The ISS

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The absolute truth is that we the United States have promised our partners in the ISS that we would finish what we do to core completion."</font><br /><br />Nowhere in my post did I state that we should not complete the ISS. I merely stated that your arguments for why the ISS will be useful were largely invalid. Personally, I think that I share a similar view of the ISS as Griffin (who has stated that nothing the ISS can do will justify its price tag). Namely, I consider core completion to be a chore that we <b>must</b> do. I do not, however, consider it something that we <b>want</b> to do.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"So lets play it YOUR way, what do we do with this billions of dollars worth of equipment?"</font><br /><br />As I said, I did not propose a <b>way</b> -- I merely pointed out the flaws in your pro-ISS statements.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I am perfectly at ease with such attacks as yours on my posts, it doesn't bother me at least. But when someone calls your posts drivel, that someone is a person that you can safely ignore! "</font><br /><br />Apparently you did so successfully. So far you haven't even managed to provide a counterargument for anything I actually said in my post.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I will however, just for the sheer fun of it answer your first paragraph (and as it happens several other points as well). It is possible that purpose built space stations with capable laboratories could indeed be built in the time frame put forth. If IS however, quite improbable, due to just several things! "</font><br /><br />Lesse -- you said:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"ISS is the laboratory that will enable us to learn how to take the raw materials of such bodies as the moon and convert them to completed infrastructure products to be used in space! For at least the next 10 to 20 years there is no other such laboratory available to do this." <</safety_wrapper></font>

 

[grooble]

I always thought they had vacuum chambers on earth.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I always thought they had vacuum chambers on earth. "</font><br /><br />I've got one at my house. It's got a Hoover in it. Also a mop, broom, dustpan in it. Normally I just call it a closet, though.<br /><br />On a more serious note... Huh?!?!? What exactly are you responding to?

 

[grooble]

Well the ISS has cost billions and all for some experiments. Couldn't a vacuum low-g chamber be constructed here on earth somehow for a small price of $100 billion or whatever the ISS cost?<br /><br />A chamber that could run many more experiments than the ISS. <br /><br />http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/lvc.htm

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Couldn't a vacuum low-g chamber be constructed here on earth..."</font><br /><br />Vacuum -- yes. <br />Low-G -- how???<br /><br />The closest thing to 'earth' we have to simulate low-G is the vomit-comit. You only get a few seconds worth of low-G. Not reasonable for most experimentation.<br /><br />The next option (further from Earth) is that you can use sounding rockets and get a few minutes of micro-G . Still not much time, limited cargo capacity, and experiments must be unmanned.<br /><br />The next further option is a rocket sent to LEO for a few days/weeks. The Russians did this recently (forget the name -- too lazy to look up right now). Best micro-G of the three, but still unmanned, and certainly not 'here on Earth'.<br /><br />Of course the 'best' option short of a dedicated space station is the shuttle itself with the lab module installed in the cargo bay. It's one of the few truly unique capabilities about the shuttle that I see being a big downside when it's retired. It was conceivable that you could send up a micro-G lab <b>specifically designed</b> for a given purpose (like the mettalurgy work that ISS can't do) to do experiments for a couple of weeks. Of course the shuttle is too expensive per flight to truly make this a reasonable option for routine use.

 

[frodo1008]

I think we just need to agree to disagree here. I am really not prepared to continue such a long argument with you, you win, hows that!<br /><br />There are only a couple of minor pointS that I do know. I never said that we have to actuallly have lunar regolith to learn to process materials from the moon. The rough percentages of the various minerals from which the various metals can be extrackted are available right here on Earth, and can even be sent up to ISS long before they will be available from the moon itself. What is needed is a knowledge of how to process these materials in space, that is all.<br /><br />Perhaps you have not heard of table-top machining? I can make finished machined parts right here in my apartment (there are even small machines that are now NC Controlled). I don't need a giant machine shop to do this. Also, there are books available on the processing and smelting, and casting using facilities that could fit into the average bathroom. You just have to know where to look for them. This is why I said that it would NOT take full production level facilities (which I am well aware that the ISS does not, and perhaps can not posses at this time or in the predictable future) to do this kind of research. The research itself is important because obviously there are going to be differences in doing these kinds of things in the environment of space. In working on the ISS itself we are already learning to do some assembly of structures in space. This information will be important to any manned space program that wishes to eventually exploit the resourses not only of the moon, but of space itself.<br /><br />Actually, I do not know, and neither does anybody else (you included) what all of the uses for such a facility as the ISS will be. It IS one of a kind, in an entirely new environment, so there is no telling how totally successful it will be. I happen to think it will be well worth the total eventual cost, others think otherwise, but NOBODY re

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...you win, hows that!"</font><br /><br />With the understanding that I'll once again shout 'drivel' if you re-post the same flipping <i>ISS Cheerleading Manifesto</i> to Uplink a <b>fifth</b> time... sounds great.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...can even be sent up to ISS long before they will be available from the moon itself. What is needed is a knowledge of how to process these materials in space..."</font><br /><br />Yes, this is called "lunar simulant". JSC has a mix that they are offering for the MoonROX competition. That would be the contest where they are hoping someone will develop machinery to process regolith and produce oxygen. This is being done on earth, and it's hoped (of course) that the process will also work in 1/6th G, because any such machine would be sent to the surface for the moon. <b>No one</b> who knows what they're talking about is worried right now about processing lunar materials in <b>Zero</b>-G because we are decades (at least) away from caring and likely will <b>never</b> care. <br /><br />You're simply not tracking here. To process lunar materials in zero G requires sending a manufacturing plant into space (hopefully LLO rather than LEO). Then raw materials must be launched from the surface of the moon *to* the factory in orbit on a continuing basis to be processed. This requires a significant and continuing need for propellant and oxidizer -- both <b>very</b> valuable commodities on the moon. This would be like taking huge quantities of sand from Australian beaches, then shipping it by boat to California to be turned into transistors. It simply doesn't make sense.<br /><br />If you're going to send a manufacturing plant to LLO, <b>WHY</b> would you not simply send it to the surface of the moon so that you can do the processing there, and only have to use propellant to send completed products into orbit (assuming those products aren't made to be used on the moon itself, which for a

 

[grooble]

I'd love to see you two play chess.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I'd love to see you two play chess. "</font><br /><br />It'd be a short game. The third or fourth time that he picked up a pawn and moved it like it was a bishop*, I'd just pick the board up and beat him about the head and shoulders.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* It's those painted-over glasses... hard to tell one piece from another when you can't see it.

 

[j05h]

>Actually, I do not know, and neither does anybody else (you included) what all of the uses for such a facility as the <br /> />ISS will be. It IS one of a kind, in an entirely new environment, so there is no telling how totally successful it <br /> />will be. I happen to think it will be well worth the total eventual cost, others think otherwise, but NOBODY really know for sure, not even you or I!!!<br /><br />Not to jump into you two's flamefest, but this needs some correction. People do indeed know exactly what is going onto ISS for research equipment, the manifests are public knowledge and available online. You can look at exactly what will be up there (racks in Kibo & Columbus, for example) and from there figure out what they are testing. Kibo has a sealed glovebox for bio experiements and a rack for combustion tests, among others. <br /><br />ISS is not unique, it is one in a series of (essentially) Russian space stations - it has hardware heritage stretching back to the Salyut stations. It just happens to have an American lab module hanging from it. There will be other stations in the future, far more capable and perhaps geared toward what you want. ISS, however, will not be equipped as you have insisted it will.<br /><br />ISS benefits outwieghing cost... that just depends on how you view it. Being in the middle of construction, it is hard to tell what the outcome will be. However, please keep in mind that it has cost something like $60 Billlion dollars so far. That is a lot of dedicated satelites, cancer/bio research and space probes. ISS is one of the greatest examples of government pork ever, by that measure it is a success.<br /><br />Your insistence that it will have a 6 crew compliment is not borne out by experience. Mir got along fine with 2, ISS went from 3 to 2 crew and shows no indication of that changing unless it drops down to man-tended status. They cancelled the Hab 5 years ago along with CRV and nothing is in place to change that. At the curre <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Initially you are correct, these propellants will not be leaving the moon itself. However, it is indeed feasable that in the longer run to build a mass launcher that can literally throw the raw materials off the moon. And eventually it will be possible to process them in space itself. Space, which has almost infinite energy ALL the time from the sun and the material handling capabilities of zero g. Or, if you use spin techniques almost any kind of gravity that you chose to have. I appologise if I was not clear on this. Like G.K. O'niell I fully believe that space itself should be the ultimate goal of humanity. There are just too few planets and even moons, all at the bottom of various gravity wells to support a truly space faring civilization. I do realize that this is a relativaly long term solution. Heck, at my age of 62 I will be quite lucky to see us go back to the moon!<br /><br />But I do have children, and grand children, and I hope they too will have the same. If we do not get mankind into space the life choices for my decendants are going to be very limited at best. I happen to believe the the ISS can, and should be a part of the beginning of that. I thought that this was the whole purpose in even building research space stations and all that in the first place! If that makes me an unrealistic naive dreamer, then so be it!<br /><br />As for pure pork, I can think of a lot of such projects that congress has over the years supported, that have cost many times the cost of the ISS, or for that matter the entire space program. If you took NASA's entire budget, and tried to place it on an excell chart next to the other costs of the federal budget, you would have to warp your measurements to where you could even see the NASA part, so badly that the chart would be absolutely useless. And the ENTIRE expense of both the shuttle and the ISS is considerably less than half that expense. <br /><br />Your point on NASA being paranoid about not having such operatio

 

[frodo1008]

While we do indeed know the exact contents of the ISS project, the results of using those very contents are very uncertain! We do NOT know what people on the ISS are going to discover, one way or the other. My friend , this is a unique facility, the first of its kind (and I do hope that we will have both bigger and better such facilities in the future). <br /><br />The first cloth covered wooden biplanes were not exactly the end result of the airplane industry either. Who could tell that they would eventually evolve into an industry that keeps some 200,000+ people in the air at the same time, flying at near the speed of sound! And even this is nowhere near the end of it!<br /><br />Who is to say that the ISS will not be expanded in the future by at least the other partners, if not us. I would like to hope that some of the items that I believe to have been foolishly cancelled by congress. A group of people who are some 95% lawyers, obviously people who are totally competent to judge and fund technologists on the cutting edge of space technology! Perhaps, Bigelow and company would be willing to sell one of their inflatable habitat modules to NASA eventually (in particular as such inflatable habitats would not even exist for Bigelow and company if NASA hadn't done the initial research themsleves). <br /><br />At this time the ISS is unique, unless you know of another such facility? Yes, I too believe that other and better space stations will be built, but NOT for quite sometime in the future. The inflatable stations that Bigelow and pure private industry are talking about are for space tourism and NOT research! I would readily admit that such research facilities as the ISS will not have the same direct profitability as such tourism space stations, so private industry will not be directly interested in them. Sorry, but that is the nature of pure private interests. Especially if they can get the government to pay for the initial research in the first place!!

 

[frodo1008]

This is just the kind of short and sarcastic "Sound Bite" types of posts that are NOT needed in such discussions as this one, on a forum such as M&L. Please take such posts back over to FS where they belong!!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">ISS is not unique, it is one in a series of (essentially) Russian space stations - it has hardware heritage stretching back to the Salyut stations.</font>/i><br /><br />Hence Russia's opposition to America wanting to call ISS "Alpha".</i>

 

[j05h]

ISS isn't the "first" space station, nor the first American station. Most of the current station is part of a long line of Russian/Soviet space stations. It is not unique as you claim, but one in a series. <br /><br />The ISS is increasingly a lame-duck project, not something that our partners want to expand past Assembly Complete. Europe and Japan want their modules and ideally the promised centrifuge. They don't want lunar processing or whatever, just what they already developed. Most future developments are likely to be at 1-5 degree equatorial orbits, serviced through Kourou and other sites including the open ocean (sea launch).<br /><br />Bigelow has said very explicitly that he wants to sell inflatable modules to all paying customers, NASA, Air Force, tourist companies, anyone that wants them and will pay. This opens the option for tourist, research, hospital and any other dedicated space station you can imagine and pay for. It's not just about space tourism, claiming so debases what he is doing. <br /><br />Not all private efforts are about profit. Please don't discount institutes, social organizations (national geographic, exploration clubs), the religious or very rich adventurers. These are all potential drivers in developing the high frontier.<br /><br />We need a first generation of pioneers.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

Frodo, just to interject one thing before I reply to your latest. I don't consider this to be a 'flame war'. With the exception of my one 'drivel' comment, I have stuck to countering your arguments. The impulse to label it 'drivel' came because I was really tired of seeing the same post for the third time in a very short period of time, when I didn't consider it to be a 'good' one in the first place. Granted, I tend to use humor in my replies, which you might take as being directed at you, but actually -- it's just me trying to make my posts an interesting read. You (or whoever's statements I'm arguing against) won't find it amusing, of course. However, I pretty much consider it a lost cause to entertain the person whose arguments I'm trashing. I hope just to make it interesting for everyone <b>else</b>. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />That said: on to the current post...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"However, it is indeed feasable that in the longer run to build a mass launcher that can literally throw the raw materials off the moon."</font><br /><br />In the longer run the ISS won't be there. You don't spend money developing techniques that you won't need for decades. Even if you develop a working process/equipment... by the time it's sat on the shelf long enough to be needed, new technology may well (in fact very likely) will have made it obsolete... and invalidated all the money spent on it. I've never said Zero-G manufacturing techniques are useless -- only that they aren't needed <b>now</b> or <b>soon</b> and that the ISS will have no relevance to them.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I happen to believe the the ISS can, and should be a part of the beginning of that. I thought that this was the whole purpose in even building research space stations and all that in the first place! If that makes me an unrealistic naive dreamer, then so be it! "</font><br /><br />I've got an email from a Nigerian General who is look

 

[frodo1008]

I do owe you an appology. The last part of my last post was meant as a general comment, and NOT directed at you specifically. I am sure that you realize, just as I do that others are reading our posts. Some of these people have thrown the pork type of statement at me before, again and again. And I do not see your very intelligent replies as doing this sort of thing. I am NOT here to entertain such people. I am not a professional speech writer, I am just a retired aerospace worker. So sometimes I do not make myself as clear as I would like to! Once again, my appologies. <br /><br />I too, do not see our current discussion as any kind of flame war. Actually, some of the points that you make are indeed very good. I would like to think that I make it clear that I am NOT just some kind of cheerleader for NASA, or the ISS, or the shuttle. I could care less if somebody figures out how to use a giant rubber band to get humanity into space. I would be the first to applaude such efforts!<br /><br />I think that one of our areas of disagreement might be cleared up by noting that I am being far more generalistic about the ISS than you are. I always seem to get into trouble when I get too specific. So as I am better off being more general. I will try that apporach with some of your objections.<br /><br />My main point in support of the ISS is NOT that it is, or even is going to be some kind of overwhelming success. It is that we will not even know how much of a sucees it will be or not for quite some time into the future. IT WILL be a scientific research facility when complete, it WILL have a lot more capability than anything we have had so far, and IT will be our most capable facility of its kind for quite sometime into the future! Whether or not this means that its cost will actually be made up (I have said that I felt it would be worth the cost many times over, but I have to admit that is somewhat of a reaction to those who automatically assume that it is a boondo