ISS - scrapped or safe?

[Moonchild]

I've decided todesign this topic so forum users can discuss their views on the future of the ISS. Should it be allowed to continue? Should it be cancelled? Post your opinions here!

[Freethinker]

ISS is only needed because of M'soft being such a lousy software company. So many security holes!

[Uncle Martin]

ISS should be completed and used to it's fullest potential. The remaining shuttle fleet should be flying as we speak. The hubble should be serviced and upgraded. The next generation "shuttle" should be in the manufacturing stage. Etc,... Etc,...

 

Any questions?

[TeleMad]

Freethinker: ISS is only needed because of M'soft being such a lousy software company. So many security holes!

 

 

???

[Tormod]

LOL...FT for once gets it wrong. ISS != IIS.

[Tormod]

(note: I am biased in this regard, as I work for the Norwegian Space Center and Norway does a lot of business related to the ISS and surrounding industry. But my response is as always personal).

 

The International Space Station is one of the most brilliant space projects ever. It brings a lot of extremely interesting contracts to a lot of companies around the world. It is a truly international project, which means that countries which would otherwise not be able to participate in space research (in space!) have the opportunity with ISS.

 

ISS is also currently the *only* way to study the effecs of microgravity on human beings, plants, cells, materials etc. A lot of new inventions spring from the ISS.

 

It would be a tragedy if the ISS would have to shut down. If the current oxygen leak will cause it to fail for a while, that is something we can live with. But considering that ISS is the first permanently manned station off the Earth, it is extremely important for the development of future projects.

 

Let the ISS Live!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

LOL...FT for once gets it wrong. ISS != IIS.

FT once more gets it RIGHT! As always!

 

No I did not confuse ISS with IIS.

 

If you Google ISS the first response (and the first few before spaceshipone made it's 2nd flight)

 

Internet Security Systems - Worldwide Home Page

http://www.iss.net/

[Tormod]

Yeah, riiiiiiight. Others call it "padding".

[Freethinker]

But the ISS doesn't have any oil revenue. It can't be used (under current laws anyway) as a military base. As it is too international, US companies do not make ALL the profits. Why should the current US admin put anyt money in it.

 

Yes the ISS should be saved and expanded in scope. But with the world in the termoil as this admin has caused, there are not the funds needed. They are being invested in military efforts. Not research.

[Tormod]

Sad, but very true. Yes.

[BlameTheEx]

Space stations are a topic in a thousand science fiction stories. I grew up with them. They generally agreed on use. The idea is that a sensible interplanetary / interstellar space craft is incompatible with take off/landing on a planet. You need a space station for:

 

1) Base for maintenance / supply.

2) Transfer of passengers to long distance craft.

3) Assembly of satellites / long distance craft.

 

The one thing you DON'T need a space station, in low earth orbit, for is research. It is unlikely to be in the best position for most research. Sadly that is about all it is being used for, making it an unbelievably expensive white elephant.

 

When will people realise that the best way to get a satellite, or interplanetary craft, running is to ship modules to the ISS and assemble there? The big cost of most satellites is design, and that mostly goes away if it doesn't have to fit the shape of the cargo module of the launching rocket, work first time after enduring the acceleration, and unfurl antenna and solar cell arrays automatically.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

The one thing you DON'T need a space station, in low earth orbit, for is research. It is unlikely to be in the best position for most research. Sadly that is about all it is being used for, making it an unbelievably expensive white elephant.

 

In fact, microgravity research on the space station *is* the Big Deal with ISS. It is one of the things you NEED a space station for. The space shuttles cannot stay in orbit permanently, so for long-term studies you need a permanent station.

 

Studies on plants, microbes, and materials have yielded excellent results so far. But perhaps even more important is the study of how living in microgravity impacts the human body and psyche. That will help prepare astronauts for long-term flights to other planets, for example. There is no way we can study that on Earth.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormoid.

 

Microgravity, has already been well researched on skylab. I dare say the Russians have done lots of good work as well. It is a valid enough field of research but do you really think this further opportunity justifies the expense? The "excellent results" are of little practical use unless people do more in space than find out how fast they deteriorate. They never will do much more unless the ISS is properly used.

 

Machines will always work better and cheaper in space than people, once assembled and until they break down. Even research machines don't need people as operators. Consider the hubble telescope. It is not scientists we need in space, but repair men. Research into maintaining the maintenance men is important, but can't be an end in itself.

[Tormod]

They couldn't possibly research enough about microgravity on Skylab. Microgravity is after all a condition which has a certain effect on all things, and is like any other part of science something which needs to be done over and over again. Two experiments may not yield the same results, and as we learn new things, we can perform new and better experiments. The ISS is an important link in the chain of space exploration, and the microgravity aspect is very important.

 

As I pointed out before, ISS is the first *permanently* manned space station, which means that it is possible to conduct studies lasting for years, something which has not been possible before.

 

Why do you put quotes around "excellent results"? Which results have "little practical value"?

 

A very interesting example of practical studies are how new materials can be made. New composites which are impossible to create on the ground because of gravity can be created and tested on the ISS, and when the station grows it might be possible to start industrial development of them.

 

We can also learn how seeds grow, or how fish can live in zero-G on long trips to provide food for astronauts. The human aspect of microgravity has yielded a lot of knowledge about what the impact of gravity is on the body, how bones grow, how the blood flow works - and there has been research on new medicines, how yeast grows, etc etc.

 

Here is a good site with fact sheets about a lot of the science projects conducted on the space station:

 

http://www.scipoc.msfc.nasa.gov/factchron.html

 

The Russians did a lot of important experiments, as did the astronauts on SkyLab, but they focused mainly on human presence in space and spent a lot of time maintaining their habitat. They do that in the ISS as well, but ISS is really the first international project where many countries are involved in the science that is being done there. I know of several Norwegian scientists who have applied to have their projects "flown" on the ISS - but the sheer amount of scientists waiting in line shows how important this is.

 

Machines have the limitation of not being able to conduct scientific experiments and evaluate the results. They are merely tools. The Hubble space telescope cannot be compared to astronauts working on the ISS. You can't send repair men 600 kilometers into space, you need to send fully trained, highly skilled astronauts who know what they are doing. Hubble would not be possible if we did not have the knowledge from many years of science aboard the space stations.

 

In fact, one of the main purposes of the ISS is to conduct microgravity research, so I can't see how this is not important.

 

Here is an interesting text from about the NASA/MIR microgravity program, which outlines how NASA used MIR as a test bed for the work which was to be done on ISS.

 

http://spaceresearch.hamptonu.edu/missions/NASA_MIR.html

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

When will people realise that the best way to get a satellite, or interplanetary craft, running is to ship modules to the ISS and assemble there? The big cost of most satellites is design, and that mostly goes away if it doesn't have to fit the shape of the cargo module of the launching rocket, work first time after enduring the acceleration, and unfurl antenna and solar cell arrays automatically.

I think you are asking the wrong question. Perhaps it is not "When will people realise". I think just as you state, it IS realized. It is just not implemented yet. The motivation is not aligned with the financial resources. It goes back to the defunding of pure research because of the wholesale slaughter of the economy by the Republicans in the US and how the US economy has dragged down other economies in the world.

 

We no longer look at the stars and dream of going there. Look at movies being released. The advances to space exploration went hand in hand with human dreams and desires. And this was reflected years ago in movies that were based on space travel.

 

Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", 2001, Star Wars, ...

 

While there have been a few in recent years, no where near as many. Our dreams have been constricted to Earth. Our drive to explore space has been subjegated to fear mongers funnelling all resources into military spending and corporate largess. Corporate owned politicians and religious end timers have stripped all funding out. Promotion of individual selfishness over "the greater good" has stopped dreamers.

[Tormod]

"Space may be the final frontier but it’s made in a Hollywood basement." (Red Hot Chili Peppers).

 

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

"You can't send repair men 600 kilometres into space, you need to send fully trained, highly skilled astronauts who know what they are doing."

 

Er. And what will they be doing when they get there? By and large, the difficult bits will be repairs. The "fully trained, highly skilled" and "who know what they are doing", is a bit redundant, or are you assuming that NASA would send trainee repair men?

 

For that matter exactly what is an astronaut? I would assume it is whoever is crewing the ship. If they are crew whose primary training is in maintenance and repair, they are still astronauts.

 

I followed your link to the "Science Operations Overview" for expedition nine. It is entirely microgravity experiments. Oh, they take photographs too. I guess you are not overstating "In fact, one of the main purposes of the ISS is to conduct microgravity research, so I can't see how this is not important." Still you are begging the question. Important for Science or important for justifying the ISS?

 

It is possible that these experiments will lead to some commercially advantageous use for space, but I have heard of none yet. Frankly, I would like to hear of the business man who would be happy to buy shares in the enterprise in hope of profit.

 

It is clear that these experiments will give some advantage in planing a manned interplanetary mission, but that is of little importance if the budget is not available for such a mission. Right now there is little hope as the ISS itself is bleeding NASA dry. Or do you trust an american president who will be gone when NASA needs the bulk of the additional funds he is promising? Only commercial development of the ISS as a satellite assembly and maintenance facility will release the funds, without closing it down. Regardless, you need an assembly facility in space for a manned interplanetary mission. It is the cheap way to do it.