The Purpose of the ISS?

~Eternal~ · 2004-04-06 14:48:24

In all seriousness, what is the purpose of the ISS?

Euler · 2004-04-06 14:57:59

The ISS is not very focused on any one purpose. Different people think the ISS should do different things. So it ends up doing many things a little bit but not doing any of them very well.

SBird · 2004-04-06 16:12:04

It's been an open secret at NASA that the ISS's primary goal these days is to justify the continuation of the Space Shuttle and to keep all those ex-Soviet rocket scientists gainfully employed. In that respect, it's not a bad use of money. I don't even want to think of waht our defense situation would be like if those Soviet engineers left to 3rd world countries in search of employment on ICBM systems.

The drawback, of course, is that this siphons money away from good space research. If we're going to do military welfare, I'd appreciate it if the military paid for it.

A few years ago, the NSF did a study of the ISS with regard to its scientific usefulness. It concluded that there was none. The original science objectives could either be done on the ground or the ISS was just not capable of doing them. This was before the science lab got cut back and the crew contingent dropped to 3.

There are two areas of research that the ISS can still be useful, IMO. One is 'containerless' forging. In microgravity, materials can be melted and crystals grown without toching the sides of the furnace, preventing contamination. However, advances in sound-based and electrostatic gravity negation technologies on the ground have largely rendered this moot. Other than this, the only real scientific benefit is the study of 0-G effects on astronauts.

I've been to the ISS science page recently. It's hard to find, I think that NASA's trying to hide it becasue it's so embarassing. They actually list astronauts taking pictures of the Earth through the windows as one of the science accomplishemnts. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel...

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-06 17:34:46

Yep like measuring how drops of oil stick together between two strings, in their multi-million-dollar space glove box in their multi-billion-dollar space lab, is the only thing I can think of that has come from the ISS in recent months that needed people.

With Progress being the only lifeline and its measly 2.5MT payload capacity, even if there was science to do there wouldn't be any way to get it up there or back down. 2.5MT two or three times a year isn't even enough to deliver the heavier spare parts, nor can ISS science/storage/equipment racks fit through the hatch. Did I mention that the ESA ATV cargo hauler would use the same hatch?

It is wrong to think of the Shuttle and the ISS as seperate programs, they really aren't, there is no reason to have one without the other to actually DO stuff. The decision was made in Nasa high command to make a space station before Columbia was ever rolled out to the pad, I imagine.

Rxke · 2004-04-06 23:20:40

Sigh...

Confession: I used to really resent GCNRevenger and other people for their incessant bashing of the ISS, but... Well, fairly recently i "saw the light..."

You guys are right, the current existence of ISS is just not defendable... It still, IMO is a beautiful piece of machinery, but let's face it, it is, above all, a remnant of the 70's "The sky is the limit" thinking.

ISS is "Battlestar Galactica," much too big for our current abilities, and yes... too big for our needs. It has been designed when people thought Shuttles would go up in a weekly shedule, and despite numerous re-designs, it still needs an intensive launch-shedule to be truly useful. And that's the mayor problem. We have some absolutely minimal "janitor" missions, read the ISS status-logs, makes you want to cry... Those guys don't get a decent chance to do science, they're constantly plumbing...

And it is no use to blame the Russians, USA *had* to have a station, no matter what, and just try to imagine ISS *sans* Russia, today (That is, a station without universal docking-adaptors, post-Colombia...)

As GCNRevenger pointed out somewhere, currently ISS is, in essence, half a MIR2 with a bolted-on (more than half empty, let's face it) Lab module and some huge solar-panels...

After completion, sell it to the Russians, if even for a container of Wodka, if they don't have the hard cash, and let them figure out how to run the ship.
With year-long missions, and lots of tourists, and *paying* astronauts. It will still be much cheaper than to run it by NASA (but maybe not so cosy?)

But all that would mean a lot of hurt egos... So it won't happen.

Rxke · 2004-04-06 23:30:26

in their multi-million-dollar space glove box

(Evil grin)

You mean multi-million-Euros... The glove-box is European... Not that it works reliably, though...

[http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/Pr_41_2002_p_EN.html]http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/Pr_41_2002_p_EN.html

Euler · 2004-04-07 00:38:48

Actually, the more things that break on ISS, the more I think that the space station is worth having. It is hard to be sure how reliably a piece of equipment will work after prolonged operation in 0 gravity, and the only way to be sure is by testing it. It is better to have things breaking on ISS than breaking on a Mars mission.

Rxke · 2004-04-07 03:28:03

Yup. Like that pressure leak... That turned out to be the "handlhold-that-was-not-meant-to-be-used-as-a-handhold" Stupid things like that make the ISS still an interesting engineering platform, but then again, so was MIR... Lots of lessons learned there...

But ISS' configuration screams an overconfident: "Hey, we've got it all figured out by now, let's build BIG"

Never quite understood why every organisation wanted its own lab-module, that's overcomplicating things, unnecc. spending... As if those labs would ever be filled to the brink with science-racks, aaargh!

GraemeSkinner · 2004-04-07 03:53:22

The original idea behind the ISS was probably quite sound, but along the way its become distilled into keeping someone up there just for the sake of keeping it going. Perhaps they consider the amount of investment involved is so vast that they have to appear to keep using it. It would have been much better if they had spent the time and money replacing the shuttle with something that had shorter turn round times, bigger payload space etc., and cheaper flights. Then they could have built the ISS in much shorter time, and had much more regular crew rotations. As it is at the moment its difficult how the ISS can be classed as a viable ongoing concern. Don't get me wrong though, I want a space station in orbit, but it can't just be a "yes we've done that, lets move on to something else." When you consider the billions it took for ISS, it should be in constant use to the full extent of its abilities.

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-07 07:28:25

Ummmm... what abilities would those be? Taking pictures through the ISS's leaky window? Waa-hoo...

You can move like... what... 5.0-7.5MT of cargo a year with Progress? Thats not even enough to bring up replacement gyros (which have since failed) or SPS batteries. With the ESA ATV launching every 9mo or so, this rises to around a dozen metric tons of stuff a year, which might be enough to sustain a 3rd crewman and eliminate the need for Shuttle reboosting, but its still too small to carry science racks!

Thats not even enough to keep the thing in orbit comfortably with HALF a crew. Any kind of space station like that NEEDS some kind of inexpensive RLV to be worth anything, and without that, then it isn't worth the trouble.

If the Russians want it, thats fine by me, but I have my doubts if Shuttle will even last long enough to finish it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-07 08:29:59

ISS or any space station would need somthing like what Shuttle was originally proposed/feigned to be... somthing like this [http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelsa.htm]http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelsa.htm or somthing from [http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuosals.htm]http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuosals.htm .

A space station was envisioned even before Shuttle's design was narrowed down from 120 proposals, and it may have had a noble goal at one time or another, but after Apollo was canceld Nasa needed somthing to justify its exsistance, somthing big and long term and hard to cancel... so as SBird says, a space station made perfect sense for keeping Nasa afloat from year to year. The ISS project has kept thousands of NASA engineers employed and billions of dollars flowing into the agency yearly, and since that is its true purpose, has suceeded spectacularly.

SBird · 2004-04-07 11:12:00

ISS is just the wrong size to be useful. If it were just a MIR or Skylab-sized can in space, the lower cost would make the low amount of research justifiable. The Chinese have realize this with the little science cargo sections they're sending up with the Shenzou modules.

On the other hand, if the ISS were actually what is was originally planned - a huge space structure with assembly hangers, telescopes, fuel storage depots and enough room to accomodate 20 people, you could actually do useful stuff.

The ISS, however, is big enough to cost too much and too small to actually get anything done.

John Creighton · 2004-04-07 11:26:46

The ISS, however, is big enough to cost too much and too small to actually get anything done.

I think that about summs it up

Rxke · 2004-04-07 13:23:50

Ummm... Not so. If it were bigger, there *still* wouldn't be a shuttle or other big launcher, able to service it... So it would be even more of a financial disaster...

Chicken/egg: you can't keep big stations up if you don't have big launchers...
ISS design is a delusion of grandeur, we overreached our capabilities, the Chinese will shortly have their own mini-station, that they'll be able to deorbit without too much heartburn, because it is just some cheap throwaway coupled capsules/service modules, nothing fancy... And they'll be doing a lot of the same stuff that's now going on at ISS for a fraction of the operational costs.... AND they'll be able to deorbit their mini-racks in the manned return vehicule...

C M Edwards · 2004-04-07 14:28:17

I don't know about you folks, but all those working instruments and other spare parts in one place -- high in the gravity well -- practically make my mouth water.

We should cannibalize the thing.

[http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2078]http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....=4;t=82

John Creighton · 2004-04-07 14:46:34

When I say bigger, I mean with some kind of engine, probably an ion engine and maybe a small greenhouse. In other words, it wouldn't need to be serviced as much and we wouldn’t ever need to deorbit it because it could bring itself up to a safe parking orbit anytime we want..

Euler · 2004-04-07 18:55:39

According to [http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … goals.html]Boeing, the ISS goals are:

1. Find solutions to crucial problems in medicine, ecology and other areas of science.
This is subdivided into:
*Microgravity Science
+Materials Science
+Fluid Physics
+Combustion Science
+Biotechnology
+Fundamental Physics.
;This category makes sense.;
*Life Science
;no more explanation, but probably the affect of 0-g on life.;
*Space Science
+Structure and evolution of the universe
+Exploration of the solar system
+The Sun-Earth connection
+The astronomical search for origins and planetary systems.
;This category is reasonable, though I think that satellites or ground-based observatories could do much of it better.;
*Earth Science
;Taking pictures of the Earth. I think that this is partly to blame for the annoying 51.6-degree orbit of the ISS. Satellites can do this better.;
*Engineering Research and Technology
+Commercial space communication systems
+Energy use efficiencies and air/water quality
+Automated maintenance functions and construction techniques.
;In the explanation, they make it clear that testing out life support and other systems for use on Mars missions is a part of this, so this is a good category.;
*Space Product Development
+A new category of plant-based pharmaceuticals
+Hardier, disease- and drought-resistant crops
+Improvements in catalysts used for extracting oil and improving petroleum yields
+A new generation of highly pure and accurate semiconductors
+Commercial space power.
+Bioterrorism defense
;I am mystified by the relationship many of these have to microgravity. If the space station really can help do these things, then I agree that this is a reasonable category.;

2.Lay the foundation for developing space-based commerce and enterprise.
;No more explanation. I guess this is related to the last "science" objective.;

3.Create greater worldwide demand for space-related education at all levels by cultivating the excitement, wonder and discovery that the ISS symbolizes.
;Huh?;

4.Foster world peace through high-profile, long-term international cooperation in space.
;Making sure that the Russian engineers are not building missiles for third world countries.;

GraemeSkinner · 2004-04-08 00:37:54

It's funny, I was just reading this thread on the ISS yesterday, then went to spaceweather.com and what did I see? [http://spaceweather.com/swpod2004/06apr04/Edelmann1.gif]ISS flyby

Euler · 2004-04-08 11:46:15

Of course the reason that I posted the Boeing goals is that I could not find any NASA goals for the ISS. The same is not true for many of the international partners. The ESA has clear goals in terms of science, tech development, and gaining astronaut experience. Japans space agency also has clear science and technology goals for the station. Russia seems to think that it would make a great space hotel. Also, while the American Space Shuttle is needed to build the station, Russia, the ESA, and Japan are all working on efficient ways to resupply the station or transport people to it. So it is starting to look like the ISS will be mainly built and paid for by the US, but most of the benefits will go to the non-US partners.

SBird · 2004-04-08 12:11:55

Sooo, basically, the ISS ends up being a lot like most of the stuff we do in the US then.

All the more reason to sell it off on EBAY for cheap while it's still running properly.

dicktice · 2004-04-08 18:17:58

Except for the fact that the Russians have consistantly aimed for human-space travel since they launched Sputnik, and tourism only recently as one of their means of supporting same, I agree with SBird: By all means, the United States should admit they haven't what it takes to do anything fundamentally in the human occupation of space except play catch-up, claim superiority and then just dither about. . . . Better, to invite all those others you mentioned to take over responsibility for the International Space Station, a.s.a.p.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-09 09:35:17

Oh the US has what it takes allright (Apollo), but with the writing on the wall from Nixon and following that there wasn't going to be a major perminant US space effort, the brass at Nasa became more concerned about the longevity of their department more than anything else. So, they embarked on the Shuttle program and its evil MIR-II frankenstein stepchild, the ISS... They aren't supposed to get anything done except keep Nasa engineers employed, which its done with amazing effectiveness for almost four decades when all is said and done.

Palomar · 2004-04-09 10:11:11

By all means, the United States should admit they haven't what it takes to do anything fundamentally in the human occupation of space except play catch-up, claim superiority and then just dither about. . . .

*Well, I don't mean to go off-topic, but likely the U.S. won't be the leader in manned space exploration. As Byron and others have pointed out frequently, the U.S. has serious money issues. Medicare will likely be bankrupt by 2019, the Baby Boomer generation's healthcare will put a strain on that and Social Security (also slated for rapid extinction), etc., etc. The U.S. Treasury isn't endless and inexhaustible.

The only reason we went to the Moon is to beat the Russians (while they were trying to beat us as well...).

Then you have disinterested/apathetic people. I'll use a relative of mine as an example: She is in complete support of the multimillions of dollars being sunk into the Iraqi war, but she begrudges the MERs, referring to them as "goofy." She's just one of many. :-\

I think some of the U.S.'s claim to superiority comes from the generally consistently good success of our robotic missions, probes, telescopes, etc.

But I don't mean to take away/distract from the achievements of other nations.

If the U.S. space program does ever get on the ball regarding manned space exploration, I'm sure it'll likely be (and only as) a response to China or the ESA or Russia making serious moves. Then we'll get to play "King of the Hill" all over again.

--Cindy

SBird · 2004-04-09 11:27:19

I wouldn't write us off so soon. Europe has been crippled by budget problems for a decade now. Their sciences have been butchered. Fortunately ESA and CERN have escaped reasonably unharmed but a lot of basic science has gotten the axe.

Russia is just plain broke - its economy is about the size of Belgium's.

Japan is still in recession and its space program is not terribly successful.

China doesn't have too much money but its current economic expansion rate will put up in our league fairly soon. However, if one looks at the space budget, it's nowhere near what we're spending. If we spent out money on space exploration as wisely as the Chinese do, se'd be on Mars right now.

The US isn't going to be the big kahuna forever but for the resonable future, we still are and we can field resources towards things like space exploration that no other country can.

Euler · 2004-04-09 13:20:20

World's ten largest economies (GDP, PPP basis, from wikipedia):

1. European Union 10.84 trillion
2. United States 10.40 trillion
3. China (mainland) 5.70 trillion
4. Japan 3.55 trillion
5. India 2.66 trillion
6. Russia 1.35 trillion
7. Brazil 1.34 trillion
8. South Korea 931 billion
9. Canada 923 billion
10. Mexico 900 billion

The US spends about $15 billion on NASA per year, which is about 0.15% of GDP. Other countries are spending less on space, both absolutely and proportionately. Compared to what many countries spend on the military and other government programs, .15% is not really that much. Any of the top countries should be able to fund an agressive space program if they really wanted to.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-06 14:48:24

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#2 2004-04-06 14:57:59

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#3 2004-04-06 16:12:04

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#4 2004-04-06 17:34:46

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#5 2004-04-06 23:20:40

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#6 2004-04-06 23:30:26

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#7 2004-04-07 00:38:48

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#8 2004-04-07 03:28:03

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#9 2004-04-07 03:53:22

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#10 2004-04-07 07:28:25

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#11 2004-04-07 08:29:59

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#12 2004-04-07 11:12:00

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#13 2004-04-07 11:26:46

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#14 2004-04-07 13:23:50

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#15 2004-04-07 14:28:17

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#16 2004-04-07 14:46:34

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#17 2004-04-07 18:55:39

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#18 2004-04-08 00:37:54

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#19 2004-04-08 11:46:15

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#20 2004-04-08 12:11:55

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#21 2004-04-08 18:17:58

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#22 2004-04-09 09:35:17

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#23 2004-04-09 10:11:11

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#24 2004-04-09 11:27:19

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#25 2004-04-09 13:20:20

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

Board footer