What have we learned from the ISS?

[Astrochimp]

What have we learned from the ISS?

We have, in my opinion, learned four main things. These are:

1) Man can survive in a zero gravity environment for extended periods of time. The Russians have had one or more cosmonauts on orbit for a year or better.

2) International cooperation on long duration space flight is possible and actually is going to be necessary.

3) We have learned that we can build and repair large-scale structures in space. This will be necessary if we are to build a Mars bound space ship.

4) We are going to need some sort of heavy lift capability, whether it is from NASA, ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, Indian, or Chinese made if we are going to leave for Mars in the next ten to twenty years.

Personally, I would like to see it happen in the next 10 years. I think that with full international cooperation it will be possible, but the partners will need to set aside their political differences, and get their heads out of their posteriors and work together on this goal.

Ad astra per ardua!

 

[DarkenedOne]

What have we learned from the ISS?

We have, in my opinion, learned four main things. These are:

1) Man can survive in a zero gravity environment for extended periods of time. The Russians have had one or more cosmonauts on orbit for a year or better.

That is the problem though. To me one of the biggest points of having the ISS is to push the bounds of human survival in space. That means exploring the long term negative effects of microgravity, isolation, and radiation and finding ways to counter them.

A Mars mission as well as future deep space missions will expose astronauts to years of micro gravity.

Yet it is still a Russian who stayed aboard the Mir that set the record for longest time in space. Honestly what is going to happen is that the ISS will be deorbited and we will still not have a firm understanding of the risks of human space flight to make mission beyond LEO possible.

3) We have learned that we can build and repair large-scale structures in space. This will be necessary if we are to build a Mars bound space ship.

This idea is definitely true, but I think there is still much more work to be done in this area. The ISS is a modular space station meaning it was not really built in space, but rather built on earth than assembled in space through docking.

This means we are still rather limited in the size of the objects we can put into space. We need to work on in-space propellant storage and spaceship assembly. These things will be required in order for Mars missions.

4) We are going to need some sort of heavy lift capability, whether it is from NASA, ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, Indian, or Chinese made if we are going to leave for Mars in the next ten to twenty years.

True, but the question remains as to how much does your HLV need to be able to lift.

 

[mr_mark]

The ISS needs to be a test bed for long range human spaceflight activities as well as a test bed for new technologies, inflatable modules ect. The United States is not the only country using the ISS, that's why it's called the international space station. The ESA is planning on utilizing the ISS until possibly 2028, so there will be no deorbit in the near future. That means NASA HAS TO GO COMMERCIAL so they can stay within budget. They have no choice. Space is changing and access to space is as well. What all the ISS partners and future partners learn will go way beyond how countries work together. It will be about how SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE works together both public and private.

 

[halman]

What have we learned from the ISS?

We have, in my opinion, learned four main things. These are:

1) Man can survive in a zero gravity environment for extended periods of time. The Russians have had one or more cosmonauts on orbit for a year or better.

So far, we have no data on survival in a zero-gravity environment beyond 6 months. One person does not represent a statistical universe which we can use to make judgments with. Also, we have never had anyone exposed to solar radiation outside the Van Allen belts for more than a 10 days. We have not ever been able to examine structures which have been in that environment for prolonged periods of time, so we can not be sure if they have become radioactive, lost mass, or in some other way degraded.

2) International cooperation on long duration space flight is possible and actually is going to be necessary.

International cooperation is necessary, period. Here on Earth, in space, everywhere. Our survival depends upon it.

3) We have learned that we can build and repair large-scale structures in space. This will be necessary if we are to build a Mars bound space ship.

So far, we have done little more than put Lego blocks together. Prefabricated modules, complete in themselves, are far different than assembling components which must fit together to make a structure. Only a few connections are required to hook a new module to the International Space Station. A spacecraft is going to require hundreds of wiring connections and plumbing connections between each deck. Before we pack up and head for Mars, we would be wise to spend some time testing our spacecraft closer to Earth, or at least where return times are not measured in years. By the time that we get around to building a Mars explorer vessel, we will have assembled numerous space stations, probably a lunar shuttle, and possibly a Near-Earth Object investigation craft or two.

4) We are going to need some sort of heavy lift capability, whether it is from NASA, ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, Indian, or Chinese made if we are going to leave for Mars in the next ten to twenty years.

We are going to need some sort of heavy lift capability if we are going to do ANYTHING in space. However, the number of launches of such a vehicle type to support the coming industrial revolution will make the purchase of capacity for the Mars mission much cheaper than if the vehicle were built specifically for one or two launches to put a Mars spacecraft in orbit.

What we are learning on the ISS is how to process materials in zero-gravity, and what the effects of zero-gravity are on reactions that are commonly used in industry. For instance, a match will not burn in zero-gravity, because the combustion products do not rise, pulling in more oxygen to support the combustion. The flame creates a sphere of waste products, and then dies down. Oil and water can be mixed and remain mixed in zero-gravity. Very pure crystals of extraordinary size can be grown in zero-gravity.

The things that we are learning on the ISS don't get much press, but they are crucial in making the future possible, because they will be the foundation of new industries. These new industries will create immense wealth, which will generate demand for launch capacity far in excess of anything we have ever seen. The cost of doing things in space will come down drastically, to the point where a private mission to Mars will become feasible. Then all you folks can go away and lets us make money.

Personally, I would like to see it happen in the next 10 years. I think that with full international cooperation it will be possible, but the partners will need to set aside their political differences, and get their heads out of their posteriors and work together on this goal.

Ad astra per ardua!

I am merely hoping that we still have access to space ten years from now. If the economy gets much worse, no one is going to be going up there, Russian, Chinese, American, or Polish. We cannot set aside our political differences to even take steps that the financial system does not borrow and trade the world into depression. For some reason, I doubt that sending people to Mars will be high on the lists of most nations, unless those people are extremely offensive. Creating new wealth, protecting the environment, and feeding people is likely to be what is the focus of most world leaders for the next 20 to 30 years. If we are still around.

The ISS was not built to prove that we can send people to Mars. It was built at to allow science to investigate the predominate environment of the Cosmos. Planets are a statistical fluke in the big scheme of things. Learning to survive in space means 'in space', not on another planet. In space, we can create our environments, rather than having to try to adapt them, or adapt TO them.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Essentially all of the OP's points have been matters of logistics. Those are valuable lessons to learn, but then why spend all the time and money on expensive and complicated science modules, robotic arms, etc? I guess all the various science modules and such essentially amount to make-work for the astronauts who would otherwise go bonkers. Have there been any real scientific breakthroughs from these orbital laboratories that would justify the cost?

I wonder how many Bigelow habitats we could have strung together for the same expenditure.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Essentially all of the OP's points have been matters of logistics. Those are valuable lessons to learn, but then why spend all the time and money on expensive and complicated science modules, robotic arms, etc? I guess all the various science modules and such essentially amount to make-work for the astronauts who would otherwise go bonkers. Have there been any real scientific breakthroughs from these orbital laboratories that would justify the cost?

I wonder how many Bigelow habitats we could have strung together for the same expenditure.

When it comes to the ISS it is not a question of whether or not having it is not valuable. We have learned a great deal and we have a great deal more to learn from it. That includes information about how space affects the human body.

It also serves as a technology development platform. Technologies such as new life support systems, new materials, and propulsion drives are tested there.

The question of whether or not it is worth its cost is definitely the issue. At 100 billion dollars the ISS is more expensive than practically the next few largest science projects in existence. For the same price we could have 20 Hubble space telescopes, 10 LHC, 200 Mars Exploration Rovers, and etc.

So is it worth the cost. I'd say no comparing to other projects. That is why no one has really expressed interest in replacing the ISS. I really think that the high cost is not necessary. The shuttle is responsible for half that amount. There were also tones of delays and etc.

That is why I am hoping the commercial HSF will make affordable to build and maintain space stations. Bigelow's proposed space station for example would be bigger as the ISS, but cost only 5 billion. Companies like SpaceX state that they will be able to deliver people at a cost of 20 million per person. NASA currently does it for over 100 million per person.

 

[pathfinder_01]

Essentially all of the OP's points have been matters of logistics. Those are valuable lessons to learn, but then why spend all the time and money on expensive and complicated science modules, robotic arms, etc? I guess all the various science modules and such essentially amount to make-work for the astronauts who would otherwise go bonkers. Have there been any real scientific breakthroughs from these orbital laboratories that would justify the cost?

I wonder how many Bigelow habitats we could have strung together for the same expenditure.

Probably none, the Bigelow habitats were created from r/d used to create the station. The aluminum habitats were state of the art at the time the station was created. Nasa considered using an inflatable for the USA's living quaters this module was axed in cost savings and Bigelow picked up the technology for a cost from NASA. The ISS has made it possible for Bigelow and others to use inflatable modules.

 

[vulture4]

Four roles were envisioned for ISS, the problem is more one of lack of resources and emphasis on utilization.
1. Microgravity materials research - this is a legitimate field although not the game-changer that may have been implied. Protein crystallization for X-ray diffraction is not the only way to identify protein structures, but if costs can be kept within reason, it is a useful way.
2. Earth observation - incredibly, there is so far no major earth observation capability on ISS. This was intended to be one of the major applications, and it would really work. Many simple payloads containing earth-pointing sensors in various spectral bands could easily be mounted on the station truss for a small fraction of hte cost of equivalent satellite launches. Those that proved effective and important eenough could be added tot he next generation of environmental and weather satellites.
3. Astronomical observation - Servicing the Hubble is not particularly cost-effective, but payloads on the ISS are less expensive to access. The alpha-magnetic spectrometer will hopefully be launched soon and other imaging payloads are certainly feasible, including the visible, UV, IR, and radio bands. For sensors that are particularly sensitive to contamination from the gasses around the ISS, co-orbiting satellites that could cover their instruments and maneuver back to the ISS from points nearby in orbit have been proposed.
4. I do not believe that life science is really a driver; the fact is that several people have remained in weightlessness for well over 6 months, and there is good reason to believe that musculoskeletal equilibrium is reached in 12-18 months at most, while radiation can be characterized with robotic sensors and research conducted on the ground.
5. The ISS can serve as a docking point for reusable launch vehicles, private orbital modules, and tourist trips, beginning to build a practical approach to commercial human spaceflight.
6. It took half a century before some of the value of the South Pole base, such as the suitability for the neutrino telescope, was discovered. Some time for investigation on orbit by people with real scientific training is needed to identify useful science for the ISS.
7. If humans cannot be productive in LEO, there simply is no possibility that humans can be productive on the moon or Mars, where costs are much higher. Developing practical access to LEO is a prerequisite to any human exploration beyind LEO.

 

[Valcan]

The ISS is a political compromise like what was wanted. Its one of the reasons it has had so many delays, is in a bad orbit (part of russia's demand right there) among other things. The ISS really needs to be boosted to a higher orbit and a tug used to bring things from LEO up to the ISS. ALOT cheaper to boost a 5000kg tug and a 25kg load than 1,000,000lbs that needs to be stablized boosted and such constantly.

I think the ISS needs to be kept for a long while just add on and refurbish. Eventually use material collected in space to add on bare bones moduals. Shipyard, science labs, greenhouse etc.

-------------------------------------

But back to topic. We have learned more and more about building maintaining and constructing things in space.

The point of the ISS or any technology is to move a step to the next better thing. Basicaly its one more step in mans evoution into a space based technic civilization.

 

[halman]

People are clamoring to know what we have learned from the International Space Station. Yet, it has only been crewed at something like its nominal crew for a couple of years, because of the Columbia screw-up. Much of the crew's time is absorbed in simply keeping the place operating, so there has been little chance to do any real science. Probably the single most important lesson that we have learned from the ISS is that we need a reliable, cheap way of putting 10 people in Low Earth Orbit. A Soyuz launch can only carry two non-pilot personnel, so simply rotating the crews will absorb most of the launches.

The history of the ISS is an indictment of the space program, a glaring statement that we are still barely proficient at simply getting to LEO. For this reason, I find it laughable that folks are talking about a mission to Mars. Based upon our experience with the ISS, a Mars mission would have been a complete failure after the first 2 months.

Does anyone here believe that they can actually think in terms of zero-gravity? It takes months of living in an environment before we automatically will reach the right answer in terms of what 'what will happen if...?' We have to overcome a lifetime of experience in a gravity field, which shapes our expectations, intuition, and reactions. I don't expect any real advances in science until there have been scientists living in a zero-gravity environment for months on end, working with materials in that environment, and observing first hand the results.

A great deal of the scientific breakthroughs have been accidental, not the result of planned programs. When experiments only last a few days, or even hours, there is little chance for those kinds of accidents to happen. It takes a while for a body of knowledge to accumulate, before we have an array of results which we can turn to when we want to know something without having to actually go through the process of finding out for ourselves. Everybody knows that certain things will happen when a weight is dropped on Earth, because that is the nature of the environment. We are a long way from having that kind of certainty with zero gravity.

 

[EarthlingX]

Question should be : 'What more can we learn from ISS ?', and people, responsible for the answer, are working on it.

We need more scientists in space, and with more scientists, communities will begin to form, which will need support, security, maintenance ..

Let's hope soon.

Just in case :

Wiki : Research and Science on the International Space Station

Science on the Station - CSA
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/iss/default.asp

List of facilities on Columbus - ESA
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Columbus/ESAFRG0VMOC_0.html

Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment - JAXA
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/iss_human/r ... dex_e.html

List of research fields - NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... ndex2.html

Science Research on ISS Russian Segment - RSC Energia
http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/researches ... rches.html

edit :

My suggestion for one more thing to learn, with related news from DiscoveryNews :

Flawless Diamond To Create Powerful Lasers

By Eric Bland | Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:00 AM ET
THE GIST:

* Nearly flawless diamonds could produce a whole new generation of powerful lasers.
* The diamonds are synthetic, not naturally occurring.
* X-ray lasers created by these diamonds could lead to medical breakthroughs.

The diamond the Argonne and Brookhaven scientists used wasn't completely flawless, but it was close enough.
Getty Images

Scientists would have to build their nearly flawless diamond by spraying carbon into a high pressure chamber and letting the atoms arrange themselves into the crystal's namesake geometry. In other words, researchers had to manufacture their own diamonds.

edit - link to science and research.

 

[halman]

Working in space allows us to create whatever environment we need, from zero-gravity to high accelerations, from near absolute zero to thousands and thousands of degrees. We can smelt metal with sunlight, extract elements from ore, refine hydrocarbons into very light substances, and so on. We have barely begun to scratch the surface in terms of what can be done in zero-g with practically infinite energy.

Something that I would like to see experimented with is a centrifuge sleeping module on the International Space Station. Instead of spending productive time working out to prevent muscle atrophy, sleeping in a gravity field may help prevent muscle loss, as well as eliminating some of the problems that arise when sleeping in zero-gravity. This type of module would be very useful on deep space voyages, or on low gravity bodies.

A great many people seem to think that we are wasting our time and resources with space stations. They are anxious to see us travel to strange new worlds, filled with adventure and excitement. But the intellectual adventure of studying materials in the natural state of the Cosmos can lead to many exciting things, some of which will probably prove to be profitable in some way. It also provides us with a test bed to study systems for use on deep space missions, because we cannot properly test a system on Earth which is designed for use in zero-gravity.

Space stations are essential for conducting the research that will enable us to travel to other planets, to thrive anywhere in space that we go, and to study the place that we live without the interference and distortion that occurs on a planet's surface. Before the absurd Apollo program was announced, building a space station was always considered the first step in our exploration of space. No one ever imagined that we would be stupid enough to go straight for the Moon, with no real goals other than to prove that we could do it. And doing it made it seem like we were ready to take the next step, interplanetary flight.

The whole time, we were floundering around because we did not have a beach head in space, a research facility to try things out at. The failure of the United States to use the space shuttle to build a space station as soon as the shuttle had proven itself is monumental, and may have serious consequences. It certainly has hampered the economic growth of the world, turning investment capital away from real growth and expansion towards schemes to create new wealth which have, all too often, ended up destroying it.

 

[aaron38]

7. If humans cannot be productive in LEO, there simply is no possibility that humans can be productive on the moon or Mars, where costs are much higher.

I don't agree with that statement at all. Think of LEO as a cramped little freighter in the middle of the Pacific and the Moon and Mars as islands the freighter can go to. Where would productivity be higher, on the ship, or on the islands? On a ship where fresh supplies must be continually shipped to it, or on an island where natural resources can be exploited and food grown? Where gravity allows all the mechanical life support systems to be so much simpler? Where there is room to spread out, where the mass you ship up isn't constantly falling back to Earth? Where everything doesn't have to be as light weight and fragile as possible? A ship and a surface installation aren't directly comparable.

Yes the costs to get to the Moon and Mars are much higher, but once self-sustaining bases are established, the productivity will be orders of magnitude higher. And once self-sustaining bases exist, transportation costs will come way down because there'll be a higher flight rate. It's an investment, the long term costs will be lower.

The importance of the ISS work isn't how to live in space, because most likely, not many people ever will live in space itself. But people will live on the Moon and Mars. Space is the ocean you have to cross to get there. What's most important about ISS is learning how to WORK in space, to build the ships we need to get to the really interesting places.

The only productivity we need out of LEO is a transfer station and maybe a couple zero-gravity labs for focused R&D.

As for heavy lift, we've seen how we can build a large space station 20mT at a time. Imagine how much easier, how many fewer spacewalks would be required if we built it 100mT at a time? How much more integration could be done on Earth. We're going to want to assemble a Mars ship in 3-4 pieces, not 15-20.

 

[halman]

7. If humans cannot be productive in LEO, there simply is no possibility that humans can be productive on the moon or Mars, where costs are much higher.

I don't agree with that statement at all. Think of LEO as a cramped little freighter in the middle of the Pacific and the Moon and Mars as islands the freighter can go to. Where would productivity be higher, on the ship, or on the islands? On a ship where fresh supplies must be continually shipped to it, or on an island where natural resources can be exploited and food grown? Where gravity allows all the mechanical life support systems to be so much simpler? Where there is room to spread out, where the mass you ship up isn't constantly falling back to Earth? Where everything doesn't have to be as light weight and fragile as possible? A ship and a surface installation aren't directly comparable.

Yes the costs to get to the Moon and Mars are much higher, but once self-sustaining bases are established, the productivity will be orders of magnitude higher. And once self-sustaining bases exist, transportation costs will come way down because there'll be a higher flight rate. It's an investment, the long term costs will be lower.

The importance of the ISS work isn't how to live in space, because most likely, not many people ever will live in space itself. But people will live on the Moon and Mars. Space is the ocean you have to cross to get there. What's most important about ISS is learning how to WORK in space, to build the ships we need to get to the really interesting places.

The only productivity we need out of LEO is a transfer station and maybe a couple zero-gravity labs for focused R&D.

As for heavy lift, we've seen how we can build a large space station 20mT at a time. Imagine how much easier, how many fewer spacewalks would be required if we built it 100mT at a time? How much more integration could be done on Earth. We're going to want to assemble a Mars ship in 3-4 pieces, not 15-20.

aaron18,

Your post illustrates very nicely what I consider to be the natural bias of a being who has evolved and lived its life in a gravity well. You consider space to be inhospitable, worthless, and our only future to be on planetary bodies. How much of the Cosmos is made of planets? What percentage of the Solar System has a surface that we can walk on?

You say that there are no resources available to us in space, yet much of the materials that we use industrially are likely to be found just floating around, in the form of asteroids and comets. Energy is essential to human civilization, yet energy is often more difficult to obtain on a planetary surface than it is in space, due to atmospheric interference, or night/day cycles. In space, energy can be there all the time, if we put our facility in the right place.

You say that we cannot raise food in space, and imply that we will be able to on Mars or the Moon. Yet, 'dirtless farming', or hydroponics, as it is properly known, is possible any where, while the chemistry of another planet may render food grown there inedible, or of repulsive taste. Also, growing plants on Mars or the Moon will require the construction of large greenhouses, which will demand processed materials to manufacture. If we make the materials in space, we can use them there.

Space is the perfect industrial area, where we can create whatever environment we need in order to process raw materials, and where energy is free for the taking. Plus, we don't have to worry about dropping the raw materials down a gravity well, because we are doing our work near the top. Stuff in solar orbits doesn't encounter atmospheric resistance, like the International Space Station does, so it does not suffer from orbital decay.

Most people don't spend the majority of their time outdoors, because it is too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. We exist primarily in artificial caves, with controlled environments. Eventually, humans may be unable to tolerate walking unprotected upon any planet, because we will have adapted to a narrow range of temperatures, humidity, pressure, and light.

It is conceivable that someday more people will live in space than on all of the planetary bodies combined. I am not saying that such a future is more desirable than living on a planetary surface, I am just pointing out that we have already adapted to an extremely unnatural environment. Our ancestors would consider cities to be barren, ugly, and dead. (And probably dangerous, too.) We must be aware of our prejudices, and avoid allowing them to distort our thinking.

 

[steve82]

I think we've learned that huge internationalized programs are very slow, very expensive, and horribly bureaucratic. They also have so much inertia that they lock you onto trajectories you may not want to follow. If we (the US) took an objective look at what we got out of our own Skylab space station and compared that with what we've gotten ourselves into with the ISS, Skylab and other smaller national facilities might be very competitive options.

 

[pathfinder_01]

I think we've learned that huge internationalized programs are very slow, very expensive, and horribly bureaucratic. They also have so much inertia that they lock you onto trajectories you may not want to follow. If we (the US) took an objective look at what we got out of our own Skylab space station and compared that with what we've gotten ourselves into with the ISS, Skylab and other smaller national facilities might be very competitive options.

The trouble is there was no will to fund a smaller space station and frankly although I admire Skylab and think it was extremely important in a certain way it was a cop out.

The Saturn V allowed you to launch a craft that did not need to be resupplied. The ISS forced us to deal the the resupply issue head on. That means CO2 scrubbers on the ISS do not have to be replaced. It makes water recycling systems attractive. These are the issues that we need to deal with before rushing off to mars or a moon base.

As for locking us in. I hate to say it, but I never agreed with constellation. It was a dumb idea from the get go. Sure we can get to the moon, twice a year. Why give up the ability to send crews 4-6 times a year with the shuttle and the ability to have crews in space for months and years on end for at best two, two week jaunts to the moon.? And, I don't think that more would have come from it. If anything it would be a great target to be defended. Now we have one flight every other year if that. I don't think that a species that is space faring or hopes to become space faring does so few flights a year.

As for more expensive, well ISS is more capable than Skylab. It has more lab space than Skylab. It supports larger crews, has more available power via solar panels and so on. The ISS is slightly more that what we could have afforded if we had gone alone and we get to observe\learn from the Russians how they run things(which can be useful).

 

[halman]

I think we've learned that huge internationalized programs are very slow, very expensive, and horribly bureaucratic. They also have so much inertia that they lock you onto trajectories you may not want to follow. If we (the US) took an objective look at what we got out of our own Skylab space station and compared that with what we've gotten ourselves into with the ISS, Skylab and other smaller national facilities might be very competitive options.

If it had not been for the international pressure on the U.S. to establish a space station, the space shuttle probably would have been retired years ago. The government of the United States simply has never had any interest in space, because it conflicts with defense department spending. Numerous attempts have been made to keep space alive by making it a military concern, so that Department of Defense could take over funding it.

The International Space Station was supposed to be completed in 2006, if I remember correctly, and it was supposed to have a crew of between 6 and 8 people. The loss of Columbia severely delayed construction, and, at the same time, reduced the staffing level to 2 people, which was barely adequate to deal with the things that came up that needed attention, much less to do any real science. It has only been in the last couple of years that we have seen that ISS even begin to be fully staffed, and most of the modules designed originally launched.

The ISS has the potential to allow the breakthroughs which will start the next industrial revolution, the one off-planet. Once it is realized that space is the perfect place for energy-intensive, dirty, or dangerous industries, and that energy and raw materials are lying around for the taking, investment will begin to climb rapidly. The best chance for room temperature super conductors lies in space, where we can alloy metals that will not mix on Earth.

We eventually may see many of the exterior building materials come from space, as methods of creating foamed ceramic panels are developed. By using carbon fiber reinforcement, and annealing, super strong, extremely light, resilient roof and siding panels could be made, which would have a life span of at least 100 years. Even if they cost as 3 or 4 times as much as existing roofing materials, they would still be a bargain, as roofing materials currently last only 20 years at best. (Okay, I'll grant 25 years, but not in areas which experience a lot of clear, hot days.)

The raw materials for such building materials would be silica from the Moon and an occasional comet for carbon, plus sunlight for power to melt down the silica, and to anneal it. But first, we have to become proficient at creating foams in various materials, which is possible in space, because the bubbles will not rise to the surface, due to the lack of density differences making themselves apparent. This is the kind of research which can only be done in space, because it is impossible to duplicate zero-gravity for long enough to allow molten ceramic material to cool, or for dis-similar metals to anneal.

Apparently, the U.S. believes that the automobile industry and the financial services industry will be adequate to support our economy for the foreseeable future, because we don't do much else anymore.

 

[Polishguy]

What have we learned from the ISS?

We have, in my opinion, learned four main things. These are:

1) Man can survive in a zero gravity environment for extended periods of time. The Russians have had one or more cosmonauts on orbit for a year or better.

So far, we have no data on survival in a zero-gravity environment beyond 6 months. One person does not represent a statistical universe which we can use to make judgments with. Also, we have never had anyone exposed to solar radiation outside the Van Allen belts for more than a 10 days. We have not ever been able to examine structures which have been in that environment for prolonged periods of time, so we can not be sure if they have become radioactive, lost mass, or in some other way degraded.

That's not entirely accurate. Apollo 12 brought back parts of a Surveyor probe which ad been out there for at least a few months. It didn't come back radioactive. Though you're right about the earlier parts.

As for what we've learned from ISS:

1. Artificial gravity is not necessary for a 6 month transit to Mars, though it might be helpful. This reduces the complexity of missions such as Mars Direct.

2. Building your station with a Shuttle is just plain stupid. The project got held up when one Shuttle was destroyed, it was put together very slowly due to the inherent safety issues of a manned spacecraft, and the modules could weigh no more than twenty tonnes each. We would have done better to go with a Shuttle-C, or at least to use Atlas and Delta rockets, the way the Russians built Mir with Protons. We did not need to go with all this modular nonsense. In the seventies we had a Station that supported crews for three months, and we only needed one launch to put it into space. That station was called Skylab. If we had a heavy lift booster (cough, Shuttle-C or other Shuttle-Derived, cough), we could have put something as capable as ISS into orbit faster and cheaper.

 

[JasonChapman]

What have we learned from the ISS?

Absolutely nothing in my opinion.

 

[docm]

No...we learned that instead of axing expandable modules and building a space station using tin cans they should have done the reverse. A potential side benefit of the system Bigelow developed is that modules likely could be replaced vs. the ISS where replacement is impractical if not nigh on impossible.