Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

[qso1]

<p>I misunderstood the toilet thing, my bad.</p><p>The press will definitely run any story that has as its focus, disaster or even maintenance problems on ISS. I agree with the idea that we could have several stations in place until you get to the actual cost situation. NASA is inadequately funded to do the tasks it already has.</p><p>If we had much larger budgets, or if cost to low orbit drastically came down, then NASA could justify putting stations in lunar/mars orbit on cost grounds. And although I agree that one could put remote stations in orbit as a percussor to manned bases, its not an absolute necessity.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[craigmac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I misunderstood the toilet thing, my bad.The press will definitely run any story that has as its focus, disaster or even maintenance problems on ISS. I agree with the idea that we could have several stations in place until you get to the actual cost situation. NASA is inadequately funded to do the tasks it already has.If we had much larger budgets, or if cost to low orbit drastically came down, then NASA could justify putting stations in lunar/mars orbit on cost grounds. And although I agree that one could put remote stations in orbit as a percussor to manned bases, its not an absolute necessity.&nbsp; <br />Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>That's what I'm talking about...forward motion the first law of physics...</p>

 

[Zipi]

<p>The Washington Post has an article of sending ISS to moon orbit... There are quite many errors in this article like Orion's ability to boost ISS:&nbsp;(which it is not able to do as far as I know)</p><p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>Just a comment, in general - </p><p>There are some interesting ideas in the thread concerning using the ISS and Shuttle as resources for Moon/Mars related endeavors.</p><p>But, there's a problem.</p><p>Engineering Class 099 - "Never expect efficiency if you are trying to redesign a square peg to fit in a round hole." </p><p>There are 16+? (or so) pages of all the various gimcrackery and fly-by-night designs that have been suggested to make the ISS and Shuttle conform to the specifications necessary to make them into functional assets for Moon/Mars missions.</p><p>With all of that effort, all of those additional resources, all the cooperation between various agencies, all of the funding necessary and all of the calories spent on mental leaps.. we could build a Built-to-Spec Moon/Mars resource program that has all of those capabilities and has mission spec customizations built in that don't have to be ordered and delivered when someone on the ISS/SS says "Uh, we don't have that.&nbsp; Go Fish." </p><p>I'd love to see some extended use out of the Shuttle and ISS.&nbsp; But, I don't know that we have the extra resources to be able to reconfigure these vehicles efficiently.&nbsp; IF we had a whole program already in place that handled retooling space assets for other uses, we could probably do that more efficiently.&nbsp; But, we don't.</p><p>Sadly, by necessity, things are built to certain specifications because it is efficient and economical to do so and that's what they're really good at handling.&nbsp; Once you get out of their performance window, things get more difficult.&nbsp; Square peg, round hole.</p><p>Just my two cents.&nbsp; I'd love to see it happen as it would mean we had capabilities we can afford that I am not aware of.&nbsp; But, sadly, I just don't think that is the case. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a comment, in general - There are some interesting ideas in the thread concerning using the ISS and Shuttle as resources for Moon/Mars related endeavors.But, there's a problem.Engineering Class 099 - "Never expect efficiency if you are trying to redesign a square peg to fit in a round hole." There are 16+? (or so) pages of all the various gimcrackery and fly-by-night designs that have been suggested to make the ISS and Shuttle conform to the specifications necessary to make them into functional assets for Moon/Mars missions.With all of that effort, all of those additional resources, all the cooperation between various agencies, all of the funding necessary and all of the calories spent on mental leaps.. we could build a Built-to-Spec Moon/Mars resource program that has all of those capabilities and has mission spec customizations built in that don't have to be ordered and delivered when someone on the ISS/SS says "Uh, we don't have that.&nbsp; Go Fish." I'd love to see some extended use out of the Shuttle and ISS.&nbsp; But, I don't know that we have the extra resources to be able to reconfigure these vehicles efficiently.&nbsp; IF we had a whole program already in place that handled retooling space assets for other uses, we could probably do that more efficiently.&nbsp; But, we don't.Sadly, by necessity, things are built to certain specifications because it is efficient and economical to do so and that's what they're really good at handling.&nbsp; Once you get out of their performance window, things get more difficult.&nbsp; Square peg, round hole.Just my two cents.&nbsp; I'd love to see it happen as it would mean we had capabilities we can afford that I am not aware of.&nbsp; But, sadly, I just don't think that is the case. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I have to say that I agree 100%, even it is not adding any more value to this discussion.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have to say that I agree 100%, even it is not adding any more value to this discussion. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />I think it added a lot. Made a rather strong case for the pointlessness of the thread. <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have to say that I agree 100%, even it is not adding any more value to this discussion. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />I'm sorry you feel that way; however the ISS was in fact designed to prepare us for a nine month excursion to Mars. All the construction and habitation on the ISS is actually helping us deal with the problems and stressers that we will have to have to face on a year long excursion to Mars, and once we actually get there we will probably will have to maintain a base on the surface of the planet, as well as a operational station in orbit around Mars's orbit... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry you feel that way; however the ISS was in fact designed to prepare us for a nine month excursion to Mars. All the construction and habitation on the ISS is actually helping us deal with the problems and stressers that we will have to have to face on a year long excursion to Mars, and once we actually get there we will probably will have to maintain a base on the surface of the planet, as well as a operational station in orbit around Mars's orbit... <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />But the point is that the thread is about using the ISS for that purpose, which is a non-starter. <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>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry you feel that way; however the ISS was in fact designed to prepare us for a nine month excursion to Mars. <br /> Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>Incorrect, it was designed to provide a microgravity environment for experiments.&nbsp; It was not designed for mars mission preparation.&nbsp; This backed up by the fact that astronaut tour duration are 3 to 4 months.&nbsp; No where what is needed for a mars mission </p>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Incorrect, it was designed to provide a microgravity environment for experiments.&nbsp; It was not designed for mars mission preparation.&nbsp; This backed up by the fact that astronaut tour duration are 3 to 4 months.&nbsp; No where what is needed for a mars mission.</p><p>Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br />I would have to agree, with a cleavet.&nbsp; ISS is providing experience that will badly needed </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would have to agree, with a cleavet.&nbsp; ISS is providing experience that will badly needed <br />Posted by willpittenger</DIV><br /><br />No doubt about that. But shipping the ISS to Mars? No it's the wrong device for the job. <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>

 

[nimbus]

<p>Universetoday.com has picked up on the story as well, and the article's author mostly points out how it could work...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>"<em>In an entertaining Washington Post article, Michael Benson discusses something I've never thought about. Rather than letting the ISS gradually fade away to a perpetually orbital retirement and eventual re-entry, why not do something a little more exciting with the football pitch-sized manned outpost? Forget more zero gravity experiments, stop throwing boomerangs around (yes, it came back), abandon the thousandth test on sprouting barley (although the beer might be good), install another toilet and let's get serious. Upgrade the ISS into a full-blown spaceship and let's begin exploring the Solar System in style!</em></p><p><em>[...]</em></p><p><em>All this said the ISS would be a great candidate for interplanetary travel. Although it might look a little ungainly, in the vacuum of space there's little concern for aerodynamics (besides, for a station orbiting at a speed of 17,000 miles/hr, its shape is hardly holding it back!). It's a tried and tested space-worthy candidate. Plus, the Constellation Program would fit right in.</em>"&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Universetoday.com has picked up on the story as well, and the article's author mostly points out how it could work...&nbsp;Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />Oh my... I red the article and I have to say that this is yet again those writers who are not actually knowing the facts or technologies what they are writing from. I'm not saying that I am an expert of these issues because all my knowledge comes from discussion boards, Wikipedia, Nasa web pages etc... But still being an engineer and comparing the different information I have about this issue I can say this and I can be pretty sure of this issue. If I'm wrong about some detail, please feel free to enlighten me.</p><p>There are quite few issues attaching "powerful Ares rocket motors" to ISS or maintaining the station during interplanetaty flight (like fuel supply for example). How about emergency ship issue or radiation shieldings? Use of ion drives at this size (and especially heavy)&nbsp;vehicle would mean pretty slow ride from planet to another and how about braking issue when you are arriving to the orbit? (yes I know braking is not an issue, but you would need at least almost as much of distance to brake than accelerate). How about the power generating capatibility at outer planets (than earth)?</p><p>Oh boy... After posting this we probably start discussing all these things yet again which has been mentioned earlier... Gosh... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" />&nbsp;I really hope somebody could bring something new to this discussion... Like said earlier, for this kind of purpose it is much better to build a new station/ship to do the trick. It would be cheaper and more efficient at all possible ways.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All this said the ISS would be a great candidate for interplanetary travel. Although it might look a little ungainly, in the vacuum of space there's little concern for aerodynamics (besides, for a station orbiting at a speed of 17,000 miles/hr, its shape is hardly holding it back!). It's a tried and tested space-worthy candidate. Plus, the Constellation Program would fit right in."&nbsp; <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, read the earlier posts.&nbsp; The ISS is a terrible candidate&nbsp;</p>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, read the earlier posts.&nbsp; The ISS is a terrible candidate&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>He ignores posts that are counter to his opinions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He ignores posts that are counter to his opinions. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV>Just in case anyone missed it, I was quoting the Universetoday.com article (quote now italicized). &nbsp;I already know that sending the ISS anywhere else than where it is, is bunk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just in case anyone missed it, I was quoting the Universetoday.com article (quote now italicized). &nbsp;I already know that sending the ISS anywhere else than where it is, is bunk. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I understand. I thought the post I replied to was referring to ML the one who started this thread.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I understand. I thought the post I replied to was referring to ML the one who started this thread. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>The main focus of this discussion is to look at the potential for using the ISS for something other than just a GEO orbit space station. I will agree that we lack some of the technology to utilize the ISS on Mars, but as far as the Moon is concerned it is more than feasible to use the ISS as functional lunar orbiter at some later date. </p><p>I&nbsp;keep hearing from laypersons what the ISS is not capable of doing, and that a new design is required.&nbsp;This may be true, but as you recall Apollo 13's LEM was not designed to be a life boat for three astronauts. Its amazing what we can acheive when we put our minds to it...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The main focus of this discussion is to look at the potential for using the ISS for something other than just a GEO orbit space station. I will agree that we lack some of the technology to utilize the ISS on Mars, but as far as the Moon is concerned it is more than feasible to use the ISS as functional lunar orbiter at some later date. I&nbsp;keep hearing from laypersons what the ISS is not capable of doing, and that a new design is required.&nbsp;This may be true, but as you recall Apollo 13's LEM was not designed to be a life boat for three astronauts. Its amazing what we can acheive when we put our minds to it...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />Yes, but that was an emergency situation, when you use whatever you have to in order to save the men's lives. That's much different than using an ill suited design to put lives at risk. <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>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>T but as far as the Moon is concerned it is more than feasible to use the ISS as functional lunar orbiter at some later date. - &nbsp; <br /> Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Lunar ISS is just an infeasible as Mars.&nbsp; No real difference except more propellant and supplies.&nbsp; The basic design of the ISS is for LEO and not anything further </p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The main focus of this discussion is to look at the potential for using the ISS for something other than just a GEO orbit space station. I will agree that we lack some of the technology to utilize the ISS on Mars, but as far as the Moon is concerned it is more than feasible to use the ISS as functional lunar orbiter at some later date. I&nbsp;keep hearing from laypersons what the ISS is not capable of doing, and that a new design is required.&nbsp;This may be true, but as you recall Apollo 13's LEM was not designed to be a life boat for three astronauts. Its amazing what we can acheive when we put our minds to it... Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>I think it would be great if we could find a way to extend the useful life of these systems.&nbsp; But, it's going to take more than ductape, some plastic bags and cardboard to rescue them.&nbsp; </p><p>Maybe we could move the ISS a bit and use it as a Rest Stop?&nbsp; Put in some vending machines and pay toilets maybe?&nbsp; Of course, Coca-Cola and the Lance potato chip guy would have to service it.&nbsp; But, that would serve to inspire interest in the commercial uses of space.&nbsp; So, it's a definite benefit for everyone.&nbsp; The Lunar Astronauts can stop off and get a Coke, a bag of chips and can use the restroom without having to tape a bag to their butt.&nbsp; Coke and the Lance cracker people can clean up on the proceeds!&nbsp; win/win</p><p>In all seriousness, I would really like to see some life-extension for certain systems but it has to be worth it.&nbsp; If it is a waste of money that could be going to develop more long-term systems, then it's just not the smart thing to do.</p><p>Using the ISS for Moon/Mars related missions may not be in the cards.&nbsp; Even extending its mission beyond 2016 may not be possible.&nbsp; If its not designed for that sort of lifetime, it just isn't.&nbsp; But, in anything where you're looking to extend its service life, then you need to stay within its capabilities in order to get the most use out of it and not spend more time repairing it than you do using it.</p><p>For instance (not that this is realisitc, btw) the ISS operating budget, aside from service flights, is around 2 billion dollars a year.&nbsp; Pfizer's drug research budget for 2003 was 7.1 billion dollars a year. http://www.pfizer.com/about/history/pfizer_pharmacia.jsp (Just a random link.)&nbsp; Drug companies have notorious R&D budgets.&nbsp; It's the life-blood of their business and they always plan for the long-term.</p><p>Microgravity has certain benefits for people trying to combine compounds that would otherwise be recalcitrant in normal Earth gravity.&nbsp; Pharmco companies have pursued interests in this area already: http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-16/sd2001-16-007.shtml , http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-01/sd2001-01-001.shtml</p><p>The most promising of all early developments of space manufacturing seem to be pharm/bio and taking advantage of the most simplest and freely available resources space offers: microgravity.&nbsp; It takes nothing extra to take advantage of this.&nbsp; It doesn't require any extraction, collection or processing.</p><p>So, lease the ISS out.&nbsp; Turn it into a Pharmco research park.&nbsp; The ISS is modular so get some modules up there. Get the top 10 Pharmcos involved.&nbsp; Work at developing a useable product, partnering if necessary and work on developing manufacturing capabilities with eyes towards a dedicated manufacturing facility for antibiotic cultures, crystals, etc.</p><p>While that isn't, necessarily, as easy as it sounds and was offered just as an example, it is more in keeping with the initial designs of the ISS than using it as a potential asset for Moon/Mars missions.&nbsp; Stay within design constraints. Poke and prod and tweak where necessary without exceeding them and maybe a workable program can be found where the ISS (or anything else) could be of use.</p><p>Of course, there's a very, very significant problem- No Shuttle.&nbsp; ... .. .</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>[QUOTE... Pfizer's drug research budget for 2003 was 7.1 billion dollars a year. http://www.pfizer.com/about/history/pfizer_pharmacia.jsp (Just a random link.)&nbsp; Drug companies have notorious R&D budgets.&nbsp; It's the life-blood of their business and they always plan for the long-term.Microgravity has certain benefits for people trying to combine compounds that would otherwise be recalcitrant in normal Earth gravity.&nbsp; Pharmco companies have pursued interests in this area already: http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-16/sd2001-16-007.shtml , http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-01/sd2001-01-001.shtmlThe most promising of all early developments of space manufacturing seem to be pharm/bio and taking advantage of the most simplest and freely available resources space offers: microgravity.&nbsp; It takes nothing extra to take advantage of this.&nbsp; It doesn't require any extraction, collection or processing.So, lease the ISS out.&nbsp; Turn it into a Pharmco research park.&nbsp; The ISS is modular so get some modules up there. Get the top 10 Pharmcos involved.&nbsp; Work at developing a useable product, partnering if necessary and work on developing manufacturing capabilities with eyes towards a dedicated manufacturing facility for antibiotic cultures, crystals, etc.While that isn't, necessarily, as easy as it sounds and was offered just as an example, it is more in keeping with the initial designs of the ISS than using it as a potential asset for Moon/Mars missions.&nbsp; Stay within design constraints. Poke and prod and tweak where necessary without exceeding them and maybe a workable program can be found where the ISS (or anything else) could be of use.Of course, there's a very, very significant problem- No Shuttle.&nbsp; ... .. . <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_[/QUOTE]</p><p><strong>IF </strong>you can come up with a product, like a cure for cancer, that can be produced only in space or even developed effectively only in space, then you will have come up with precisely what is needed to promote commercial operations in space.&nbsp; What that is&nbsp;is a product that cannot be produced on Earth, that is extremely valuable, and that is very light.&nbsp; With such an incentive to go to space, the necessary financing will be available to get there and to complete the incentivizing task.&nbsp; With such a product you not only might extend the life of the ISS, but more importantly would have a real reason to have a space station, and no doubt a first-class&nbsp;private space station would be put up by the commercial enterprises involved. You could stop worrying about government programs and financing altogether because there would finally be a commercial reason (beyond communications and survey satellites) to go to space.&nbsp; Free enterprise would take over.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it would be great if we could find a way to extend the useful life of these systems.&nbsp; But, it's going to take more than ductape, some plastic bags and cardboard to rescue them.&nbsp; Maybe we could move the ISS a bit and use it as a Rest Stop?&nbsp; Put in some vending machines and pay toilets maybe?&nbsp; Of course, Coca-Cola and the Lance potato chip guy would have to service it.&nbsp; But, that would serve to inspire interest in the commercial uses of space.&nbsp; So, it's a definite benefit for everyone.&nbsp; The Lunar Astronauts can stop off and get a Coke, a bag of chips and can use the restroom without having to tape a bag to their butt.&nbsp; Coke and the Lance cracker people can clean up on the proceeds!&nbsp; win/winIn all seriousness,...<br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>That reminds me of the scene in the Bruce Willis movie, with te crazy Russian.</p><p>I've tried to ignore this thread as much as possible because it is pretty much rediculous, but with the impending grounding of Shuttles it might make some sense to convert one to carry payloads to lunar orbit and return to LEO and the ISS. Use the other Shuttles and expendables to bring payloads to the ISS. The Shuttle has the capability of taking propellant from an external source, so why not park a Shuttle at the ISS and send up payloads, to fit in the cargo bay, and propellant tanks to fuel the SSME's? Take enough propellant to get to LMO and back to LEO as well as send down and retrieve a lunar transfer vehicle?</p><p>The remaining Shuttles have flown a very few times and have a lot of airframe time left on them. Most airliners make more takeoffs and landings a month then all the Shuttles have made in the program. Revive the filement wound SRB's and keep them in operation as long as needed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IF you can come up with a product, like a cure for cancer, that can be produced only in space or even developed effectively only in space, then you will have come up with precisely what is needed to promote commercial operations in space.&nbsp; What that is&nbsp;is a product that cannot be produced on Earth, that is extremely valuable, and that is very light.&nbsp; With such an incentive to go to space, the necessary financing will be available to get there and to complete the incentivizing task.&nbsp; With such a product you not only might extend the life of the ISS, but more importantly would have a real reason to have a space station, and no doubt a first-class&nbsp;private space station would be put up by the commercial enterprises involved. You could stop worrying about government programs and financing altogether because there would finally be a commercial reason (beyond communications and survey satellites) to go to space.&nbsp; Free enterprise would take over.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />One of the types of products that comes to mind is composite material structures.&nbsp; Space is a great big vacuum chamber and solar energy is abundant free energy that could be used to cure components. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, lease the ISS out.&nbsp; Turn it into a Pharmco research park.&nbsp; The ISS is modular so get some modules up there. Get the top 10 Pharmcos involved.&nbsp; Work at developing a useable product, partnering if necessary and work on developing manufacturing capabilities with eyes towards a dedicated manufacturing facility for antibiotic cultures, crystals, etc.While that isn't, necessarily, as easy as it sounds and was offered just as an example, it is more in keeping with the initial designs of the ISS than using it as a potential asset for Moon/Mars missions.&nbsp; Stay within design constraints. Poke and prod and tweak where necessary without exceeding them and maybe a workable program can be found where the ISS (or anything else) could be of use.Of course, there's a very, very significant problem- No Shuttle.&nbsp; ... .. . <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There isn't a killer app to make worth it.&nbsp; No one is going to lease it.&nbsp; NASA has already offered it up as a National lab. &nbsp; </p>