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

[Orbinaut Pete]

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

Please explain to me - in as fewer words as possible - why the ISS is suboptimal as a science platform, because I really don't understand where you're coming from with this.

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.

Yes, but even when commercial vehicles enter service, they will have no-where near the down-mass of Shuttle, which will affect ISS utilisation because it will mean less samples can be returned.

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

Well, if that's your opinion, than that's fine. I too was inspired by Shuttle (and ISS), but I don't think I should have focused on more useful things. Any person pursuing education in STEM subjects is beneficial to a society.

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

I focus on space because it's where my interests are - and I do think it's important, just as important - not more important - than other things.

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.

I think it's good to explore space for a number of reasons - the philosophical aspect, the inspiration aspect, the technological development aspect, the spinoff aspect, and the fact that someday it will be essential to our survival.

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

I agree there - and that's what NASA is currently working to achieve.

 

[T.Neo]

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.

Those things were killed by politics, but eventually the Shuttle was killed by reality. None of those things would have made sense with the enormous cost of the Shuttle that became apparent later on.

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

So... wait, the demand of a politician justifies low return for cost?

That doesn't make sense to me. :dry:

EDIT:

Please explain to me - in a fewer words as possible - why the ISS is suboptimal as a science platform, because I really don't understand where you're coming from with this.

- It was built by the Shuttle. This means that launch costs were high and flight rate was low, construction took a relatively long time and thus the station can only begin full operations halfway through its lifespan.

- Many experiments do not require human intervention and are thus costlier due to associated human presence and the needs that it entails.

- The ISS cannot be directly derived to create spacecraft for other uses, such as BEO exploration.

Yes, but even when commercial vehicles enter service, they will have no-where near the down-mass of Shuttle, which will affect ISS utilisation because it will mean less samples can be returned.

The question is: how much of the downmass of the Shuttle was actually used? Used to return samples or other useful items?

Well, if that's your opinion, than that's fine. I too was inspired by Shuttle (and ISS), but I don't think I should have focused on more useful things. Any person pursuing education in STEM subjects is beneficial to a society.

STEM does not necessarily mean spaceflight. There are more STEM uses here on Earth than there are in space.

I focus on space because it's where my interests are - and I do think it's important, just as important - not more important - than other things.

This is where we disagree. I believe that spaceflight, as important as it might be, isn't as important as a wide range of other things.

I think it's good to explore space for a number of reasons - the philosophical aspect, the inspiration aspect, the technological development aspect, the spinoff aspect, and the fact that someday it will be essential to our survival.

A lot of those technological developments are useless to us on the ground, and the effective cost of those spinoffs would be a whole lot less if their development wasn't part of a space program. Philosophy is not a given, and neither is the value of inspiration.

Someday maybe... but this is an effective eternity to us.

I agree there - and that's what NASA is currently working to achieve.

I am skeptical of their efforts...

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

- It was built by the Shuttle. This means that launch costs were high and flight rate was low, construction took a relatively long time and thus the station can only begin full operations halfway through its lifespan.

All those, while they may diminish the cost versus return benefits of the ISS, do not make it a sub-optimal research platform.

- Many experiments do not require human intervention and are thus costlier due to human presence and the needs that it entails.

Most experiments require human intervention to set-up and configure. Yes, having humans aboard adds some safety requirement which do increase costs - but soon such experiment will be able to fly aboard DragonLab, or suborbital vehicles. That still doesn't make ISS suboptimal - it just makes it optimal for different kinds of research (ones that require human setup, intervention, or observation).

- The ISS cannot be directly derived to create spacecraft for other uses, such as BEO exploration.

Not true - there is a proposal to use Node 4, in conjunction with an inflatable and habitation module, as a BEO vehicle.

The question is: how much of the downmass of the Shuttle was actually used? Used to return samples or other useful items?

For MPLM flights, lots of both samples and equipment.

STEM does not necessarily mean spaceflight. There are more STEM uses here on Earth than there are in space.

True, but even for someone who works in spaceflight, the technologies they develop and knowledge they acquire can be used in other industries - for example, lots of former Shutle workers are now moving into renewable energy.

Plus, anyone who earns money and pays taxes is a benefit to a society, regardless of where they work.

This is where we disagree. I believe that spaceflight, as important as it might be, isn't as important as a wide range of other things.

Well then, let's just agree to disagree there.

I am skeptical of their efforts...

Well, I've seen documents that convince me otherwise.

 

[T.Neo]

All those, while they may diminish the cost versus return benefits of the ISS, do not make it a sub-optimal research platform.

Yes they do. By diminishing the cost vs. return benefit, they automatically make it suboptimal.

Most experiments require human intervention to set-up and configure. Yes, having humans aboard adds some safety requirement which do increase costs - but soon such experiment will be able to fly aboard DragonLab, or suborbital vehicles. That still doesn't make ISS suboptimal - it just makes it optimal for different kinds of research (ones that require human setup, intervention, or observation).

I still think you can automate a lot of payloads in a novel way, and remove the need for human interaction.

Not true - there is a proposal to use Node 4, in conjunction with an inflatable and habitation module, as a BEO vehicle.

Sounds like a kludge to me.

Also "in conjunction with" an inflatable and habitation module. Those aren't parts of the ISS, they have to be created seperately.

For MPLM flights, lots of both samples and equipment.

Do you have a kg figure? "lots" is pretty difficult to define.

True, but even for someone who works in spaceflight, the technologies they develop and knowledge they acquire can be used in other industries - for example, lots of former Shutle workers are now moving into renewable energy.

Well yes, but people develop technologies and aquire knowledge in many areas unrelated to spaceflight.

Pretty interesting about Shuttle workers moving into renewable energy- the industries willing to soak up that workforce are maybe broader than the SDHLV nuts might believe. I think these people would be much more useful there than building a gigantic rocket to nowhere. :dry:

Well, I've seen documents that convince me otherwise.

Have they found a way to reduce the program cost of the ISS ten-fold? Or are they engaging in some really revolutionary payoff research?

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Yes they do. By diminishing the cost vs. return benefit, they automatically make it suboptimal.

I don't see that - the delays that occurred in the past do not affect the costs or results of current or future experiments.

I still think you can automate a lot of payloads in a novel way, and remove the need for human interaction.

Maybe, but building such a platform would be silly now that ISS is complete.

Sounds like a kludge to me.

Therefore it must be. :dry:

Well yes, but people develop technologies and aquire knowledge in many areas unrelated to spaceflight.

True. But this is not an argument to stop spaceflight.

Pretty interesting about Shuttle workers moving into renewable energy- the industries willing to soak up that workforce are maybe broader than the SDHLV nuts might believe. I think these people would be much more useful there than building a gigantic rocket to nowhere. :dry:

We're not even going to get into the SDHLV or not argument - I don't have three years to spare. :lol:

Have they found a way to reduce the program cost of the ISS ten-fold? Or are they engaging in some really revolutionary payoff research?

They are:

1) Looking to make 6 months the "standard" time to get experiments onto station, by removing requirements and expediting processes. This will dramatically reduce the cost of getting experiments onto station.

2) Looking at what tech NASA needs in future, and creating plans to develop and test that tech on ISS, thus ensuring full utilisation.

 

[T.Neo]

I don't see that - the delays that occurred in the past do not affect the costs or results of current or future experiments.

Again, you are trying to hide away the total program cost. You can't ignore that.

Again, it's like the £1 rocket that costs $20 billion to create. You only pay £1, but in reality, the whole thing is ridiculously expensive.

The ISS has cost/is costing/ will cost $100 billion, and you cannot escape that fact. That is a pretty large expenditure and it is only justified if it yields exceptional, useful results.

Maybe, but building such a platform would be silly now that ISS is complete.

If it were silly SpaceX wouldn't be bothering with DragonLab.

...maybe. SpaceX isn't exactly silly-proof either.

Therefore it must be.

It makes far less sense to me than developing a dedicated set of components that can be produced regularly for use in BEO missions.

How do they propose to get this thing out of LEO? Where do they propose taking it?

There is of course a big difference between haphazardly bolting ISS modules together to create a "quick and cheap" BEO hab, and creating a BEO hab from the start and placing it in LEO for early testing.

True. But this is not an argument to stop spaceflight.

Of course not. But it does illustrate why I think you tend to overestimate the value of spaceflight.

We're not even going to get into the SDHLV or not argument - I don't have three years to spare.

:lol:

Plain and simple, there is no SDHLV argument. :rofl:

They are:

1) Looking to make 6 months the "standard" time to get experiments onto station, by removing requirements and expediting processes. This will dramatically reduce the cost of getting experiments onto station.

2) Looking at what tech NASA needs in future, and creating plans to develop and test that tech on ISS, thus ensuring full utilisation.

Oh wow. Really worth $100 billion. :dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

T.Neo: TL;DR

Can we summarize that you have never had enough money to get a sense for it? You sound like Dr Evil when you talk about costs that don't exist, except in your fantasy.

 

[T.Neo]

$100 billion is a fantasy cost? :dry:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Again, you are trying to hide away the total program cost. You can't ignore that.

Again, it's like the £1 rocket that costs $20 billion to create. You only pay £1, but in reality, the whole thing is ridiculously expensive.

The ISS has cost/is costing/ will cost $100 billion, and you cannot escape that fact. That is a pretty large expenditure and it is only justified if it yields exceptional, useful results.

None of that makes ISS a sub-optimal science platform.

If it were silly SpaceX wouldn't be bothering with DragonLab.

Yes - because SpaceX are pursuing DragonLab, there is no point in creating an unmanned orbital platform.

It makes far less sense to me than developing a dedicated set of components that can be produced regularly for use in BEO missions.

How do they propose to get this thing out of LEO? Where do they propose taking it?

There is of course a big difference between haphazardly bolting ISS modules together to create a "quick and cheap" BEO hab, and creating a BEO hab from the start and placing it in LEO for early testing.

The whole idea behind this is to create a cheap alternative to an expensive BEO vehicle. It would use solar electric propulsion to get out of LEO.

Of course not. But it does illustrate why I think you tend to overestimate the value of spaceflight.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Oh wow. Really worth $100 billion. :dry:

If ISS could support many experiments and technology demonstrations, that would make it useful. Whether or not it is/was worth $100 billion will always be a matter of opinion.

 

[Urwumpe]

$100 billion is a fantasy cost? :dry:

For which you attribute this costs, yes. You troll badly there. You pick the total costs of the ISS and tag them to a minor study on the scale of a few million USD (which is already achieved by having ten engineers work for a year)

 

[Cras]

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

Very very true, and well said.

 

[T.Neo]

None of that makes ISS a sub-optimal science platform.

The ISS costs more than is needed to do the research that it does. Ergo it is suboptimal.

Yes - because SpaceX are pursuing DragonLab, there is no point in creating an unmanned orbital platform.

Pretty much. But that whole concept is pretty interesting- you could do a lot of interesting research using a "recoverable minifacility", for less cost than on the ISS.

The whole idea behind this is to create a cheap alternative to an expensive BEO vehicle. It would use solar electric propulsion to get out of LEO.

Cheap alternative?

Where does this solar electric propulsion come from? Isn't the idea to be cheaper? Does this not also include R&D costs?

What about exposing the crew to the Van Allen belts?

If ISS could support many experiments and technology demonstrations, that would make it useful. Whether or not it is/was worth $100 billion will always be a matter of opinion.

A shovel is useful on Mars, too. But not to most people, and at a cost of several billions of dollars, pretty difficult to justify.

For which you attribute this costs, yes. You troll badly there. You pick the total costs of the ISS and tag them to a minor study on the scale of a few million USD (which is already achieved by having ten engineers work for a year)

A fraction of the total cost factors into that cost somewhere, you can't just ignore it and say that the huge program costs didn't occur.

Of course a lot of this research is not necessarily useful, and if counting by majorly successful experiments, this fraction will be larger and larger.

Very very true, and well said.

Are we going to totally ignore the failure of the Shuttle? Can't we learn from our mistakes? You could build a far better vehicle by observing where the shuttle went wrong.

 

[Cras]

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 is quite a famous quote from an even more famous speech,
"The future does not belong to the faint hearted, it belongs to the brave."

There is collection of themes I pick up in every post I read from you, and one of theme is that mankind has no place in space or in its exploration. That the space station would be better off just launch up on unmanned lift rockets and then assembled by robots, and you seem to suggest even that the thing should be run entirely by remote and robotic control.

It is short sighted, it is arrogant, it is ludicrous. To call the Space Shuttle a failiure is more a failiure to grasp the entirety of the situation and to fixate on a short segment of the goals that was required of it. Yes, the Shuttle was not nearly as safe as everyone thought it was going to be, it never go to the 10 Million USD a launch, it was never able to launch 50 times a year. It failed in those regards.

But it was able to give a capability that was never even remotely achieved in previous generations of space craft. You seem to think the ability to launch both crew and payload at the same time as a wasted and ill-fated effort, but then when we talk about cost, you would just assume to throw the Hubble out in the trash after it didn't work.

I am sure you can continue to void your argument with the absence of unquantifialbes such as inspiration, human spirit, human experience, the desire to explore, and plug the holes with Statistics, the black sheep of the familiy that is Mathamatics, and just open your argument to suspicion and further interpretation than any of those other things I mentioned ever would.

To build a station, and have a vehicle to do so in which we can bring both the parts and the people to install the parts at the same time is a failiure? You say you were inspired by the Shuttle and did nothing with it. No surpsise. Your short sightedness and judgement on these matters show a large lack of creativity and inspiration.

We are advanced life, sitting on a planet that we can only survive on a fraction of, both on the lateral surface and only a few thousand feet above it. It is the only place in the Universe we have found that can serve as a haven for us in the harsh void of the cosmos, and it will not stay that way.

Either by human hands or by the natural aging of our Sun, this planet that has proved so good a shelter to us will turn against us, and the place we now call home will have to be abandoned if the human race is to exist for a period of time any reasonble person would call acceptable.

For the first time in Earth's history no longer do we have to just look up at the planets and the moon and wax peotic on their nature, device mythology to attribute to their existance, or ponder its reality. In the last century for the first time instead of wondering, we decided to actually go to the Moon and see what it was like for ourselves. And to sell short the simple knowledge that the ISS brings us, that human beings can live for long lenghts of time in zero g, in outer space, and be able to operate, maintain, and in certain cases repair their home in space is just ignorant.

And to attack those who see the world in this view point, that god forbid the future and the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to expand the human horizon is more important than the comforts of the present is unbecoming to a rational person.

And I am not here to rail against the welfare state, that we should slash projects on Earth, that helping the meek and the poor is a waste of time, I do believe in the Beatitudes.

But I will not accept that the future should be sacraficed in the name of the present or the past.

"We have grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we have only just begun. We are still pioneers."

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The ISS costs more than is needed to do the research that it does. Ergo it is suboptimal.

It has already cost more - the costs are not passed on to the experiment investigators, which is the important thing. Yes, the costs were high, but that led to high capabilities - which means ISS is an optimal experiment platform, not a suboptimal one.

A shovel is useful on Mars, too. But not to most people, and at a cost of several billions of dollars, pretty difficult to justify.

We're not talking about shovels - we're talking about experiments, some of which can be useful to a lot of people, and some of which can be useful to future space exploration.

 

[Urwumpe]

The ISS costs more than is needed to do the research that it does. Ergo it is suboptimal.

You can do all the research of the ISS for less? Now that is something that I want to see.

What do you think, did this tiny thing cost, and in your calculations, how much would the research of it had cost using cheaper technologies?

And no, this is not the LHC, which has a budget of mere 7.5 billion Euro. And that even including that CERN only pays a 800 million Euro for all experiments that will be done on the LHC - most costs actually end at the institutes that rent the LHC for their research.

Is it really worth it? Maybe not today. But research done in previous accelerators already resulted in hard drives with more than 2.5 Gigabytes capacity and the next generation of computer chips with vertical transistors.

The ISS will be maybe useless for you right now. But in ten years, you will use technology tested in it. In 15 years, you will see manned or unmanned spacecraft using technology tested on the ISS. Technology that was tested much cheaper on the ISS than what was possible on the ground or by using sounding rockets or unmanned prototype spacecraft.

 

[T.Neo]

~snip~

Do you understand any of the failures of the Shuttle at all? Any of them? Do you understand what the problems of the Shuttle were?

The capabilities you talk about were novel but not necessary and certainly not advantageous when linked with the failures of the Shuttle.

It is easy to get excited about the "wonderful abilities of the shuttle", but they are pretty overshadowed by its problems. This is a fact. You can't just say that the shuttle was a magical, problem free vehicle, because you love the idea of it and you think it is so cool. I had that attitude once, but it just doesn't make sense whatsoever.

If we are ever to build a spacecraft that can take advantage of those sort of capabilities, it will have to be successful where the Shuttle failed.

Also, please stop with the "the Sun is going to kill us" alarmism. There is no rush to get off the Earth whatsoever, this is just standard space enthusiast alarmism.

It has already cost more - the costs are not passed on to the experiment investigators, which is the important thing. Yes, the costs were high, but that led to high capabilities - which means ISS is an optimal experiment platform, not a suboptimal one.

It's just a way to take the load off of the experiment investigators, it doesn't mean that load has vanished into nonexistence. That $100 billion cost is still there, it has still been paid by someone.

I have explained why the ISS is suboptimal. It didn't need the Shuttle, the Shuttle was a needlessly expensive launch system. Being launched by the Shuttle did not add to the capabilities of the station.

A lot of that capability isn't needed for a lot of things.

We're not talking about shovels - we're talking about experiments, some of which can be useful to a lot of people, and some of which can be useful to future space exploration.

Some of which can help people, some of which are totally useless, and some of which can help a small amount of people.

You don't need the ISS. There are more efficient ways to do the things it does.

You can do all the research of the ISS for less? Now that is something that I want to see.

You could have started by removing the Shuttle...

The ISS will be maybe useless for you right now. But in ten years, you will use technology tested in it. In 15 years, you will see manned or unmanned spacecraft using technology tested on the ISS. Technology that was tested much cheaper on the ISS than what was possible on the ground or by using sounding rockets or unmanned prototype spacecraft.

Oh yes, I am sure. I am sure in 15 years, there will also be research done on the ISS that very few people have a use for.

What prototype spacecraft? I said nothing about prototypes, I am speaking against a gigantic monolithic, manned research facility.

How is it more expensive to test something on the ground than in orbit, where it costs several thousand dollars per kilogram just to deliver something there?

 

[garyw]

You don't need the ISS. There are more efficient ways to do the things it does.

Ok, prove it. Lets see some facts and cost projections to back this up.

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh yes, I am sure. I am sure in 15 years, there will also be research done on the ISS that very few people have a use for.

Only very few people have use for cure against ALS, but luckily there are people who research it and are close to getting at least a useful therapy.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

T.Neo, I'm not going to respond to you anymore, because frankly I can't be bothered to go over the same argument over and over and over again. I disagree with everything you post, and I have given you facts that back that up. Whatever I post will not change your opinion, so I won't bother.

 

[Cras]

It is easy to get excited about the "wonderful abilities of the shuttle", but they are pretty overshadowed by its problems. This is a fact. You can't just say that the shuttle was a magical, problem free vehicle, because you love the idea of it and you think it is so cool. I had that attitude once, but it just doesn't make sense whatsoever.

Where did I say it was a magical problem free vehichle? Where has it ever been touted as such? And this statement is made even more annoying by the fact that in that "snipped" quote I clearly agreed that it was not as safe as it was supposed to be, not as cheap as it was supposed to be, nor as easy to operate as it was supposed to be. That still does not take away from the fact that it was able to carry huge payloads to and from LEO, large crews, land on a runway, and be reused. And it is ludicrous to assume that it is either Shuttle or bust. The Shuttle is over 30 years old, of course it can be improved upon, it should have been proved upon, and I would have rather seen NASA go that route with the Shuttle rather than treat it as an outlier in the slope of spacecraft progress, but rather the model that the next generation of space vehicles can build off of.

So I guess the solution is settled then isn't it? I did a search for "South African Space Program" on Wikipedia and was politely informed that "South African Space Program" does not exist. So keep up that good work. You can stay here no Earth and I would then assume that when any new technologies that arise from the ISS and other manned space programs you will keep your integrity intact and decline their benefits, and continue to laugh at me and others who think like me for being "alarmists" because I don't think 2,000,000,000 more years of human history is quite enough for me, thank you.

We can only imagine what a world we would have lived in if the Kings and Queens of old held your immature mindset on exploration. "Why bother financing ships to sail across that big ocean? Human's cannot survive in water, it will cost a lot of money, we may see no gain in such an endeavour, and even if we did it will take years and years for any such gains to be manifest." Thankfully they saw the world threw the lens of progress. They sent ships over that ocean. They sent colonists to live on those far shores. They continued to send explorer to find out what laid west of those mountains, across that large river, what is past this large desert and even larger moutain range, behold another ocean, what could lay beyond that?

So I will end in asking you to please stop playing the role of the resident expert in anything, as I have found your knowledge in varied topics in just these past few days alone to be narrow and lacking, and your defense in this ignorance to be underwhelming and hostile.

And to save myself further grief I will place you on my ignore list so I can continue to have a high opinion of this place and not have it polluted by the actions of a very slim minority.