Question Usefulness of the ISS (and other space stations) for humanity

[T.Neo]

As I've said before, no, there isn't any one experiment that you can point to that justifies the cost of ISS. Rather, it is the collective experience/knowledge that it will give is over the course of its life that justifies it. I've already told you what those things are.

Really? What? The taste of Malaysian food in space? :dry:

Sorry, just a bunch of novel science experiments. Nothing majorly assisting people down on the ground, apart from Salmonella vaccines.

And maybe a study of Malyasian food...

Remember, it's not just the benefits that ISS gives to us on Earth, it's also the benefits it gives to future space exploration that are important.

Also something that doesn't help people down on the ground... :dry:

There's just no way you can say ISS has been a failure, when the full research program only began a few months ago.

Actually that is a pretty good reason to call the ISS a failure in that case, if it is doing full research only in the second half of its operational lifetime. If it did not encounter such delays and a drawn-out construction, it might be better off.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Really? What? The taste of Malaysian food in space? :dry:

Sorry, just a bunch of novel science experiments. Nothing majorly assisting people down on the ground, apart from Salmonella vaccines.

No, as I said, the taste of Malaysian food in space is just one experiment, that alone doesn't justify the ISS. ISS does far more than just "novel science experiments". Please re-read my previous posts.

Also something that doesn't help people down on the ground... :dry:

No, I'm not trying to argue that it does.

Actually that is a pretty good reason to call the ISS a failure in that case, if it is doing full research only in the second half of its operational lifetime. If it did not encounter such delays and a drawn-out construction, it might be better off.

Should've, could've, would've. But it didn't. ISS construction delays were caused by the Columbia disaster.

 

[T.Neo]

No, as I said, the taste of Malaysian food in space is just one experiment, that alone doesn't justify the ISS. ISS does far more than just "novel science experiments". Please re-read my previous posts.

I did read your posts, and they are "novel science experiments". In general usage, of course.

We don't care how quail eggs, for example, develop in microgravity. Quail breeders work on Earth, not in space.

Should've, could've, would've. But it didn't. ISS construction delays were caused by the Columbia disaster.

But it could have. The technology existed. The expertise could have been created pretty easily. A lot of things could have happened differently, doesn't mean they are perfect or that all of their flaws should be excused.

If you build a car, and it is a pretty ineffective car, you don't say "oh well, we could have built a better car, but we didn't". You admit that the car is ineffective.

The ISS is an extension of STS. STS was a massive failure in many respects. The whole point behind the ISS was to emulate the ideal of a "manned space laboratory" suggested before the beginning of the space age. An ideal that is of dubious relevance and usefulness, of course.

 

[Tacolev]

Quail development isn't important to just quail breeders, there are many common features to vertebrate development and Chickens and Quails are just a particularly robust animal for such experiments.

The point is that basic research is important precisely because we don't know what we'll find. There's certainly an argument to be made that a space laboratory is a particularly expensive way to do it at the present time but please don't knock research without any obvious applications.

 

[garyw]

T.Neo - have you read or seen any of the thousands of research papers coming out of ISS research? These aren't things that are free online but subscription services from the likes of Reed Elsevier.

I'll also add that 50 years on we are still learning things from Research done on the moon by Apollo astronaunts. Just because you think an experiment is silly and pointless today doesn't mean that it won't still be giving useful data in 50 years as different people analyse the data sets in different ways.

The ISS is a research tool for today but it's also a research tool for tomorrow and future generations even once the ISS is no more. Remember that.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I did read your posts, and they are "novel science experiments". In general usage, of course.

We don't care how quail eggs, for example, develop in microgravity. Quail breeders work on Earth, not in space.

Yes, but I'm not talking about quail eggs. I'm talking about important research and technology demonstrations. I've already said what they are and am not going to say it again.

But it could have. The technology existed. The expertise could have been created pretty easily. A lot of things could have happened differently, doesn't mean they are perfect or that all of their flaws should be excused.

If you build a car, and it is a pretty ineffective car, you don't say "oh well, we could have built a better car, but we didn't". You admit that the car is ineffective.

The ISS is an extension of STS. STS was a massive failure in many respects. The whole point behind the ISS was to emulate the ideal of a "manned space laboratory" suggested before the beginning of the space age. An ideal that is of dubious relevance and usefulness, of course.

Sorry, what on Earth (or whatever planet you are on) are you talking about here? The technology existed for what? What does technology have to do with ISS construction delays? And what flaws are you talking about? The ISS is not ineffective, when it comes to a manned space laboratory, ISS is the most capable spacecraft ever designed.

 

[T.Neo]

Quail development isn't important to just quail breeders, there are many common features to vertebrate development and Chickens and Quails are just a particularly robust animal for such experiments.

The point is that basic research is important precisely because we don't know what we'll find. There's certainly an argument to be made that a space laboratory is a particularly expensive way to do it at the present time but please don't knock research without any obvious applications.

I will knock research without any applications whatsoever.

Please inform me on how microgravity research educates us as to how quails develop on Earth, where they are actually useful, and not in space, where they are just interesting trivia.

T.Neo - have you read or seen any of the thousands of research papers coming out of ISS research?

I'd imagine that if they were massively useful or showed promise for being massively useful, they would have recieved more publicity by now.

There are research papers done about many things, it doesn't mean that these things are going to help anyone. Does it make a difference to your life that rudimentary colour patterns were detected in the feathers of a small dinosaur, for example?

I'll also add that 50 years on we are still learning things from Research done on the moon by Apollo astronaunts. Just because you think an experiment is silly and pointless today doesn't mean that it won't still be giving useful data in 50 years as different people analyse the data sets in different ways.

Yet data from the Moon itself is still pretty much useless here on Earth after those 40 years, unless it relates to useful geology in some way. It is just interesting knowledge for some poeple.

I'm talking about important research and technology demonstrations. I've already said what they are and am not going to say it again.

Please don't respond in a way that assumes I do not know what technology you are talking about, because I do. This is technology that is useless to us on Earth. In our real world.

ECLSS? Useless for Earth applications to test it in space. Interaction with robots in space? Yes, in space. Not on the ground. Orbital assembly? You are not orbiting, when you are on the surface of the Earth.

And then you have the issue of technology demonstration that would not necessarily need to use the ISS complex, but that is another matter entirely.

And then there is the concept of unnabbed recoverable vehicles that could be launched into space, do their research, and then be recovered, for a fraction of the cost of the ISS. They might not possess all the capability of the ISS, but they would be a pretty interesting capability in and of themselves.

Sorry, what on Earth (or whatever planet you are on) are you talking about here? The technology existed for what? What does technology have to do with ISS construction delays? And what flaws are you talking about? The ISS is not ineffective, when it comes to a manned space laboratory, ISS is the most capable spacecraft ever designed.

"Capability" only depends on what area you are talking in. The ISS does not have some capabilities, that also do not matter due to what it is supposed to do and where it is supposed to be situated. You can also have a huge amount of capability that you don't need, and is just a waste.

Expendable launch vehicles existed. The ISS could have been launched on those. Propulsion units existed. They could have been used for rendesvous and docking of ISS modules. Small spaceplanes and capsules such as the HL-20 were studied by NASA... they could have partially performed the role of crew rotation. Instead the ISS used the low flight-rate, expensive STS.

Maybe you are right in this case. Maybe the ISS is very useful. Maybe it has shown us how not to assemble a spacecraft in orbit around the Earth... :shifty:

 

[Tacolev]

Alright, just making stuff up since I won't have journal access again for another week but hopefully this will illustrate why "effects of microgravity on x" papers aren't just useless justification for a big sunk cost:

Microgravity has the potential to change the vertebrate developmental program with regard to the following things.
-Diffusion of small-molecule signals for establishing gradients for gene-transcription and building the complete animal right. Characterization of a mechanism variable with gravity could explain certain birth defects and elucidate systems fault tolerance in the developmental program.

-Cardiovascular system and kinetics and dynamics of blood-born molecules. Importance of gravity gradient on overall systems function can have applications as above and in modeling drug action.

-Urogenital system and waste tolerance. Cleidoic egg contains all waste from the developing chick. How important is gravity gradient versus diffusion forces in tissue tolerance to waste conditions? Is this mitigated by adaptive behavior? What about in placental mammals with our less efficient waste molecule versus birds?

-Nervous and vestibular system. Do the feedback oscillators pruned out of our spinal chords in development orient themselves at all around a gravity-gradient? How does the vestibular system in land vertebrate grow alongside the descending motor systems that control complicated behaviors like walking and balance?

These are just a few examples of questions where novel experimental setups can help a lot in answering them but a sustained microgravity environment would be ideal.

...and again the point that basic research is always important because we don't know what we'll find. I am myself sympathetic to the argument that spaceborne research should wait until the costs of doing it are lower but my point about basic research still stands, especially in biology where the systems in question are so much more complicated than in other sciences and something unknown can be lurking around even the most familiar corners.

Edited to add: Yeah this should really be moved.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

Concerning Chinese spaceflight...

It seems the Shenzhou 8 has ditched the forward solar panels and RCS. Is this what we'll see in the future or is that just because this is a station ferry? Was there ever that much utility in the independently-flying orbital module concept?

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not sure we need or want a dedicated thread for "discussion" about facts vs. T.Neo's own version of what could have or should have been done with things that didn't and don't exist.

Pete, I'd appreciate it if you actually listened to what I have to say, rather than deny everything and insist the importance of the things that interest and excite you, just for the sake of it.

And yes, expendable launch vehicles and orbital propulsion buses did and do exist, and would have been better for building the international space station than the costly and complex space shuttle. This has nothing to do with whether spaceplanes or reusable launch systems are viable or not, but with the dynamics of STS itself in that particular scenario.

The ISS was done the way it was done not because it was the best setup, but because people didn't get the idea of STS servicing a gigantic manned space complex out of their heads. Just because it exists doesn't mean it is the optimal solution.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting deorbiting the ISS. I was actually very disappointed by the ~2016 deorbit date that was spoken of a few years back.

Microgravity has the potential to change the vertebrate developmental program with regard to the following things.
-Diffusion of small-molecule signals for establishing gradients for gene-transcription and building the complete animal right. Characterization of a mechanism variable with gravity could explain certain birth defects and elucidate systems fault tolerance in the developmental program.

-Cardiovascular system and kinetics and dynamics of blood-born molecules. Importance of gravity gradient on overall systems function can have applications as above and in modeling drug action.

-Urogenital system and waste tolerance. Cleidoic egg contains all waste from the developing chick. How important is gravity gradient versus diffusion forces in tissue tolerance to waste conditions? Is this mitigated by adaptive behavior? What about in placental mammals with our less efficient waste molecule versus birds?

-Nervous and vestibular system. Do the feedback oscillators pruned out of our spinal chords in development orient themselves at all around a gravity-gradient? How does the vestibular system in land vertebrate grow alongside the descending motor systems that control complicated behaviors like walking and balance?

These are just a few examples of questions where novel experimental setups can help a lot in answering them but a sustained microgravity environment would be ideal.

Perhaps. And you did mention novel experimental setups for testing certain things, that are not as ideal as microgravity... but then again, a lot of these experiments could be done in microgravity without a gigantic manned orbital complex.

A miniature recoverable laboratory might indeed be less capable than something like the ISS... but also less costly, and far more capable than the drop tunnels or parabolic flights that some people have suggested make the ISS pointless.

especially in biology where the systems in question are so much more complicated than in other sciences and something unknown can be lurking around even the most familiar corners.

Perhaps. But if there is a way to test something, you don't say "I know, I'll use the ISS". You try to find the most effective way to test something, which is the easiest and cheapest experiment with the best results. You try to devise test equipment on the ground that can place a specimen under certain conditions. If that doesn't give you the data you needed, or you want more data... then you consider flying an experiment to space.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Pete, I'd appreciate it if you actually listened to what I have to say, rather than deny everything and insist the importance of the things that interest and excite you, just for the sake of it.

And yes, expendable launch vehicles and orbital propulsion buses did and do exist, and would have been better for building the international space station than the costly and complex space shuttle. This has nothing to do with whether spaceplanes or reusable launch systems are viable or not, but with the dynamics of STS itself in that particular scenario.

The ISS was done the way it was done not because it was the best setup, but because people didn't get the idea of STS servicing a gigantic manned space complex out of their heads. Just because it exists doesn't mean it is the optimal solution.

I do listen to you - I just strongly disagree. Also, I do not think space exploration is important just because I'm interested in it. Rather, it's the opposite - I'm interested in it because I think it's important.

You could not have built ISS with EELVs, because you'd have needed way more than just an EELV - a tug, and a robot arm for the tug. Then, you'd have needed to send people up anyway in a ship with an airlock, so that they could do a spacewalk to plug the new module in. And for the expense of developing all that, it was better to just to use the already operational Shuttle.

Perhaps. But if there is a way to test something, you don't say "I know, I'll use the ISS". You try to find the most effective way to test something, which is the easiest and cheapest experiment with the best results. You try to devise test equipment on the ground that can place a specimen under certain conditions. If that doesn't give you the data you needed, or you want more data... then you consider flying an experiment to space.

Yes - that is the exactly what happens, and is whole reason behind DragonLab, and NASA's CRuSR program - to do experiments in space that don't require ISS. Experiments that require long duration exposure to microgravity need to use ISS.


Anyway, I'm not continuing this any more - back to Chinese updates.

 

[T.Neo]

Also, I do not think space exploration is important just because I'm interested in it. Rather, it's the opposite - I'm interested in it because I think it's important.

Except: you seem to think it is far more important than it actually is, because you are so intensely interested in it.

You could not have built ISS with EELVs, because you'd have needed way more than just an EELV - a tug, and a robot arm for the tug. Then, you'd have needed to send people up anyway in a ship with an airlock, so that they could do a spacewalk to plug the new module in. And for the expense of developing all that, it was better to just to use the already operational Shuttle.

Wrong. You would have to have a small manuvering tug for the payloads. Not an arm on the payloads. You would launch essentiall systems such as power, propulsion, and an RMS first. The tug would fly the payload close enough to the station to be gripped by the RMS, as is done with the HTV.

You could fly up payloads using a minishuttle, or perhaps even some kind of expendable logistics module (like the ATV).

With STS, you saved on development costs, but you also had pretty bad launch costs. You could potentially reuse a lot of hardware from other applications. There was even a US propulsion module for the ISS studied, for example.

And while a lot of things would not be able to be done in the same way as was done with STS, it wouldn't matter, because things would be optimised for a different scenario from the start.

Yes - that is the exactly what happens, and is whole reason behind DragonLab, and NASA's CRuSR program - to do experiments in space that don't require ISS. Experiments that require long duration exposure to microgravity need to use ISS.

You do not need a large facility such as the ISS for prolonged experiments, you just need a spacecraft that can loiter on orbit for long enough. It is not impossible.

The ISS is only needed for experiments that really need a lot of supporting infrastructure, power, and human interaction, or for human space science experiments. It does all those things, but at a very high cost.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Except: you seem to think it is far more important than it actually is, because you are so intensely interested in it.

So what? Please don't tell me what I can and can't be interested in - I'll deicide that for myself, thanks very much.

Wrong. You would have to have a small manuvering tug for the payloads. Not an arm on the payloads. You would launch essentiall systems such as power, propulsion, and an RMS first. The tug would fly the payload close enough to the station to be gripped by the RMS, as is done with the HTV.

Yes, but in order to have an arm to grab the arriving modules, you'd need to have a module on ISS capable of attaching the arm to. The first module capable of that was the Destiny lab. But, Destiny needed to be attached to Unity, which in turn needed to attach to Zarya. So, how do you propose putting all these modules up there without an arm?

You do not need a large facility such as the ISS for prolonged experiments, you just need a spacecraft that can loiter on orbit for long enough. It is not impossible.

The ISS is only needed for experiments that really need a lot of supporting infrastructure, power, and human interaction, or for human space science experiments. It does all those things, but at a very high cost.

Exactly - but such a platform does not exist, which is why ISS is used.

Geez, at least now I can say I've argued with a brick wall.

 

[T.Neo]

So what? Please don't tell me what I can and can't be interested in - I'll deicide that for myself, thanks very much.

I don't care how much you are interested in something, but it disturbs me when people assume that things are far more important than they actually are.

Yes, but in order to have an arm to grab the arriving modules, you'd need to have a module on ISS capable of attaching the arm to. The first module capable of that was the Destiny lab. But, Destiny needed to be attached to Unity, which in turn needed to attach to Zarya. So, how do you propose putting all these modules up there without an arm?

Simple:

And while a lot of things would not be able to be done in the same way as was done with STS, it wouldn't matter, because things would be optimised for a different scenario from the start.

The ISS we know was optimised to be assembled by STS. If it were assembled differently, its assembly would have been different.

Exactly - but such a platform does not exist, which is why ISS is used.

Geez, at least now I can say I've argued with a brick wall.

"Robert Mugabe is a despot, which is why Zimbabwe suffers from hyperinflation".

Let's all just throw our hands in the air and let Zimbabwe starve, shall we?

Don't you think that this miniature experiment platform is a good idea?

Don't you think, that it is better than the ISS in at least some respects?

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Don't you think that this miniature experiment platform is a good idea?

Don't you think, that it is better than the ISS in at least some respects?

It depends - will the development and operational costs of such a platform exceed the savings of not putting the experiments on ISS?

We could spend $1 billion building this platform, and only save $800 million. Thus, it would be pointless. A full study would be needed before any decision could be made.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes... if you use the gigantic cost-plus sort of contract that plagues the space program.

What is pointless about saving $800 million? :facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Hello! I am not sure if you know it, but this is a thread about the Chinese Space program, you have many others about ISS or about TNeos current lack of true faith.

 

[garyw]

the ISS IS a reduced size. This is one of the potential designs back from the early 80's:

 

[T.Neo]

Yes. Look at that monstrosity. :shifty:

Fun idea though.

Of course, the ISS we have today is a castrated version of the original ISS plan... there were things such as the Science Power Platform on the Russian segment, as well as the habitation module and the CAM (centrifuge accomodation module, which would have allowed for some interesting experiments), which were all cut. The CAM module shell is now an ornament in a car park in Japan, I believe.

 

[T.Neo]

I'm sure it has enough trusses for whatever it is supposed to do with those trusses.

The way the trusses on the early station concepts were supposed to be constructed differs from the actual trusses on the ISS though. Those trusses were assembled in orbit by astronauts... the ISS trusses are 'pre-fab' segments

 

[Turbinator]

After all, who maintains and crews a $100 billion dollar orbital complex?

The US, Europe, and Russia. And Japan.

Everyone forgets Canada.