Twenty-five gigabucks of steel: the objectives of the International Space Station

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Read: How can a project fail if it was never intended to do anything in the first place?

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

I have always been confused by the ISS. It seems like they should have built a large SPACE SHIP, rather than a space station. Then you get the benefits of both.

I continue to fail see the novelty of people in LEO. (The exception being the Hubble servicing missions)

Now with the ISS's orbit failing, and no shuttle return to flight on the horizon, we have neither. Had the space station been fitted with a navigation system, it wouldn't be an issue.

Once again we see that "It's easier to underestimate costs and overspend than it is to just give an accurate cost" is correct.

__________________
"We can't test an elixer of immortality! It'd take forever!"

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the ISS just yet, they haven't even finished building it.
I agree that as it stands, with the amount of money spent and the amount of real science achieved on board so far, it might seem like another "spruce goose" but think about the experience we have gained in designing and constructing it and the wealth of new technologies that have been developed for it that will be invaluable in countless future missions to detinations further out then LEO.

Besides, it's very difficult for a two person crew to get much done up there anyway, what with spending all their time maintaining the place. With the shuttle returning to flight soon the ISS will have a full crew compliment and we may finally see some action up there.

__________________
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.
Man: But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D.

As a money-pit the ISS has been an outstanding success. Whether we have gained any value added benefit is open to debate. ISS has no real observation platform, no navigational ability and no stealth defence purpose. I think it was a 'me too' exercise with very flimsy justification. For the $$ there could easily have been a second generation 'Hubble' and we wouldn't be talking about whether its viable to keep it (Hubble) serviced

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

Certaintly not novel anymore but it's been so long, I can't imagine not having anybody up there. Even if they are just orbiting earth. I still think the ISS is pretty cool. Wish I could go there.

I don't know if I'd be willing to trade it for a return mission to the moon but I probably would and certaintly for a Mars mission. Of course my solution is both. More money, more missions. An astronaut in space is a return on our investment for their training and they always take cool pictures.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Well, right now it IS the only place for long duration spaceflight. And I think two of the biggest benefits are sorting out how international cooperation works (and doesn't work) and the logistics of building structures in space (or how not to build them). I agree, it's not the best bang for the buck, though.

Couldn't they use it to simulate a Mars duration mission? Put a full crew compliment on board and simulate the length and characteristics of a months long mission - even down to a communications schedule and what not?

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I agree completely. What pains me is that at present, the budget calls for about $12 billion to be thrown into the pit over the next five years (and I'm not sure if that includes launch-related expenses). IMHO, that money could be much better spent on other projects.

"Failure" doesn't quite say it. I think I would use the term "White Elephant".

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!

Time to fold was long ago. Could still fold. I wouldn't go all in now.

We need a comprehensive list of all ISS-enabled research that has been done and is planned. Also, a good breakdown of technologies and engineering practices that have been improved via R&D for the ISS construction.

Without such a list, it is hard to truely assess the past and future usefulness of the ISS.

That said, anecdotally I don't remember any revolutionary contributions to either science or space technology by the ISS; incremental improvements in space construction and microgravity research, at best.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Well there's the whole 'How to/how not to build a space station' thing. Then there's the 'living a really long time in space' thing. Both will be important one day and once we no longer have a space station, it will be harder to get another one built. This is not the time to take a break from space. We need to keep going forward, not pull back.

I honestly don't understand why any space freak would advocate dumping the ISS. Sure it costs money, most things do. I don't advocate dumping the Hubble before we have a replacement that does as much or more and I don't advocate dumping the ISS without having a bigger, better one up.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

True. But I think we should be focusing on designing and building cheaper ways to get things up there from down here. Then things get a lot easier.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Not sure to where to put things. ISS related. Did anyone see the hearing on NASA Television at 11:00 am? I don't get NASA TV through my cable company...

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

It's never going to be a success if the media keeps up the coverage like this.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html
Can someone tell me what this article was about? It says testimony about ISS, but I WANT SOME DETAILS, and not 5 paragraphs about an astronauts stocking feet.

As I understand it, that's pretty much the sort of thing they asked the astronaut. The moderator of NASA Watch thought it was kind of silly:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ying_from.html

Yeah, from your NASA Watch link the editor wasn't too impressed:

Surely testimony demands knowledgeable, pertinant enquirey and a bit of critical thought, not the kind of questions and "Ooooh! Wow!" comments you would expect from children. This comes over as a badly managed PR stunt and I hope the Committee members are suitably embarassed by their performance.

OK, I'm outside the US and it's none of my business but you guys have spent a lot of $$ and effort up there and would possibly like to know what it's all been for, where the space program is headed and how much support Congress will give to the good folk at the sharp end of the auditor's quill.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

That's a nice article. I think the big problem with ISS, apart from the uninspiring name, is the slow rate of progress, even before 107. As was commented in that Zubrin article on the space spirals, the value for money factor decreases as the timetable is stretched. You still have fixed costs associated with operating a program to accomplish a certain objective, and the longer that program has to run, the higher those fixed costs. Also, the longer it runs, the more likely it is that certain things will be cribbed from the programme thereby spoiling a lot of the effort as we have seen with ISS. The quicker you get something done, the quicker you benefit from it.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

As a hardcore space freak, I can offer my perspective on the matter. NASA has accomplished little since Apollo. And even less since the shuttle. The shuttle itself is too expensive to operate and accomplishes too little to be very practical. An inadequate heavy launch vehicle has had the US's space program bogged down for 30 years now (since they halted Apollo, retired the Saturn 5 and began work on the shuttle...that was what? 1975ish?).

Manned space travel will always be expensive and impractical without efficient launch vehicles. The orbitter is simply too heavy and operationally cumbersome. It can't do better than low-earth-orbit, its cargo capacity is less than a rocket of equivellant performance, and it costs more to maintain. Not that it doesn't have some benefits (as a laboratory, and satellite tender), but I'm willing to bet they'd be outweighed by 30 years of infrastructure development with plain old rockets.

In order to complete the space station we need something like 5-10 years, and it requires the space shuttle. We can't launch the components on rockets. And we can't get a new more practical launch vehicle developed and built while continuing to operate the shuttle. The money just isn't there.

In the meantime, Russian, China, Europe, Japan, India, Brazil, and even Iran are all free to develop their space programs unhindered by the burden we bear.

So, the question is... is the space station really worth another 5-10 years of being stuck in low earth orbit?

Plus, it seems to me rather embarrassing for the US that we have to hitch rides with the Russians while we sort out the shuttles problems. That's telling me the Russians are doing something right....they stayed with rockets.