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

[garyw]

What like this?

By elevating its life and physical sciences research program, NASA could achieve the biological understanding and technical breakthroughs needed to allow humans to be sent deeper into space, including to Mars, says a new National Research Council report. In addition, access to the space environment - for example, on the International Space Station - will open up further opportunities for groundbreaking research in the physical and life sciences.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports...h_Program_Helps_Human_Space_Missions_999.html

 

[Mantis]

I don't believe that China is beating anybody in space. It seems to take them 3 - 5 years between manned launches and they developed their spacecraft by basically cooying and modifying Soyuz. For the most part, their program is smoke and mirrors - it doesn't exist beyond the planning room.

 

[agentgonzo]

<pubescent rant>

I'm curious. Are you against the LHC too? What 'value' you think we have got from that. Or Fermilab. Or HST/JWST/Chandra/Spitzer/LIGO/Apollo. Or the entire field of palaeontology.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I would like to point out that I am mostly ignoring "future space exploration" because it too has little value to Earth...

Why must everything benefit Earth? Of course there will be spinoffs, but the main point of space exploration is exactly that - exploration. Because that's what it means to be human - to be able to expand beyond our own horizons. I don't see why we should limit that for the sake of what? Having a bit more money that isn't going to solve any of our Earth-bound problems anyway?

Ok, so if I develop a rocket at a cost of $20 billion to the US taxpayer (or whoever) and I charge you one pound to ride it, it is an overwhelmingly cheap rocket?

To me it's cheap, yes. That US government paid the cost of ISS so that experiment investigators can fly things more cheaply, because (some of) those experiments will benefit the US.

My point isn't about AMS, it's about the ISS in the first place. You could have done other things that would have been more optimal overall and for stuff like AMS as a part of that.

Maybe you could have developed ISS for a cheaper price, with more commercial involvement, etc. But it doesn't matter, because we didn't, so let's now learn everything we can from our ISS investment.

Except my point is that a program could be devised that could do exactly the same thing in a manner that would be more direct, more helpful, and perhaps even less costly.

Maybe. Maybe not. As I said above, it doesn't really matter now. Fact is, splashing ISS won't get our money back, so let's use it to teach us the things we need to know.

Its only success is that it illustrated how bad of a failure a program can be, and perhaps also served as a learning oppurtunity to show how not to build a spaceplane... :shifty:

Again, all your own opinion, not fact.

There are far better ways to inspire young people. The real world is one of them.

My point isn't about money, but philosophy. You grant undue philosophical worth to this sort of research.

Sorry, but space inspires people in ways that the "real world" never can, because it is so amazing and seemingly unreachable to humans. Thus, the fact that we go there is inspirational, because it's so difficult. Ask any current engineers or scientists between the ages of 40 and 60 what inspired them to get into engineering or science, and a significant number of them will say the Apollo Moon landings.

I'm not putting philosophical value on the research - I'm putting philosophical value on the fact that we do amazing things like going into space, pushing the boundaries of what we know how to do, and pushing the human spirit of doing amazing things. Sounds wishy-washy I know, but there has to be at least some room in our society for lofty ideals.

The ISS may present a scientific breakthrough in 20 years time. Or it could quite probably not. There is no assurance whatsoever that this magical breakthrough will appear.

That's right. But that's the same for any research, anywhere. So should we splash ISS because it might not lead to anything? That attitude does not build successful, technologically-advanced nations.


Anyway, I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) grow bored of this, so how about we just agree to disagree?

 

[agentgonzo]

Anyway, I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) grow bored of this, so how about we just agree to disagree?

Internet fora are built on people having pointless heated arguments about things that no-one cares about. Why stop the fun now?

 

[T.Neo]

By elevating its life and physical sciences research program, NASA could achieve the biological understanding and technical breakthroughs needed to allow humans to be sent deeper into space, including to Mars, says a new National Research Council report. In addition, access to the space environment - for example, on the International Space Station - will open up further opportunities for groundbreaking research in the physical and life sciences.

Sending humans to Mars is fun, but not useful for Earth.

I'm curious. Are you against the LHC too? What 'value' you think we have got from that. Or Fermilab. Or HST/JWST/Chandra/Spitzer/LIGO/Apollo. Or the entire field of palaeontology.

Hm... let's see: the LHC cost around a tenth the cost of the ISS.

A lot of those telescopes were launched on STS which was a pretty expensive vehicle. Apollo was a political excersise that succeded in its goal but was unsustainable and did not offer an intrisic return to the American people based on its scientific results (lunar geology, etc).

Paleontology too, is quite useless. But not a hugely expensive endeavour.

Why must everything benefit Earth? Of course there will be spinoffs, but the main point of space exploration is exactly that - exploration. Because that's what it means to be human - to be able to expand beyond our own horizons. I don't see why we should limit that for the sake of what? Having a bit more money that isn't going to solve any of our Earth-bound problems anyway?

Again: nice philosophy, not everyone subscribes to it.

Almost every human on Earth has never been to space at all. The total number of people who have been to space, ever, is an infinitesimal fraction of the global population.

Let's get down to the core issue: doing stuff here on Earth is work. It's like making a living. Stuff like space exploration is just a hobby.

To me it's cheap, yes. That US government paid the cost of ISS so that experiment investigators can fly things more cheaply, because (some of) those experiments will benefit the US.

Not by much, especially considering the total cost.

You really have to consider total cost. Something twice as expensive, that someone else has payed for, is always worse than that thing half as expensive, that someone else has paid for, even if you get off lightly in both cases because someone else has footed the bill.

Maybe you could have developed ISS for a cheaper price, with more commercial involvement, etc. But it doesn't matter, because we didn't, so let's now learn everything we can from our ISS investment.

Not my point. ISS is suboptimal and if it were done more efficiently it would be easier to justify.

Maybe. Maybe not. As I said above, it doesn't really matter now. Fact is, splashing ISS won't get our money back, so let's use it to teach us the things we need to know.

Well yeah, pretty much. If you do have a massively expensive, suboptimal and mostly useless platform, it makes sense to use it for something rather than to throw it away.

Again, all your own opinion, not fact.

Yes, it is very much fact. Where did STS meet any of its stated goals?

"STS flew and did science for us" does not make it successful. In the real world, not the "philosophy of fun and exciting science experimentation" world, things actually have to work and do things that they're advertised as doing, or else they are failures.

But like I said, that failure in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing either.

Sorry, but space inspires people in ways that the "real world" never can, because it is so amazing and seemingly unreachable to humans. Thus, the fact that we go there is inspirational, because it's so difficult. Ask any current engineers of scientists between the ages of 40 and 60 what inspired them to get into engineering or science, and a significant number of them will say the Apollo Moon landings.

Yeah... because fuzzy ideals are always more important than the essential requirement of putting bread on the table and a roof over your head.

I'm not putting philosophical value on the research - I'm putting philosophical value on the fact that we do amazing things like going into space, pushing the boundaries of what we know how to do, and pushing the human spirit of doing amazing things. Sounds wishy-washy I know, but there has to be at least some room in our society for lofty ideals.

You make that room after you've made room for other stuff. Grounded and impactful ideals are always more important than lofty and far off ones.

That's right. But that's the same for any research, anywhere. So should we splash ISS because it might not lead to anything? That attitude does not build successful, technologically-advanced nations.

No, we should have considered ways in which things could be done that would have been more efficient, instead of building the ISS because of an ingrained idea that no longer made sense.

von Braun's wheel station, for example, needed people onboard, because he did not imagine it with the sort of electronics and other systems that we have today- or even what we had in the Apollo era. Which is why a large manned space station made sense for things like Earth observation and space science. These days, a lot of things simply do not need human interaction.

Decades later, it made no sense anymore. But people refused to move on from that idea.

Anyway, I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) grow bored of this, so how about we just agree to disagree?

Yeah. :dry:

Internet fora are built on people having pointless heated arguments about things that no-one cares about. Why stop the fun now?

Exactly. Very few people care about space, and for good reason. :shifty:

 

[agentgonzo]

Hm... let's see: the LHC cost around a tenth the cost of the ISS.

A lot of those telescopes were launched on STS which was a pretty expensive vehicle. Apollo was a political excersise that succeded in its goal but was unsustainable and did not offer an intrisic return to the American people based on its scientific results (lunar geology, etc).

Paleontology too, is quite useless. But not a hugely expensive endeavour.

A simple yes/no answer would have done, but well done on ranting on aimlessly without answering a simple question. Have you considered being a politician?

This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if you'd have just said "I don't think there is any point in doing scientific research unless there is an immediate tangible benefit to the human race" at the start.

 

[Artlav]

sane world

Since when is our world sane?

Sanest thing to do is to be a plant.
Why would you run the dangers that come with the ability to move around and necessity to find your own food, when you can simply grow in place and feed from the Sun?

 

[agentgonzo]

Since when is our world sane?

Sanest thing to do is to be a plant.
Why would you run the dangers that come with the ability to move around and necessity to find your own food, when you can simply grow in place and feed from the Sun?

You know that animals eat plants right? Why on earth would you want to be a plant. You're literally someone else's food and you're literally rooted to the spot. If they come wanting to eat you, you can't run away!!!! Terrifying. Why on Earth would you think that was a good idea.

 

[T.Neo]

This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if you'd have just said "I don't think there is any point in doing scientific research unless there is an immediate tangible benefit to the human race" at the start.

But it's more complex than that. Something with only obscure possible applications that also comes at a very high cost is difficult to justify.

Sanest thing to do is to be a plant.
Why would you run the dangers that come with the ability to move around and necessity to find your own food, when you can simply grow in place and feed from the Sun?

Plants are not superior or inferior to animals- they just occupy a different niche. An animal may expend more energy moving from place to place, but it is also able to gain more energy by consuming other organisms, which have already concentrated energy from the Sun, for example.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Sending humans to Mars is fun, but not useful for Earth.

Yes.

Again: nice philosophy, not everyone subscribes to it.

Yes, and that's fine. Just so long as there are people who do.

Let's get down to the core issue: doing stuff here on Earth is work. It's like making a living. Stuff like space exploration is just a hobby.

Sooner or later it will be a necessity, when the Sun eventually blows up.

Not my point. ISS is suboptimal and if it were done more efficiently it would be easier to justify.

*Sigh* ISS is not suboptimal. It is designed for research, and is the most capable research platform ever put into space.

Well yeah, pretty much. If you do have a massively expensive, suboptimal and mostly useless platform, it makes sense to use it for something rather than to throw it away.

ISS is not a suboptimal useless platform. Please distinguish between your opinion and fact.

Yes, it is very much fact. Where did STS meet any of its stated goals?

"STS flew and did science for us" does not make it successful. In the real world, not the "philosophy of fun and exciting science experimentation" world, things actually have to work and do things that they're advertised as doing, or else they are failures.

No, it is your opinion. Shuttle was successful in the engineering knowledge it gave is, the inspiration it gave us, and the legacies it left us (Hubble, Chandra, and ISS).

Yeah... because fuzzy ideals are always more important than the essential requirement of putting bread on the table and a roof over your head.

Now this is where I really start to disagree with you.

You are right that putting food on the table is more important to people than fuzzy ideals. But in reality, how does space exploration stop food from being put on the table?

Remember, the US spends less than a half of a percent on space. More money is spent every two weeks on the war in Afghanistan (which a recent survey showed only around 15% of Americans support) than is spent on NASA in an entire year. The recent US bank bailouts were more than NASA's entire 50 year budget.

The issue is not that space exploration stops us from solving poverty, because we spend far more money on things that give far less benefits to humanity than space exploration.

How about the Olympic games that the UK is currently funding? You can draw many parallels between the Olympics and space exploration. It's a huge government expense that, while not necessary, is done for reasons of prestige and inspiration to young athletes. Sure, there are spinoff benefits to the economy, but the same can be said of space exploration.

Why aren't you arguing that we cancel the Olympics to end all poverty? For the record, I have nothing against the Olympics - I support it for the same reasons I do space exploration - because humanity has to be about more than just solving problems, we have to devote just a small part of ourselves to being proactive and having a vision for the future.

The reality is, if we stopped spending on space, the money would not be used to solve poverty. More likely, that 0.47% of the budget would go on projects that - even though they would be on Earth - would give us less benefits than space exploration.

And even if the 0.47% did go toward solving poverty, would it actually solve it? No, it might just make it temporarily, marginally better. You don't solve poverty by throwing money at it. You solve poverty by creating a need for an educated population, which encourages businesses to invest in areas, which in turn leads to employment, and thus more money for people. This is what space exploration helps with.

You make that room after you've made room for other stuff. Grounded and impactful ideals are always more important than lofty and far off ones.

Yes, and that is reflected in the fact that only 0.47% of the US budget goes toward space.

No, we should have considered ways in which things could be done that would have been more efficient, instead of building the ISS because of an ingrained idea that no longer made sense.

That's easy to say now, but remember that ISS was conceived in the early 90s, when a big drive was finding a project that the US could work alongside Russia with following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The space research station fitted that goal well, which is why the idea of ISS came about. It was nothing to do with "an ingrained idea that no longer made sense".

Exactly. Very few people care about space, and for good reason. :shifty:

I disagree - a poll conducted after the end of the Shuttle program showed that 60% of Americans think the space program is a good investment.

 

[agentgonzo]

I have to go on holiday now. Can someone else step in to keep the flamebait flowing please? Ta.

 

[jangofett287]

From what I gather, T.Neo only cares if its expensive, but doesn't have an immediate benefit to the human race.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, and that's fine. Just so long as there are people who do.

Again: your opinion. You may think it is essential, but it is also just your opinion.

Sooner or later it will be a necessity, when the Sun eventually blows up.

Oh, let's see- the Earth will become uninhabitable when? Using a lower bound figure, over 2000 times longer than the entire span of existence of Homo Sapiens?

I really feel the urgency.

*Sigh* ISS is not suboptimal. It is designed for research, and is the most capable research platform ever put into space.

Yes, it is suboptimal.

The Shuttle was designed to be reusable... and it could recover payloads from orbit! It had a huge capability compared to vehicles such as Soyuz, but this capability didn't make sense most of the time.

No, it is your opinion. Shuttle was successful in the engineering knowledge it gave is, the inspiration it gave us, and the legacies it left us (Hubble, Chandra, and ISS).

The shuttle gave me inspiration too. I have nothing to show for it.

That is some pretty expensive engineering knowledge. Especially when you never use it. :dry:

But, like I said: if anyone wants to build a 'successor' to the shuttle, for whatever reason, the shuttle offers important lessons in what not to do.

Now this is where I really start to disagree with you.

You are right that putting food on the table is more important to people than fuzzy ideals. But in reality, how does space exploration stop food from being put on the table?

Remember, the US spends less than a half of a percent on space. More money is spent every two weeks on the war in Afghanistan (which a recent survey showed only around 15% of Americans support) than is spent on NASA in an entire year. The recent US bank bailouts were more than NASA's entire 50 year budget.

The issue is not that space exploration stops us from solving poverty, because we spend far more money on things that give far less benefits to humanity than space exploration.

How about the Olympic games that the UK is currently funding? You can draw many parallels between the Olympics and space exploration. It's a huge government expense that, while not necessary, is done for reasons of prestige and inspiration to young athletes. Sure, there are spinoff benefits to the economy, but the same can be said of space exploration.

Why aren't you arguing that we cancel the Olympics to end all poverty? For the record, I have nothing against the Olympics - I support it for the same reasons I do space exploration - because humanity has to be about more than just solving problems, we have to devote just a small part of ourselves to being proactive and having a vision for the future.

The reality is, if we stopped spending on space, the money would not be used to solve poverty. More likely, that 0.47% of the budget would go on projects that - even though they would be on Earth - would give us less benefits than space exploration.

And even if the 0.47% did go toward solving poverty, would it actually solve it? No, it might just make it temporarily, marginally better. You don't solve poverty by throwing money at it. You solve poverty by creating a need for an educated population, which encourages businesses to invest in areas, which in turn leads to employment, and thus more money for people. This is what space exploration helps with.

Not my point. I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about philosophy. The philosophy of spaceflight is really remote and idealistic, the philosophy of creating a better society is one that is immediate and important.

Also, I am really tired of "space exploration will cure poverty by creating a demand for educated jobs". That's nonsense- poverty is caused by a whole range of sociological and socioeconomic factors. Inspiring kids with space shuttles isn't going to 'fix' poverty, not by a long shot.

Yes, and that is reflected in the fact that only 0.47% of the US budget goes toward space.

But not by the fact that you think it is so superbly, utterly important.

$100 billion is not a marginal amount of money for a single project.

That's easy to say now, but remember that ISS was conceived in the early 90s, when a big drive was finding a project that the US could work alongside Russia with following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The space research station fitted that goal well, which is why the idea of ISS came about. It was nothing to do with "an ingrained idea that no longer made sense".

Er... no. The ISS was not concieved of in the 1990s, but originally all the way back in the 1960s. This was the basic idea of a shuttle-tended space station. This concept evolved over time, eventually became a cooperative project, and became a reality.

International cooperation makes sense, a large and unecessarily expensive manned platform like the ISS does not.

I disagree - a poll conducted after the end of the Shuttle program showed that 60% of Americans think the space program is a good investment.

Obviously they are still stuck in the mindset of fancy rockets flying up into space with big, patriotic flags painted on the side.

From what I gather, T.Neo only cares if its expensive, but doesn't have an immediate benefit to the human race.

I care that it has low return for its cost. To make something more justifiable, you either have to increase its return or decrease its cost.

 

[Cras]

Arguing for the sake of arguing is arguably the worst kind of argument one can make, and it seems that a few partake in such argument on a regular basis.

One could call it trolling, I would call it arogant and annoying.

I mean you do realise that the Space Shuttle was designed specifically to build a space station in LEO right? It was all a package deal, the NASA space station and the Shuttle to build it, only Nixon chose not to greenlight the station part of the package (and the Mars part for that matter but that is a different argument).

So instead we get a shuttle that was a shuttle to nowhere. Took over 15 years until the Shuttle was finally able to do what it was designed to do, and that was take parts of a space station, along with crew who could install and work on it at the same time.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Again: your opinion. You may think it is essential, but it is also just your opinion.

Yes, it's my opinion, but also the opinion of a lot of other people.

Oh, let's see- the Earth will become uninhabitable when? Using a lower bound figure, over 2000 times longer than the entire span of existence of Homo Sapiens?

I really feel the urgency.

The problem with this argument is that it will always apply. Do you think Earth will have no problems in 1000 years? Reality is, there will always be people who say that we should spend on Earth, not space. Right up until the Sun is exploding in 1000 years, and we don't have enough time to develop the technology. You have to start somewhere, and seems as we are able to, there's no reason not to do so now.

Yes, it is suboptimal.

The Shuttle was designed to be reusable... and it could recover payloads from orbit! It had a huge capability compared to vehicles such as Soyuz, but this capability didn't make sense most of the time.

ISS is not suboptimal - that's your opinion, not fact.

The loss of Shuttle return capability is one of the big issues for ISS right now - so I don't know how on Earth you can possibly say that "this capability didn't make sense most of the time".

The shuttle gave me inspiration too. I have nothing to show for it.

Maybe that's your problem, not the Shuttle's or anyone else's.

Not my point. I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about philosophy. The philosophy of spaceflight is really remote and idealistic, the philosophy of creating a better society is one that is immediate and important.

Yes, that's right. And for the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing that space exploration is more important - just that it is important enough to devote a small part of our efforts toward.

Also, I am really tired of "space exploration will cure poverty by creating a demand for educated jobs". That's nonsense- poverty is caused by a whole range of sociological and socioeconomic factors. Inspiring kids with space shuttles isn't going to 'fix' poverty, not by a long shot.

I'm not trying to argue that this is the case.

But not by the fact that you think it is so superbly, utterly important.

Once again, you are pretending to know more about what I think than I do. I am not arguing that space exploration is the most important issue facing mankind right now. I am arguing that it is important enough to warrant a small effort - an effort that I myself am interested in being a part of.

Er... no. The ISS was not concieved of in the 1990s, but originally all the way back in the 1960s. This was the basic idea of a shuttle-tended space station. This concept evolved over time, eventually became a cooperative project, and became a reality.

That was not ISS, that was Space Station Freedom (SSF). ISS is downsized from SSF.

a large and unecessarily expensive manned platform like the ISS does not.

Opinion.

Obviously they are still stuck in the mindset of fancy rockets flying up into space with big, patriotic flags painted on the side.

Okay. :dry:

I care that it has low return for its cost. To make something more justifiable, you either have to increase its return or decrease its cost.

Of which the same can be said for a lot of research projects (LHC). It is unfortunately the nature of some research. We can't go back and decrease costs now, and splashing ISS surely won't increase return.

 

[T.Neo]

I mean you do realise that the Space Shuttle was designed specifically to build a space station in LEO right? It was all a package deal, the NASA space station and the Shuttle to build it, only Nixon chose not to greenlight the station part of the package (and the Mars part for that matter but that is a different argument).

So instead we get a shuttle that was a shuttle to nowhere. Took over 15 years until the Shuttle was finally able to do what it was designed to do, and that was take parts of a space station, along with crew who could install and work on it at the same time.

Yes, I do. Don't you realise that the shuttle massively failed on its promised costs and flight-rate? It ended up being more expensive than expendable launch vehicles.

"But the shuttle was supposed to build a space station, so it should have built a space station" is an incredibly silly argument. Just because you like the idea of the shuttle does not mean it was successful. The shuttle was a failure and so was the station.

There were and are more efficient ways to construct a space station, period. The shuttle concept works really nicely with it in theory, but utterly failed in reality.

Yes, it's my opinion, but also the opinion of a lot of other people.

A relatively small group.

The problem with this argument is that it will always apply. Do you think Earth will have no problems in 1000 years? Reality is, there will always be people who say that we should spend on Earth, not space. Right up until the Sun is exploding in 1000 years, and we don't have enough time to develop the technology. You have to start somewhere, and seems as we are able to, there's no reason not to do so now.

Ok, firstly;

1. The Sun will never 'explode'. It isn't that type of star, and its gradual brightening is the real problem here.

2. The Sun is not going to render the Earth uninhabitable in 1000 years, there is nothing to support this whatsoever.

The limit for Earth's habitability is 500 million to a billion years. There is no rush whatsoever. Even if we needed to get off of Earth in 1-5 million years, there would be no rush whatsoever. On human scales that is an eternity.

ISS is not suboptimal - that's your opinion, not fact.

Of course it is suboptimal, you just won't consider it so, because you like the idea of the ISS.

The loss of Shuttle return capability is one of the big issues for ISS right now - so I don't know how on Earth you can possibly say that "this capability didn't make sense most of the time".

You don't need a Shuttle to return cargo from the station. There are just no vehicles capable of doing that right now, because those vehicles have not yet entered service.

Something like the shuttle would be pretty useful for recovering satellites or other such items from orbit, but the problem with this idea is that there is no need for it. Maybe there will be in future, but there isn't one today.

Maybe that's your problem, not the Shuttle's or anyone else's.

Yes, it was my problem. I got inspired by the Shuttle, when I should have focused on more useful things.

Yes, that's right. And for the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing that space exploration is more important - just that it is important enough to devote a small part of our efforts toward.

Fair enough, but you really do seem to make it out as this huge majorly important activity...

I'm not trying to argue that this is the case.

This is specifically what I am referring to:

You don't solve poverty by throwing money at it. You solve poverty by creating a need for an educated population, which encourages businesses to invest in areas, which in turn leads to employment, and thus more money for people. This is what space exploration helps with.

Once again, you are pretending to know more about what I think than I do. I am not arguing that space exploration is the most important issue facing mankind right now. I am arguing that it is important enough to warrant a small effort - an effort that I myself am interested in being a part of.

No. I think what I think about what you think based on what I percieve of what you say.

You seem to believe that it is "essential" to develop the ability to "get off the Earth" to escape the exploding Sun in 1000 years... but this is the worry of nobody.

That was not ISS, that was Space Station Freedom (SSF). ISS is downsized from SSF.

ISS inherits from Freedom. It is its descendant.

Opinion.

And one that makes perfect and absolute sense. There are far more ways to do things. You might not find them as exciting or 'cool', but they could be better at doing their job.

Of which the same can be said for a lot of research projects (LHC). It is unfortunately the nature of some research. We can't go back and decrease costs now, and splashing ISS surely won't increase return.

Yet the LHC has cost roughly a tenth of the ISS! That highlights how expensive the ISS is in comparison to other projects.

I still maintain that to justify an expenditure of $100 billion, you need exceptionally impressive returns.

 

[Donamy]

T. Neo, I'm worried about you. Go eat something.

 

[T.Neo]

T. Neo, I'm worried about you. Go eat something.

Why are you so concerned? It is not like my food was stolen to finance the space program.

 

[garyw]

I mean you do realise that the Space Shuttle was designed specifically to build a space station in LEO right? It was all a package deal, the NASA space station and the Shuttle to build it, only Nixon chose not to greenlight the station part of the package (and the Mars part for that matter but that is a different argument).

That package deal was supposed to include an LEO - GEO tug to allow the shuttle to repair satellites in Geosync orbit, it's also the reason the Dual Keel space station concept I posted a picture of earlier in the thread has a satellite hangar in the top right of the image.

The shuttle could have been so much more than it was, killed by politics but has still done some great things.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

I still maintain that to justify an expenditure of $100 billion, you need exceptionally impressive returns.

No, you just need politicians demanding you do it their way.