You are not logged in.
While I think the ISS is a bad investment for the united states given the science dollars available I am not sure it would be so bad if Europe and Russia could keep it going. It would give Europe a chance to work with Russia and test out New Systems. The Europeans don't have the same experience in building manned vehicles and perhaps the Europeans might have more engineers for electronics and control systems. Well, the total cost if the ISS is big if it is spread out over enough nations it might not consume too much of the budget. It will also mean that there will continue to be a platform to do zero g life and material science. Although the benefits in terms of the ISS are costly and not immediate it must be recognized that there are always dead ends in pure research. Also given the right discovery the benefits to material or medical science could justify the cost of the station immediately or further down the road when the launch cost is reduced.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
they will keep it moving, Japanese, Euros, Brazil, and Russians have many plans
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Like button can go here
Justify? It won't.
You could do most of the ISS science at a small fraction of the remaining cost by launching experiments unmanned on X-37 or Vostok.
And the cost, which over ~$125Bn has been spent, and perhaps as much as $200Bn might be spent thru 2017, isn't spread over all partners, its almost exclusively on the shoulders of America.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Probably not,
Why would ESA take on the ISS when it has not got any of its modules up in space and with the alterations that the initial planned columbus module had to do so that it would be launched by the shuttle basically means it cannot now be launched by Arianne. All that ESA really has got out of spending millions of Euros is a science module built and sitting gaining dust in a warehouse and a supply craft that may well not get a chance to be needed as it is to supply a much larger fully built station.
Without an access to the ISS that leaves ESA the rather unwilling position if NASA withdraws from the ISS of paying for an aging station that they cannot get access too except via the Russian and which as there whole science package is sitting on the ground does not do them any benefit. Added that the equipment up there is American and Russian it will mean they have no experience or knowledge of how to repair it. And NASA may well be bound by law not to give this information out so leaving an ISS waiting to have a small malfunction flare into a major problem.
So for ESA the ISS can only give them a major draw of funds, no principal science value and worst of all the probability of a political and public relations disaster.
No if the ISS is abandoned by NASA it will also likely happen as well by ESA and Russia will have it.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here