What good is the ISS anyway?

[frodo1008]

Sometime ago I posted this over on the FS forum. Even though it is probably the longest post that I have made (and I realize that I do tend to make long posts) I thought that as we seem to be getting more negative people on M&L that it would actually be even more useful as a starter for a thread over here.<br /><br />Even in its lengthy form I think it is not as complete as I would like it, but if (as I hope ) I get responses I will hopefully be able to expand on it. Will anyway here goes:<br /><br />OK people I really wasn’t going to do this as it will result in a very long post even for me!! However, all of this anger at (1) Manned space in general, (2) NASA, (3) ISS, and (4) STS, has got to have somebody at least try to give reasonable answers. <br /><br />In the first place, it will be the manned space program that will be by far the most important in the long run. I enjoy the robotic exploration phase of the space program as much as anybody. So why would I say this. BECAUSE THE EXPLOITATION OF SPACE WILL BE FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO MANKIND THAN THE EXPLORATION OF SPACE. I know that I am guilty of shouting here, but I really think this needs emphasis! Humanity is going to have to have the ability to exploit the vast resources of the solar system within the next 100 years or our decedents are going to be in VERY big trouble. <br /><br />This is not necessarily because of NEO’s, although that is also a very real possibility in the time frame that I have given. NO, it is mainly because humanity is in a race here. The race is whether or not we will use up most of the more precious resources of planet Earth, or we reach a point where the pollution from the attempt to use those resources makes (human) life at least unbearable on this planet! The ISS is one of the most important (perhaps THE most important) key in humanities learning how to perform this exploitation. <br /><br />To me at least the most important guru of the space age is not Robert Zubrin or Burt Rutan. He is

 

[JonClarke]

Very nice post Frodo, I agree wholeheartedly. LEO is the easiest place to learn to live and work in space for years, a prerequiste for the exploration and exploitation of the Moon, Mars, and NEOs . Since the forced demise of Mir the ISS is the only place we can do this. How people can think we can learn these lessons without a facility like the ISS utterly escapes me.<br /><br />It must not be forgotten than the fate of the ISS is for the US to decide on its own. It is an international facility, with billions of dollars of investment by many countries, ESA, Russia and Japan. Any unilaterial withdrawal by the US would be stupid and short sighted.<br /><br />In retrospect, could the project have been better conceived and designed? Of course, and that is one of the reasons you embark on these projects, to learn how to do things better. However we need to use asset we have got to its best advantage, not throw it away.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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>

 

[spacefire]

the 3 crew ISS is good for nothing. The only way it is worth to keep the ISS is if the abitation module that would allow for a crew of 6-7 to be present is ever sent up there. Of course, that relied on the CRV, which no longer exists, so...unless a CEV or 2 Soyuz can permanently be docked at ISS..I'd say scuttle the thing and give us some hundered billion dollar fireworks!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Why are you SUCH a jerk!! If we don't make some knid of attempt to make the ISS safe for at least six people, then I am just as certain that the other partners will. ESA and/or the Russians will still see the value of such a laboratory, and make it work for them. Heck, they might even bring others such as China into the picture. <br /><br />If we were to just drop the effort to complete ISS at least through the stage that we promissed the other partners that we would, then our word in international doings (such as the war on terrorism) would be just as worthless as our word in this matter. <br /><br />Even though askold started out his thread in a very negative manner, his posts got more and more reasonable as he went along. Could I possibly sujest that you do the same?

 

[spacefire]

The reason I am such a jerk is because the ISS program is a failure. It had become a failure the moment the X38-CRV was cancelled and with it the habitation module.<br />How long do you think it will take until EAS/Russia develop the Kliper and the US the CEV? let me tell you: too long to help the ISS program in any way. <br />A Kliper or a Cev docked to the ISS should allow for a permanent crew of 6 and the hab module will provide additional life support for the crew.<br /><br /><br />Is this how things are going to progress for the ISS?<br />I wish it were so, but the money will never be there, so I don't think it will happen. The money is never there for a good space program.It's been like this ever since the Apollo program ended. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

i have to agree there. The ISS, without a full crew, is very little use to anyone. the two men who have been up there the past two years have hardly been able to do any science at all. however, The ISS is important for long term effects, and if anyone's going to go on a long term exploratory mission, it will be ISS people.

 

[askold]

It seems that all the arguments in favor of ISS, manned space flight, etc. are all premised on one single assumption: mankind will continue to overpopulate the Earth and continue to overuse non-renewal resources.<br /><br />From this assumption flow all the results - we need to find resources off the Earth, so we need to send people into space, etc.<br /><br />But there is an alternative scenario - a sustainable Earth population. If the current population of 6 or 7 billion (if that's the number) is not sustainable, then there must be a smaller number that is sustainable. That is, a population that can be supported by renwable energy resources (solar, hydro, etc.) and whose volume of waste can be recycled and absorbed by the planet.<br /><br />I don't know what the population number it - 1 billion? - but it could be easily calculated.<br /><br />Why do we need 10 Billion people killing each other fighting over scarce resources - 1 Billion happy people would be far better.<br /><br />

 

[lunatio_gordin]

what are you going to do? ask 90% of the world's population to commit suicide? Do you have any idea how long it would take to get the earth's population that low again? and how much strict regulation it would require to keep from going higher? we couldn't sustain it that low for very long. Not to mention you still have the threat of an asteroid hitting the earth and wiping us out in one swoop, and not to mention other intelligences that may exist in the galaxy. staying on Earth and lowering the population is foolhardy.

 

[spacefire]

askold is a Luddite! <br /><br />hope somebody gets this <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"><b>Theres nothing stopping NASA from purchasing the habiation module from Bigelow aerospace. Matter of fact, once the technology is proven (a demestrator should be launched next year) and a vehicle has been developed, there's no reason why ISS won't be expanded to 7-10 staff. With one CEV and one Kippler there there should be plently of room for everyone to get things done.<br /></b></font><br /><br />you assume that NASA has the common sense to do that?<br />In any case, just getting that Bigelow balloon certified to work with the rest of the ISS-on paper-will prolly take longer than the life span of the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Luddism is no joke.

 

[spacefire]

not if Skynet takes over! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[askold]

"staying on Earth and lowering the population is foolhardy..."<br /><br />Wow. I'm speachless.

 

[yevaud]

True Luddites would have no problem with 90% of the Human species being exterminated to benefit the other 10%<br /><br />And of course, they would be in that 10%... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"><b>staying on Earth and lowering the population is foolhardy...</b></font><br /><br />definitely is. it goes against our evolution for the past million years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Did you READ the rest of it?

 

[askold]

Evolution is not a linear, straight-line sort of thing.<br /><br />Over the past thousands of years, mankind needed to exand in order to survive:<br /><br />- Without a knowledge of sustainable crop cultivation, farmers had to move to new fields when existing fields were exhausted.<br /><br />- Without Social Security Insurance and 401Ks, families had to be large in order to secure your old age.<br /><br />- With low levels of technology, the labor force had to be large.<br /><br />- etc.<br /><br />Today, none of this is the case. Labor is not scarce - highly automated plants can efficiently produce the goods that the population needs. In parts of the world (the US) there is a surplus of food!<br /><br />Again, evolution does not have to be straight-line. Who's to say that the next evoutionary step for mankind isn't to reduce its energy use, reduce its population, increase its efficiency, etc.<br /><br />And, I never advocated killing 90% of the population. There are countries in the world that are already taking steps to control (reduce?) their population - China - by reducing the number of kids that families can have. <br /><br />I predict that reducing our population and reducing our use of non-renewable resources will be found to be easier than flying to an asteroid to bring back oil.<br />

 

[spacefire]

you forget the survival of the human race, which is the most important thing of all. and what better way to ensure our survival than to colonize as many planets as possible and have as many of us humans as possible? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

first off, oil's not on asteroids. next, you have yet to address the possibility of our own species going the way of the dinosaurs. And it seems like so much of a waste to know that there are other worlds on which another billion people could live, and still not use ANY of those worlds for any purpose at all.<br /><br />Explore or die. it's a matter of time.

 

[frodo1008]

Agree totally with your ideas about microwave transmission technology. This is just another area of testing for the ISS, and it IS indeed a very good one. <br /><br />Also, I would indeed include a separate module (as a matter of fact I believe the Russians eventually want some kind of "Industrial Park" to focus around the ISS) to study the affects of low gravity, by using a spinning centrifuge.<br /><br />Perhaps the Italians who were going to design and build a contrifuge for ISS could be persuaded to continue their efforts in this direction.<br /><br />However, I believe that the best way to study the long term affects on human beings of the low gravities of the moon (0.16 g) and Mars (0,38 g) is to build the next level of space station. I wrote on this subject sometime ago, and maybe like my defense of the ISS, I will see about starting another thread. This is really much more rewarding that going over to FS and arguing. The people there don't usually debate, they just argue, and argue, and argue!! This is why I am so anti-flame war on this forum!!

 

[lunatio_gordin]

I saw a movie, think it was one of those recent really bad mars movies, where they had an ISS with a centrifuge. It had like, 70 people on it though. Anyone know what movie i'm tlaking aobut? better yet, a name?

 

[frodo1008]

Far, far, better than your earlier nastiness! You CAN debate effectively. Please continue in this vein. I really don't worry about people having varying opinions as long as they debate in a non sarcastic (that sort of thing should be reserveed for FS!) and civilized manner!

 

[gunsandrockets]

First off let me say I am not one of those people who want to abandon the ISS. We paid for the damn thing so we may as well get some use out of it. And then there are all those pesky 'international obligations' to fulfill.<br /><br />So what use is the ISS? Perhaps experiments on the long term effects of spaceflight on human biology. Perhaps some spaceflight technology testing such as life support systems or station keeping propulsion. (The ISS desperately needs solar electric ion rockets for stationkeeping) But the more grandiose ideas? Such as an orbital supply depot or transportation waystation? Even the Russians don't think that is a good idea. And as for " However, to me the MOST important use for such a facility (and the one that could very well turn the ISS itself into a full-fledged space based industrial park) is the very use of this facility to take the kind of raw materials found on the moon and process such materials into finished manufactured parts for the infrastructure of space.", no way no way at all.<br /><br />The problem is the ISS orbital inclination of 51 degrees, it's bad, it's bad for anything unless you are launching from high latitude Earth locations (such as Kazakhistan). And aside from expanding the ISS, or sending non-ISS mass to and from the station, the ISS requires constant supply to maintain operations. The mass budget for station keeping alone is 7 tonnes per year. And all of that constant expense is magnified by the crummy orbital inclination of the ISS.<br /><br />So yeah, keep the station for now at least. But don't throw any more money down that rathole than is absolutely necessary. There are much much better places to build up spaceflight infrastructure than the ISS. Places such as low orbital inclination LEO, or one of the Earth-Moon-Lagrange points, or the surface of the moon, but not 51 degrees LEO!

 

[frodo1008]

You do have some interesting points. My major problem with your main premise is that it just isn't going to happen! Besides, any country that can shut off such a basic human activity as reproduction is going to have to be a completely totalitarian society. Who is going to say who is going to have the right to reproduce under those circumstances? <br /><br />While China has had some sort of success with this (at such a cost to individual freedoms that China is considered to be one the most repressive governments in the world) it has been far from perfect. <br /><br />You are aware of course, that more then two thirds of humanity exists in abject poverty. And to some extent what you are saying about over population is not entirely without validity. However, the two-thirds of the population on the bottom of the human pyramid are just now beginning to awaken and want a better life. LONG before your population reduction program shows any progress whatsoever, the increased use of resources that bringing most of the worlds population up to an even reasonable quality of life is going to exponentially use up those very resources. Unless of course, such a program genuinely IS designed around eliminating massive numbers of people. Nuclear war, anyone?<br /><br />It is going to take ALL of the efforts of mankind to even come close to dealing with these problems (which is why I consider war to be the biggest waste of time and resources imaginable). However, regardless of how we take on the immediate problems, eventually we are going to have to expand into space or face extinction! Considering that the US spends some $500 billion on the military and only $15 billion on NASA, I think that it is entirely within our ability to increase spending on the civilian human manned space program of NASA by easily enough to at least make a good start towards saving the future generations of humankind from such an exstinction!!

 

[JonClarke]

A higher inclination orbit is better for earth observation than a lower one. It was also neccessary to be able to use two essential peices of hardware, the Soyuz lifeboat and progress tanker. Had a lower inclination orbit been chosen the ISS would currently be unmanned and possibly deorbited.<br /><br />Jon <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>