsp; You attach an upgraded ATV module ($$$).&nbsp; You will have to either drag cables through the hatch (danderous) or add them EVA to connect the new ATV computer to the US systems.&nbsp; Also the SM central computer is hard wired to many, many systems, so you would have to rip out all that wiring and figure out how to get it to this new system.&nbsp; And so.&nbsp; Again, you can add new modules.&nbsp; You can't replace exisiting modules without a great deal of cost and money that frankly is not worth it, especially when there is no indication they won't last for a number of years yet.&nbsp; IF we do have problems, it will likely be on the Russian side.<br /></p>

 

[arkady]

<p>In my eyes, the process of building the ISS, and the know-how obtained with respect to orbital construction and operation represents the true value of the project. It could crash into the Pacific tomorrow, and still I'd claim it has been of trumendous value to future spacebased endeavours.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[mouseonmars]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Originally there as talk of NASA no longer flying missions to the ISS after 2016.&nbsp; But commerical missions could still do.&nbsp; I suspect this has now changed, with talk of US missions continuing at last until 2018, and perhaps longer.Jon<br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />I was thinking of that myself as the origin of the myth (correct word?) that the USA has "abandoned" the ISS. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These are the people that are eventually going open up the space frontier to humanity in general.&nbsp; They are going to mine the moon for the metals that they will then smelt, and turn into the infrastructure of trans lunar space.&nbsp; Space hotels both as large space stations, and as colonies on the moon, and yes even Mars and beyond. &nbsp;As I see it the ISS is going to probably be under NASA's (and the other governmental space agencies of the other partners) more or less direct control for the next decade or so, after that for at least the next decade I can indeed see pure private interests taking over ...<br /> Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Fascinating stories on this thread and viewpoints. I'd like to see more dedicated media to cover the station as well as other missions. There must be many, many contractors and space agency personnel with stories and anecdotes who could contribute to a dedicated channel. We have NASA TV but ESA TV seems more limited. I have not discovered much in the way of public outreach from other agencies. With the gate opening fast to LEO orbit and beyond, after 10 years of the ISS, it would seem to be the time for this.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am your God. I am all knowing." Baal, Stargate SG-1 </div>

 

[oscar1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking of that myself as the origin of the myth (correct word?) that the USA has "abandoned" the ISS. Fascinating stories on this thread and viewpoints. I'd like to see more dedicated media to cover the station as well as other missions. There must be many, many contractors and space agency personnel with stories and anecdotes who could contribute to a dedicated channel. We have NASA TV but ESA TV seems more limited. I have not discovered much in the way of public outreach from other agencies. With the gate opening fast to LEO orbit and beyond, after 10 years of the ISS, it would seem to be the time for this. <br />Posted by mouseonmars</DIV></p><p>I am of similar opinion. There simply is not enough attention paid to PR, which gives the impression that the ISS is some toy-project of a select group, costing the community an arm and a leg.&nbsp;Via the news one is&nbsp;usually only imformed of a take off to the station, and of a safe landing thereafter. Only when something unplanned happens, like the losing&nbsp;a tool bag, is a little more reported, yet with the main emphasis on cost. When Mark Shuttleworth went up to the station, paying for the fare himself, everyone (black, white, Indian)&nbsp;in South Africa was talking about it and proud; after that,&nbsp;all lost interest. They could let the next Shuttle [to the ISS] land in France (just to name a place). That would cost what?, 4 to 5 million perhaps [to bring the Shuttle back] (Unilever spends such an amount per day on advertising)?, but there'd be a keen&nbsp;audience of some 60 million people, if not many more, lots of news coverage, documentaries, etc.</p>

 

[mouseonmars]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am of similar opinion. There simply is not enough attention paid to PR, which gives the impression that the ISS is some toy-project of a select group, costing the community an arm and a leg.&nbsp;Via the news one is&nbsp;usually only imformed of a take off to the station, and of a safe landing thereafter. Only when something unplanned happens, like the losing&nbsp;a tool bag, is a little more reported, yet with the main emphasis on cost. When Mark Shuttleworth went up to the station, paying for the fare himself, everyone (black, while, indian)&nbsp;in South Africa was talking about it and proud; after that,&nbsp;all lost interest. They could let the next Shuttle [to the ISS] land in Farnce (just to name a place) for instance. That would cost what?, 4 to 5 million perhaps [to bring the Shuttle back] (Unilever spends such an amount per day on advertising), but there'd be a keen&nbsp;audience of some 60 million people, lots of news coverage, documentaries, etc. <br /> Posted by oscar1</DIV></p><p>Space.com TV ? </p><p>PR suggests a business which the ISS is not. It's an international collaboration. By "dedicated" media I meant more operations like NASA TV. Here in th UK we have Freeview now, to replace analog braodcasting. ESA TV is not carried on there but should be. The UK has just commited just under a billion to the ESA and is setting up a new ESA center in th UK ( see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7749761.stm ).</p><p>I actually think the commercial media do a pretty good job (see the link above). The quality is about the same as other areas they cover. Important as it is I don't think the ISS necessarily deserves extra coverage. There are just as important things going on elsewhere. As&nbsp; Donald Pettit said in answer to a question about the views up there ... "there's some stunning views on Earth as well".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am your God. I am all knowing." Baal, Stargate SG-1 </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apologies if this has already been posted, but I found these images to be so awesome and amazing!&nbsp;<br /> Posted by doublehelix</DIV></p><p>Here is a cool YouTube video that shows the construction of the ISS, step by step, from it's beginning to it's ultimate completion:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLHJ0YUAC4</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a cool YouTube video that shows the construction of the ISS, step by step, from it's beginning to it's ultimate completion:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLHJ0YUAC4 <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>Nice video, thanks.&nbsp; But I'm trying to visualize it, sitting at the bottom of the pacific ocean.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>