ISS - scrapped or safe?

[Tormod]

Thank you for your patronizing tone. I work with telling people about what the ISS is good for on a daily basis and the most common argument is either "it is too expensive" - which is always a point, but compared to military spending it is a drop in the ocean - or "why can't we go further into space" - which both NASA and ESA are planning to do but it is difficult, expensive, and takes a lot of time. But nobody is saying is isn't happening!

 

As for I think you should ask for example Boeing and Airbus about what they think of the future of space travel, and just how much business they are making from the ISS. You might be surprised.

 

As for the "trainee men" - you were the one who said that all it took were maintenance men. Do you think that fixing Hubble is a matter of taking out a screwdriver and wrench and "fix" it? They have to replace the gyroscopes. This is something which is extremely difficult for many reasons. They will also get ONE shot at it.

 

But the Hubble discussion belongs in a different thread as it is unrelated to the ISS discussion.

 

You may belittle the ISS all you like, but have you ever talked to one of the astronauts who have been there? I have. They are extremely skilled people. They all view the ISS as being of tremendous benefit to humanity and industry.

 

And - how is the ISS bleeding NASA dry? I would be interesting in hearing about this.

[Uncle Martin]

Tormod,

Do you live too far north to observe the ISS pass overhead? At my current latitude it is an impressive sight. Watching satellites at dusk or dawn is a great way to spend time. Actually seeing the station makes it a more tangible thing and may increase interest in the program. It is easier for some to justify an expense if they can at least see what their tax dollars(pounds, Euros, etc.) are being spent on.

 

To me, just being able to watch it is worth the cost,... the benefits of the science and experience in space far outweigh the cost. Like you said, compared to what just the U S spends on defense, it is a drop in the ocean. A well spent drop.

[Uncle Martin]

Blame,

If you are concerned about NASA's budget problems feel free to send donations. Please convert your British pounds to dollars before sending them though. It is comforting to see people in other countries with such concern over how my tax dollars are being spent. I'm truly touched.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Tormod,

 

Do you live too far north to observe the ISS pass overhead? At my current latitude it is an impressive sight. Watching satellites at dusk or dawn is a great way to spend time. Actually seeing the station makes it a more tangible thing and may increase interest in the program.

 

Yes, I live too far north but occasionally we do get the chance up here too. It has to be during the night, or mornings/evenings in the dark winter months, or else the sunlight makes it impossible to see it.

 

One morning last year I was up at 5:30 to see it (the window is about 10 minutes) but sadly I had got the directions wrong so it passed behind a hill directly south of us.

 

A colleague of mine lives about one kilometer from here and could see it perfectly well!

 

I see other satellites now and then and yes, it's a great experience.

 

I have been to the European Space Techology Center (ESTEC) in Holland an been inside the Columbus module which will be a major addition to the ISS when it is launched (planned launch was 2002, but it has been delayed and delayed and delayed...).

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod.

 

Sorry if I come over as patronising. It is not intended.

 

It would indeed be nice to see the budget for military spending reassigned. God knows, I would be happy to see the worlds military budget dropped to zero.

 

The truth is I am not the optimist that you are. I don't expect the US to dramatically increase its spending on space without a financial return. By the standards of any other country it is already huge, even as a percentage of the total.

 

In my mind NASA's current operations make perfect sense if Bush's vision is true. It is the laying down of the groundwork for far more ambitious, and expensive projects. On the other hand if the budget is not massively increased in the future, the justification for such expensive research on inhabiting space will prove rather premature.

 

I am not ant-space. I just think that reorganising the ISS for commercial ventures will give a better chance for the long term habitation of space. Do I have to point out that if private industry pays for astronauts to service satellites, the research into their welfare will still get done, and that this research will still be directly applicable to manned missions to the planets?

 

If the US develops expertise in assembling and maintaining satellites, they will have got private industry to pay for exactly what they need to assemble manned missions to the planets. Those missions will depend on ion drives, and the power supplies for them, whether solar or nuclear are best assembled in space. Nor is it possible, with current launch rockets to deliver an entire mission in one go. Space assembly is inevitable for manned exploration of the planets.

 

There is more. Using the ISS for satellite maintenance / assembly will result in the development of high power, solar powered, ion drives to transport the satellites between the ISS and the stationary orbits they need. Those ion drives will make great propulsion units to the inner planets, and even, as I have argued in another thread, Jupiter. Again, the research and manufacturing facilities will be paid for by private industry.

 

I think you have a rather different idea of maintenance men to me. Maintenance, at its best, is both a skill and an art. There are geniuses at repair just as there are in other fields. As you so rightly point out, fixing the hubble was not easy. But it WAS a job of maintenance, and the astronauts who did it were, in effect, maintenance men. Should such a name make them ashamed? I think not.

 

Regarding Boing and Airbus, I am quite sure they are making lots of money from the ISS. But that is an example of private industry getting money from NASA. I am talking about the reverse.

 

Regarding my belittling the ISS, well, I am and I am not. It is a wonderful project that holds out the promise of great things. I only question whether NASA is using it to its best advantage. I only fear that on the present course a future US congress will wind down the project with its promise left unfulfilled. Could Congress be so unkind? It might just. There is a saying in NASA "No bucks without Buck Rogers". The idea is that the american people, and thus congress, are paying to see not scientific progress, but american heroes. Right now with the shuttles grounded, it is not so much Buck Rogers, as comrade Gennady Padalka, the commander of the russian Soyuz delivering Expedition 9. How long will Congress fund the making of Russian heroes? Maybe it is time to appeal to America's other great drive. If the ISS fails to create a Buck Rogers, perhaps by marketing the ISS as a commercial facility, America can be convinced it can create a fast Buck.

 

Regarding ISS bleeding NASA dry. I did use rather an emotive term there. ISS has been the major, and by far the most expensive, project of NASA for some time now. NASA certainly has plans for other projects of similar size, such as a manned mission to mars, but Congress has not yet released the funds. Congress could decide that America is already spending e

[Tormod]

Blame, I think we agree on the basic issues but disagree on what the most important aspects are. Which is fine with me!

 

The "maintenance man" thing...let's forget it. I think it was a misreading on my behalf.

 

I may come forth as an optimist but that is only on behalf of the *possibilities* of the ISS. Even though the US has claimed it will stand by it's commitment to help finish the space station by the decided date (I forget when, maybe 2008 but probably seriously delayed because of the shuttle crisis) there is the question of what the Europeans and Russians will be able to do. For Europe the ISS is important for the industry since large contracts are awarded for construction, software, logistics, training etc - BUT the problem is of course that the space budgets are dwindling and the European space industry is gasping for air right now.

 

So to be honest the outlook may be bleak. I hope the Bush Push turns out to be more than just a grand vision. The X-Prize initiative shows that it is possible to have a private space sector which launches stuff into space and I find that extremely interesting.

 

I also got one thing wrong - I wrote that the Columbus module should have been launched in 2002. That was the ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) which has been delayed. The Columbus laboratory should have been launched in 2005, I think, but it looks to be delayed as well due to the shuttle groundings. They can't launch stuff like that with a Soyuz...

[Uncle Martin]

Blame,

My apologies for the wrongly placed sarcasm.

 

The nature of the current global effort surely makes NASA's actions everyones business.

[Stargazer]

I think that the ISS should be completed. I have several reasons for this. One being all the money and resources spent on it already. Secondly, I would like to see as much scientific return squeezed out of it as possible. Thirdly, it can be served as a test bed for future long duration human missions. Astronauts can stay there for a long time and investigate how the body is affected and how we could possibly build safer spaceships. Another reason is more sociological, that is, it gives us experience to initiate huge projects on an international scale. Furthermore it can be used as a lifeboat.

[Tormod]

Welcome to our forums, Stargazer! Another space buff, I gather?

 

A lot of us are fans of the space station. The new crew just arrived a few days ago and they will conduct research on AIDS, among other things. And still people ask for research which "wil be of benefit to all of mankind". I wonder what it would take to make people realize that doing research in space is one of the really big inventions of the 20th century!

[Stargazer]

Indeed, the fact that humankind has the capability to actually leave her homeplanet to sail to other worlds, is simply mindboggling! There are many benefits from space research, for example in medicine as you say, but also in chemistry, biology, material science etc.

[paultrr]

The problem with the plan that Bush gave us is funding at its heart. America should be in space and we should do those things the Bush plan outlines. But untill you convince the average tax payer or lower the costs to do all this or both its hard to see where the funding for that type of long range program is going to come from. The early "Space Race" basically got its support out of Cold War fear. We simply do not have that type of hard public support today. People support and like ideas like probes with neat pictures back from say Mars or elsewhere. People tend to support those type of missions. But long term lofty goals are another issue.

 

Here eduation and promotion come in. Also research on lowering cost to orbit comes into play. At the present it costs us about $6000.00 per pound into orbit.

 

As for the ISS. We should finish it. One goal of the ISS is showing long term survival of humans in space is possible. But the ISS is no jumping off point to further out. It simply is too low in orbit to work that way decently. If we are serious about heading out to the moon and mars then we also need to think of a real orbital station further out as both a way point and a place to build the type of crafts up there we need to do all this with. That takes hard money and to get that type of moey one needs strong public support.

[Stargazer]

The problem with the plan that Bush gave us is funding at its heart. America should be in space and we should do those things the Bush plan outlines. But untill you convince the average tax payer or lower the costs to do all this or both its hard to see where the funding for that type of long range program is going to come from. The early "Space Race" basically got its support out of Cold War fear. We simply do not have that type of hard public support today. People support and like ideas like probes with neat pictures back from say Mars or elsewhere. People tend to support those type of missions. But long term lofty goals are another issue.

According to NASA, a Gallup poll tells us that 68% of the American population was positive towards the moon-Mars-beyond plan. Too little for my taste but still not too bad. Isn't it a bit sad, in a way, that many of the public and their representatives have such hard times coming up with reasons to go into space to explore and colonise it, than the same old reason "let's beat the other guys and then let's stop it." Amazing, really. I can think of plenty of reasons that does not include nationalistic arguments. For me, the choice to colonise and explore the cosmos is one of the most important decisions we could possibly make, aside from that obvious decision to stop building and using weapons. But that's for another thread altogether...

 

Anyway... I see the Congress did approve full funding for the Exploration Vision, which is definitely a huge step in the right direction. :-) Let's hope the Aurora will recieve adequate funding as well.

 

And also, there are those who doesn't even support robotic probes. Why? I mean, do they think we should stop other science programmes as well?

 

Here eduation and promotion come in. Also research on lowering cost to orbit comes into play. At the present it costs us about $6000.00 per pound into orbit.

The cost will go down for the same reason cars and computers became the property of nearly every household (at least in the relatively wealthy part of the world), which is mass production. And the really exciting thing is that right now, we are living in or near that breaking point, which will lead to cheap and safe access to space for more and more people. A century ago, avionics experienced the same thing when inventors and entrepreneurs experimented and built aeroplanes that could go higher, faster, and longer distance. We see the same thing with space travel. It's extremely exciting!

 

As for the ISS. We should finish it. One goal of the ISS is showing long term survival of humans in space is possible. But the ISS is no jumping off point to further out. It simply is too low in orbit to work that way decently. If we are serious about heading out to the moon and mars then we also need to think of a real orbital station further out as both a way point and a place to build the type of crafts up there we need to do all this with. That takes hard money and to get that type of moey one needs strong public support.

Absolutely. A while ago I heard about some engineers proposing a space station in the Earth-Lunar L1 point. Excellent location in my opinion, since we could build a spaceship dock there to build interplanetary spaceships. This could be provided with raw materials from the moon. Also, I think we need a space station in Earth Geostationary orbit, and to complement all this, a space elevator.