"Why the International Space Station is the...." Topic

… SINGLE BEST THING WE DID?

"The International Space Station is one of the few nonstellar things up there that we can see from down here without instruments. It's a prefab home the size of a football field, 462 tons and more than $100 USD billion worth of pressurized roomlike modules and gleaming solar arrays, orbiting 250 miles above the surface of the Earth. Its flight path is available online, and you can find out when it will make a nighttime pass over your backyard. Right on schedule, you'll spot an unblinking white light that's moving at 17,500 miles an hour. It will cross your field of view, on a line straight enough to have been drawn with a ruler, in only a few seconds. A few minutes more and the men and women inside that light will be over Greece. A few minutes more, Mongolia.

There have been 53 expeditions to the ISS; 53 long-duration crews have called it home since Expedition 1 floated aboard in 2000. They've been mostly from America and Russia, the two principal and unlikely partners in one of the most expensive and challenging construction projects ever completed. (The ISS rose out of the ashes of two previous space stations: Russia's Mir, last occupied in 1999 before it fell out of the sky in 2001, and Ronald Reagan's proposed Freedom, which never got past the blueprints.) Its first few residents came and went largely without incident…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

…and the Worst.

Because it was made "international" as a political PR stunt, ignoring the massive cost overruns and problems with access created by the then necessary change to an orbital path that Russian rockets could reach from their launch site. The US Space Shuttle could still reach it, but at necessarily increased cost for an already expensive and inefficient launch vehicle. But far worse was the resulting crippling of the ISS in terms of its utility as a science platform for either stellar or Earth observation programs. The easy-for-the-Russians orbital path is grossly peculiar in its pattern, making consistent observations of astronomical and local phenomena difficult or potentially impossible. A tecnological marvel, yes. An amazing example of our ability to maintain a livable, safe habitat in orbit indefinitely, yes. But it may well really be the worst of all possible efforts to do these.

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, I had to look a few times but an actual science discussion on the Science Board!

Parzival, a few comments if I may:

Because it was made "international" as a political PR stunt, ignoring the massive cost overruns…..

To be fair, you don't need politics, PR or Russians to have cost overruns. You guys do pretty good on your own.

…..and problems with access created by the then necessary change to an orbital path that Russian rockets could reach from their launch site. The US Space Shuttle could still reach it, but at necessarily increased cost for an already expensive and inefficient launch vehicle

Yep, to the tune of over 30 billion dollars for just Shuttle flights up until 2011. As for the Russian rockets, how else can we get to the ISS? Neither NASA or the ESA can get us there. If it wasn't for the Russians, the ISS would have ended 7 years ago.

The easy-for-the-Russians orbital path is grossly peculiar in its pattern, making consistent observations of astronomical and local phenomena difficult or potentially impossible.

Any examples of this? Besides the Flat Earthers contentions of NASA faking and photoshopping images of Earth. (Which is true, by the way, but not for the reasons the Flatards give).

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just happy there is some science to talk about.

As for the Russian rockets, how else are we going to get there?

Separate issue. Space Station Freedom called for an orbit more easily accessed by US rockets, including the Shuttle. This was changed by the Clinton administration because the Russian rockets couldn't reach that orbit, whereas the Shuttle could reach the Russian orbit. That orbit, unfortunately, is less than ideal even for Russia, as their most favorable orbital path requires a launch over China, which China will not permit (understandable, as there's no way to know that a rocket is going into orbit instead of dropping a warhead on Beijing until it's too late.) At the time, the US astronauts didn't have to hitch a ride on Russian rockets because the Space Shuttle could reach it and no one at NASA had the foresight to realize that the Shuttle system would need to be replaced, or at least not enough to actually push for a timely and effective replacement. The failure to replace the Shuttle is a side issue that exposes the inefficiency of the ISS orbital placement. Of course, perhaps if we had been the only nation capable of reaching our own space station, maybe we'd have worked on a replacement system to reach it… (Alas, that didn't work for Skylab, so…)

As for the example of how the peculiar orbit affects space science, I'll have to do some research. It was a big deal in space discussions a couple of decades ago. Can't remember my sources on that, though Zubrin comes to mind as a possibility. I do recall that manned space enthusiasts were disappointed, arguing the ISS orbit is basically unusable as a platform for launches of interplanetary missions.

Science on the Science board? What a radical concept!

and no one at NASA had the foresight to realize that the Shuttle system would need to be replaced, or at least not enough to actually push for a timely and effective replacement.

Oh, they pushed. But space gets small change in the Budget Process. Should the shuttle had a replacement in place before retirement? Definitely. But neither party was going to back it. So it died. And don't blame NASA for that.

Is the orbit "inconvenient"? Definitely. But that's the cruelty of forcing geopolitics on orbital physics (which don't give a hoot about geopolitics). Its just one of those "live with it" type of things….

That orbit, unfortunately, is less than ideal even for Russia, as their most favorable orbital path requires a launch over China, which China will not permit…….

Ahh…..that makes sense. Thanks.

Might not be the best thing ever built but it's the most expensive. For the same cash (and yearly operating expenses) you could build 5 Large Hadron Super Colliders. Whew!

Yeah, China might get a bit upset about that!

I do recall that manned space enthusiasts were disappointed, arguing the ISS orbit is basically unusable as a platform for launches of interplanetary missions.

Anything concrete to that? I know Trump signed S.442 which actually cuts NASA spending to 19.5 billion. As I understand it, 1.6 billion is earmarked for Space-X to further supply the ISS, among other things. The rest will go to projects already in the works, chiefly the continuation of the James Webb space telescope to launch in 2019. According to Elon Musk this leaves actually no money for any Moon and Mars exploration in the foreseeable future.

The James Webb telescope will be awesome. It'll dwarf the capabilities of the Hubble and will bring an enormous leap to what we can see in the Universe. My country has some important contributions to it also. Canadian firms are building the cameras and system for the Fine Guidance Sensor. This will allow the Webb to "see" where it is in three dimensions in order to aim the telescope and sensors accurately. Another company, ComDev (which is about 10 minutes from my home) is building one of the four main instruments, called the NIRISS. This is the Near Infra Red Imager and Slitless Spectrometer. Hopefully, the James Webb will have less birthing pains than Hubble did.

Ya, it's just a telescope, but it will tell us more about basic science and the universe than anything brought forth from Elon Musk's dreams of Martian cities.

Well, I'd certainly rather have an ISS than not. And the mere fact that it is still functioning up there after 20+ years is a major accomplishment.

What's the problem. You take the USS Enterprise (the Carrier) weld all the doors shut. Install life support. And then launch it into orbit with nukes. Now you have a giant space station that can acomidate about a 1000 ( just like Enterprise D from TNG)

That reminds me of comedian Lewis Black bemoaning the loss of the ozone layer:

"It's absolutely stupid that we live without an ozone layer. We have men, we've got rockets, we've got saran wrap – fix it!"

Exept his idea was stupid. Mine is brilliant!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand