I dont get it, they worked on the ISS for years, and they will still be working on the ISS for another 2 years, adding components and other cool things. Everything is very expensive, very much the latest of the latest technology and at the same time work done there is unique in every aspect. Then, BOOM! They dont expect this to last past 2020!!! What the heck? Who spends 100 billion dollars and then all the sudden does not consider keeping it alive for at least 20 years or more? Why not replace the oldest module with an updated version? A more durable version, or maintain the thing somehow?
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont get it, they worked on the ISS for years, and they will still be working on the ISS for another 2 years, adding components and other cool things. Everything is very expensive, very much the latest of the latest technology and at the same time work done there is unique in every aspect. Then, BOOM! They dont expect this to last past 2020!!! What the heck? Who spends 100 billion dollars and then all the sudden does not consider keeping it alive for at least 20 years or more? Why not replace the oldest module with an updated version? A more durable version, or maintain the thing somehow? <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>This is not an insult, but are you young?</p><p>After 5+ decades of life, I have learned (to a certain extent) that the spending of money by our government makes no sense if examined closely. It is almost always driven by politics. Common sense, or usefulness is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down on the list of priorities.</p><p>BTW, the oldest modules can not be replaced. Without them there's nothing to hold the station together. Even if they are dead hulks, they always have to be there.<br /></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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont get it, they worked on the ISS for years, and they will still be working on the ISS for another 2 years, adding components and other cool things. Everything is very expensive, very much the latest of the latest technology and at the same time work done there is unique in every aspect. Then, BOOM! They dont expect this to last past 2020!!! What the heck? Who spends 100 billion dollars and then all the sudden does not consider keeping it alive for at least 20 years or more? Why not replace the oldest module with an updated version? A more durable version, or maintain the thing somehow? <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>The ISS was conceived as a political animal. The objective was to put money into the Russian aerospace establishment to prevent their scientists and engineers from turning to rogue nations and terrorists in order to make a living after the fall of the Soviet Union. The scientific benefit of the ISS is rather small compared to the cost.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Yea but at a certain point someone would think that they would actually like to get something out of it. They are humans, and humans like to get something practical out of it. And if they throw away money they should at least discover something, or at least keep it going to justifiy its cause. Politics or not, the ISS can grow huge if taken care of. </p><p>Hell at least move it further up so that they dont have to fire the trusts to prevent it from falling to earth. </p><p>Edit: Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_components_of_the_ISS in the canceled or unused links in the bottom. Tons of stuff that will never go up! If it went up, and they actually cared of taking care of the station the presence of humans in space would be more than just 3 dudes hanging. We could have 15 people up there, thats quite something. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yea but at a certain point someone would think that they would actually like to get something out of it. They are humans, and humans like to get something practical out of it. And if they throw away money they should at least discover something, or at least keep it going to justifiy its cause. Politics or not, the ISS can grow huge if taken care of. Hell at least move it further up so that they dont have to fire the trusts to prevent it from falling to earth. <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV><br /><br />So are you young? Politics or not makes perfect common sense, but does not describe the current real world.</p><p>You assume that thinking is involved, my real world view is not as charitable. Politicians are politicians, intelligence need not apply.</p><p>If you want that to change, you must become politically involved, or all the common sense in the world doesn't mean a darn thing.</p><p>Sorry, but it's true.</p><p>Wayne</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yea but at a certain point someone would think that they would actually like to get something out of it. They are humans, and humans like to get something practical out of it. And if they throw away money they should at least discover something, or at least keep it going to justifiy its cause. Politics or not, the ISS can grow huge if taken care of. Hell at least move it further up so that they dont have to fire the trusts to prevent it from falling to earth. Edit: Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_components_of_the_ISS in the canceled or unused links in the bottom. Tons of stuff that will never go up! If it went up, and they actually cared of taking care of the station the presence of humans in space would be more than just 3 dudes hanging. We could have 15 people up there, thats quite something. <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>Unless you have some specific mission in mind, after boosting the ISS you would have 15 people hanging out in an orbit that is much harder to supply.</p><p>The station orbit is a bit challenging for the shuttle. I am not quite sure what they did to the ISS launch manifest to find the lift capability for what they have in orbit now. The manifest as originally planned exceeded the shuttle launch capability, even after the initial improvements -- lithium aluminum, weight reduction in the orbiter, etc. I don't know for sure but I surmise that they cut the ISS into smaller pieces for launch purposes.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont get it, they worked on the ISS for years, and they will still be working on the ISS for another 2 years, adding components and other cool things. Everything is very expensive, very much the latest of the latest technology and at the same time work done there is unique in every aspect. Then, BOOM! They dont expect this to last past 2020!!! What the heck? Who spends 100 billion dollars and then all the sudden does not consider keeping it alive for at least 20 years or more? Why not replace the oldest module with an updated version? A more durable version, or maintain the thing somehow? <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>Twenty years is a long time for a human spacecraft that can't land and be overhauled between missions. No previous station will have lasted this long. Even on Earth, not many vehicles, ships or aircraft last for this length of time. Spacde is a punishing environment, especially in LEO. Extrme temperature changes many times a day, space debris, atomic oxygen, radiation, aandd general wear and rear by the hundreds of people who will hve lived and work there will take their toll. Plus there wll be general obsolescence. After 20 years much of the technology will be obsolete, the questions it is designed to answer answered. It will be time for a new station, or stations.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Twenty years is a long time for a human spacecraft that can't land and be overhauled between missions. No previous station will have lasted this long. Even on Earth, not many vehicles, ships or aircraft last for this length of time. Spacde is a punishing environment, especially in LEO. Extrme temperature changes many times a day, space debris, atomic oxygen, radiation, aandd general wear and rear by the hundreds of people who will hve lived and work there will take their toll. Plus there wll be general obsolescence. After 20 years much of the technology will be obsolete, the questions it is designed to answer answered. It will be time for a new station, or stations.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Twenty years may not be as big a problem as you think. Look at the service life of the B-52 bomber or the projections of the service life ballistic missile submarines and the missiles that they carry. With all of the problems that came up during the construction of the ISS (and that construction is not yet complete) it might be difficult to find funding for another one anytime soon.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS was conceived as a political animal. The objective was to put money into the Russian aerospace establishment to prevent their scientists and engineers from turning to rogue nations and terrorists in order to make a living after the fall of the Soviet Union. The scientific benefit of the ISS is rather small compared to the cost. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The largely unjustified fears of some in the US was only a small factor. The reality was that the US was not going to be able to build a station without international collaboration. The earlier "Spaace Station Freedom" project was dead. It made excellent sense to form a partnership with the Russians and take advantage of their enormous practical experience in space station operations and extensive support infrastructure.</p><p>Scientific return? Thousands of papers have been published already. And it is not even finished. Most of the research done on the ISS could not have been done anywhere else. So to say that return for cost has been small is not particular meaningfu. IMHO.</p><p>cheers</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The largely unjustified fears of some in the US was only a small factor. The reality was that the US was not going to be able to build a station without international collaboration. The earlier "Spaace Station Freedom" project was dead. It made excellent sense to form a partnership with the Russians and take advantage of their enormous practical experience in space station operations and extensive support infrastructure.Scientific return? Thousands of papers have been published already. And it is not even finished. Most of the research done on the ISS could not have been done anywhere else. So to say that return for cost has been small is not particular meaningfu. IMHO.cheersJon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Lots of papers can be published on almost any topic.</p><p>I once had a conversation on the scientific value of the ISS with a gentleman who was one of the members of the Rogers Commission. He is pretty bright and well-respected in the aeronautics community, to put it mildly. He agreed with me and said that the ISS had no scientific mission of note. I think that is still the case.</p><p>That in no way precludes a lot of activity and lots of publication. But I still question the return on investment in terms of truly important scientific research. I also contest the contention that the work could not have been performed in the orbiter. Much research into zero g effects has performed on that platform. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lots of papers can be published on almost any topic.I once had a conversation on the scientific value of the ISS with a gentleman who was one of the members of the Rogers Commission. He is pretty bright and well-respected in the aeronautics community, to put it mildly. He agreed with me and said that the ISS had no scientific mission of note. I think that is still the case.That in no way precludes a lot of activity and lots of publication. But I still question the return on investment in terms of truly important scientific research. I also contest the contention that the work could not have been performed in the orbiter. Much research into zero g effects has performed on that platform. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>These are peer reviewed papers in scientific journals. Obviously those people writying them had a different opinion to your friend in the Rogers commission. High level US reviews have repeatedly identified significant research issues that require the capabilities of the ISS. For example National Vision for Space Exploration FY 2005 President's Budget Request Reports of the National Research Council spaceresearch.nasa.gov/general_info/adv.html;National Academy of Science reports on biomedical, microgravity, materials science, radiation hazards, biological and biotechnology research www.nas.edu/ssb/bib1.html.OBPR Research Plan; www.spaceresearch.nasa.gov/common/docs/OBPR_Research_Plan.pdf . Plus a station space has been a long term goal for ESA, the Japanese, and Russia. In the case of Russia, a space station has been a reality for more than 20 years.</p><p>From my experience people who claim the ISS does not do useul science are those who are not interested in the sorts of questions the ISS addresses. This is both short sighted and self centred - essentially, "If it is not something I am interested in it is not important".</p><p>The orbiter cannot do science that requires more than a few days to complete. An experiment on the ISS can run for months or years, if required. The orbiter annot teach us to live and work in space over the long term, nor the issues of managing continuously crewed spacecraft. The orbiter does not have the power supply of the ISS and cannot run high powered experiments.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...The orbiter cannot do science that requires more than a few days to complete. An experiment on the ISS can run for months or years, if required. The orbiter annot teach us to live and work in space over the long term, nor the issues of managing continuously crewed spacecraft. The orbiter does not have the power supply of the ISS and cannot run high powered experiments.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I can agree with this much anyway. The rest seems to be in eye of the beholder.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>From the engineering perspective, the construction project and operation of a vast multi-national spacecraft is the whole point of ISS. In this sense it is doing it's job quite well. </p><p>Large parts from different countries are assembled on orbit into a working complex. This is something new that never happened before in this scale until ISS.</p><p>We just managed an autonomous docking of a large craft with ISS and the current mission brings on-line a large japanese lab module. <br /><br />If we want to get to places one day, we need to know how to build and operate large multi-national infrastructure in space. And we're learning. </p><p>A 2 year journey to Mars and back will be tremendous undertaking, which I doubt no country alone will even attempt. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the engineering perspective, the construction project and operation of a vast multi-national spacecraft is the whole point of ISS. .... <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Isn't this rather like saying that the whole point of the transcontinental railway was to build it, using a large percentage of immigrant labor ? Generally an engineering project is justified on the basis of the product that it produces.</p><p>Now I have no problemwith the search for knowledge as an end in itself. But that is science. Engineering is a bit different.</p><p>You are, however, in a rather weird sense correct. The mission of the ISS was to occupy Russian scientists and engineers with something other than technology transfer to rogue nations and terrorists. The act of construction of the ISS seems to have done that. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS was conceived as a political animal. The objective was to put money into the Russian aerospace establishment to prevent their scientists and engineers from turning to rogue nations and terrorists in order to make a living after the fall of the Soviet Union. The scientific benefit of the ISS is rather small compared to the cost. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />I thought the go-ahead plans for the ISS were already in place 4 or 5 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. No? I could be mistaken but I don't think so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought the go-ahead plans for the ISS were already in place 4 or 5 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. No? I could be mistaken but I don't think so. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>I have forgotten the entire history, but the ISS was finally given a go-ahead during the Clinton years for reasons purely involving control of technology from the Soviet Union. I think it had died but was resurrected and saved in the name of the political goals.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unless you have some specific mission in mind, after boosting the ISS you would have 15 people hanging out in an orbit that is much harder to supply.The station orbit is a bit challenging for the shuttle. I am not quite sure what they did to the ISS launch manifest to find the lift capability for what they have in orbit now. The manifest as originally planned exceeded the shuttle launch capability, even after the initial improvements -- lithium aluminum, weight reduction in the orbiter, etc. I don't know for sure but I surmise that they cut the ISS into smaller pieces for launch purposes. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Well sure. Every pod has to fit within our Model T Shuttle cargo bay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well sure. Every pod has to fit within our Model T Shuttle cargo bay. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>The problem was weight. With the launch manifest as originally formulated, the shuttle could not get all that stuff into orbit. There was a real scramble on in about 1994 to figure out how to do it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Generally an engineering project is justified on the basis of the product that it produces.Now I have no problemwith the search for knowledge as an end in itself. But that is science. Engineering is a bit different.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>We can design a space-station on paper, but while building it we also apply science to come up with results better and more efficient than the original design was.</p><p>It's engineering science. ISS is a mega science and engineering project, and the end result will be knowledge how to build a craft and a station to take us to the interesting places.</p><p>You *real* scientists are supposed to figure out what to do when we get there 
</p>
</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The largely unjustified fears of some in the US was only a small factor. The reality was that the US was not going to be able to build a station without international collaboration. The earlier "Spaace Station Freedom" project was dead. It made excellent sense to form a partnership with the Russians and take advantage of their enormous practical experience in space station operations and extensive support infrastructure.Scientific return? Thousands of papers have been published already. And it is not even finished. Most of the research done on the ISS could not have been done anywhere else. So to say that return for cost has been small is not particular meaningfu. IMHO.cheersJon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Oh yeah, that's the one I was thinking of, the 'Freedom' station. Got 'em confused, my bad. I agree with you about the expertise and know-how of the Russians in long duration space habitation and other skills. But it could have been a dual purpose concept, as Dr.R postulates, i.e. keeping the former Soviet engineers and technicians busy doing something 'constructive'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't this rather like saying that the whole point of the transcontinental railway was to build it, using a large percentage of immigrant labor ? Generally an engineering project is justified on the basis of the product that it produces.Now I have no problemwith the search for knowledge as an end in itself. But that is science. Engineering is a bit different.You are, however, in a rather weird sense correct. The mission of the ISS was to occupy Russian scientists and engineers with something other than technology transfer to rogue nations and terrorists. The act of construction of the ISS seems to have done that. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />Russian scientists and engineers transferring technology and know-how to terrorists and rogue nations would not be in their self-interest. The Islamic extremists hate the Russians as much if not more than they hate the Americans. Russia still has sovereignty over lands occupied by Muslims and still tries to dominate greater Eurasia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem was weight. With the launch manifest as originally formulated, the shuttle could not get all that stuff into orbit. There was a real scramble on in about 1994 to figure out how to do it. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If memory serves correctly, shuttle Columbia could not make it to ISS orbit at all, while the newer orbiters could. Somebody else can probably tell what the difference between Columbia and the other orbiters was. </p><p>The orbit for ISS had to be chosen for both Baikonur and Cape launches, which is quite limiting. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Russian scientists and engineers transferring technology and know-how to terrorists and rogue nations would not be in their self-interest. The Islamic extremists hate the Russians as much if not more than they hate the Americans. Russia still has sovereignty over lands occupied by Muslims and still tries to dominate greater Eurasia. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>There was a real fear of such transfer taking place. The Russian scientists and engineers were unemployed or dramatically underemployed and looking for a means of support. Logic may not work very well in that arena.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
You're probably right. There could always be rogue scientists. But most Russian engineers and scientists have a deep love for Mother Russia. And Mother Russia loves her scientists and engineers. But it's true that it doesn't hurt to keep them occupied doing something 'constructive'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're probably right. There could always be rogue scientists. But most Russian engineers and scientists have a deep love for Mother Russia. And Mother Russia loves her scientists and engineers. But it's true that it doesn't hurt to keep them occupied doing something 'constructive'. <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Ahahah, one of the Engineers who helped in the construction of the Mi-24 and various other military designs, works with my father in an HVAC company here in the states. He fled Russia at the first chance he got back when the soviet bloc fell apart.</p><p>He said he has no plans to return; the current Russian government has been trying to buy him back, they even offered him a brand new house. Kinda says something. Hahah. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram