Sink the space station?

Posted: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:13 PM by Alan Boyle

The Hubble Space Telescope may well be the public's biggest object of affection in outer space, as evidenced by the warm response to the idea of extending the orbiting observatory's operational life. By the same token, the international space station - often referred to by its three-letter acronym, ISS - may well be one of the public's biggest objects of disaffection. Read on for one reader's pointed question about the station - and one astronaut's answer, aimed at explaining why the space station is worth the bother.

Here's what I received in response to my call for questions to put to NASA folks during my quick trip to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston:

Rick Freeman: "The shuttle is headed for the ISS and my question is ... Why is that ISS thing up there in the first place? I have never heard a nice, understandable, concise in-plain-English explanation for even having the ISS. It does a little of this and a little of that and is costing a bloody fortune. ... Ask them that. Then put on your goggles and raincoat to protect yourself from all the b.s. that'll come flying your way."

The original idea was that the space station would serve as the platform for all the space exploration to follow - a literal jumping-off point on the way to the moon, Mars and beyond. That's the way it's been portrayed, for example, in the sci-fi movie "Mission to Mars."

Unfortunately, the real-life station has had a figurative cloud over its head since before it was even born.

Because the Russians were brought into the project during the planning phase, the station's planned orbital inclination was changed so that it's not as easy to launch spacecraft to other celestial destinations. That led NASA Administrator Mike Griffin to say last year that he would have done things much differently if he were in charge back then.

The station could still be used as platform for space science, including studies that may be of use for trips to the moon and beyond. But because of delays, cost overruns and particularly the 2003 Columbia tragedy, the station is still basically a construction site, with two workmen living in a trailer (or, ahem, a manufactured home) and trying to do science experiments on the side.

That may change for the better starting with Discovery's mission, which is due to deliver German astronaut Thomas Reiter to bring the station back up to a regular crew of three for the first time in three years.

Reiter will be blazing a trail for next year's scheduled addition of the European-built Columbus laboratory module, which should at least double the station's research capability. The can-shaped lab arrived at NASA's Kennedy Space Center just last week. Yet another orbital laboratory, Japan's Kibo module, will be added to the station after Columbus.

Here's what Reiter had to say about the road ahead during Thursday's news briefing:

"With three persons on orbit, we can definitely increase the scientific output. Everybody understands that we are in the assembly phase, so the station cannot be considered to be in an operating phase as it will be when assembly is finished. But we will definitely be able, with three persons aboard, to increase the scientific output. ...

"One of my main duties during my stay is to perform a quite comprehensive scientific program for the European Space Agency, managing experiments from all different areas: life sciences, physics, biology. I will also be involved in a couple of other experiments, and for the rest of the time I will support my colleagues, Pavel Vinogradov and Jeff Williams, in maintaining the station and keeping it running to fulfill its function as a multidisciplinary laboratory. This role is quite important from the view of the European Space Agency, to have the opportunity to prepare for when Columbus comes up."

He expanded upon that point during a follow-up interview with me and my colleagues from NBC News:

"Now is the time to harvest, to get all the scientific feedback, to use the space station for its intended purpose, namely to function as a multidisciplinary research platform. Not only to get new information in all different areas of research, but also to prepare for the future. I think the ISS can serve also as an excellent platform to develop and refine technology for the future exploration of space - going to the moon, going to Mars.

"In this way, I think, we are hopefully still - from the European and also from the U.S. side - on the same page, in terms of using and harvesting all our investments that we have made."

Of course, all this follows the official line on the value of the station, and maybe I should have worn the goggles and a slicker (although that would have been oppressively hot in the Houston weather):

Some would argue, as the Mars Society's Robert Zubrin did this week, that NASA's "medicine men" are focusing on the wrong research priorities. (You have to be a member of the Mars Society newsletter group to read his comments.)
Others would contend out that the space station seems like something of a dead end and is better bypassed as Americans go back to the moon and on to Mars.
Still others would say, like Agent Smith in "The Matrix," that we shouldn't send a human to do a machine's job.

Our skeptical questioner, Rick Freeman, even anticipated Reiter's reference to the space station investment in a follow-up e-mail:

"I would bet one standard answer is something like, 'Well, we've invested so much we can't quit now' ... sorta like Iraq."

I'm hoping you'll weigh in with your own views and pointers to other perspectives on the space station and the road ahead. Is it time to harvest, or time to plow it under?

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I grew up wanting to be an astronaut and proudly bought a copy of NASA's earlier roadmap to Mars (I was a teenager at the time). As a geologist, I can think of many questions worth answering RE going to the moon and Mars. But, the ISS will only hinder attempts to reach either destination because it is insanely costly and will never produce a meaningful amount of research results.

How close to a trillion dollars do we really need to spend to find out that... on my gosh... we lose bone mass without proper exercise in space! And vibrations are so bad that the ISS can [not] serve as the overbilled experimental substances manufacturing depot it was billed as.

Worse yet, space technology has advanced so far that much of the "science" associated with the ISS is most cost effectively performed by short-term, robotic research platforms. Honestly, the same can be said of Moon and Mars exploration. Why spend trillions of dollars - and don't pretend that it won't cost that much - to send people when the same amount of money could saturate the Moon and Mars with mobile and orbital probes.

No... my affection with manned flight ended a long time ago. We only have so much money to spend on science, so why not spend it on something with the biggest bang for the bucks... something Hubble has done for sure.

Greg, Athens, OH (Sent Friday, June 09, 2006 9:05 PM)

For years I have complained about the fact that I am not vacationing on the moon! I was a young lad when we walked on the moon and assumed that we would be commercializing it in time for such activity. Not to say that the ISS has been a waste. After all we have been developing new assembly techniques, better protection schemes, and getting an idea of who else on this little green/blue ball can launch rockets. That has to be worth something. And one can always use a fall-back position just in case that trip to the moon requires a pit stop on the way to or from. Anyhow, back on track, would some fresh, young rocket scientist hurry the h*** up and make that next physics breakthrough so we can get on with warp speed, eh!!! I ain't getting any younger, kids!!

Jim Scott (Sent Friday, June 09, 2006 10:20 PM)

I would agree that the ISS is somewhat of a sidetrack. How much scientific knowledge (including the vitally important engineering data) per dollar will we eventually get out of the ISS that contributes to both a better life on Earth and an easier path to the planets.

I would also agree with the comment made by Greg of Athens OH that we should stay robotic with our space exploration until we find something that absolutely merits the risk of human lives. People seem to be unaware that today's optics and other observational equipment, ground and spaceborne, are answering questions undreamed of in the 1950s. If we are getting that good at looking around the universe while still tied to Earth and Earth orbit, then the step into deep space by humans has to have a goal of exceptional merit to make it worth the risk.

As to that perennial question of "how much is it going to cost?" I would remind everyone that the destruction of one space capsule and two shuttles with humans on board were all due, not to faulty equipment directly, but to management decisions to do or not do something based on "what it will cost". Those decisions, not the eventually faulty equipment are directly to blame for the loss of life, at least from the American program. Feynman was right...reality has to take the place of public relations when it comes to putting humans in space.

Don Boyer Waialua, HI (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:27 AM)

why can't we engineer some ion (xenon?)thruster modules to the ISS when it is 'finished' to the current roadmap, then attach a low-thrust chemical rocket module to place the ISS in some sort of low-Eart-orbit-trans/circum-lunar orbit...either a large eleipse that rotates its perigee and apogee to continually to swing past/close-by on the inside the orbit of the Moon as time goes by, or maybe an orbit that loops from low Earth orbit to, and around, the Moon then back around a low-Earth orbit perigee, in the form of a figure-eight? Would the structure be able to handle gentle thruster accelerations and changing graitional forces? What about loading the ISS up with explorers, extra supply/environmental module, extra docking ports for lunar landers, etc., and nudge it inot lunar orbit for several months at a time? It could serve as a fine Moon remote sensing platform, communications node, and general 'mother ship' to support numerous manned expeditions to the Moon, and to support robotic orbiters and landers. Maybe we build a second station: One for Earth orbit and one in lunar orbit, supporting research stations and expeditions to the Lunar surface. Earth-Moon transfer vehicles could take humans and supplies to the lunar side. Such an arrangement would provide mucg needed experience with propulsion technology, life-support systems, radiation tolerance of humans, and communications.

Estéban Benito (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:36 AM)

NASA has made a cynic of me, and they had a long way to fall. I can't see any justification for the ISS besides, uh, justifying the ISS? Not science. Not economics. Not technology.
Let's scrap the ISS already and put the money into restoring the real science programs they have cancelled.
Men on Mars? Just a scam.
Finding out what is going on with the climate? Priceless.

Richard Edwards, Seattle, WA (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:44 AM)

The 1960s sent us to the moon, but not without its own price of human life, and the Challenger and Columbia events abruptly halted our march toward the future of manned space exploration, yet that HUMAN need to explore with our own bodies still drives us. The ISS fills that need currently while we remotely explore with the robots on Mars, the probes and satellites around other worlds and at the edge of our solar system. Those are well and good, but they will never replace our need to go there and experience it ourselves, to live it--just as the ancient mariners and adventurers have done here on Earth. There are few places left for us to explore other than the oceans and remote places. It is only natural that we turn our eyes, hearts and minds to the vastness of outer space, if only currently in Earth orbit. The ISS is there. We should use it and not let the work and effort put into it go to waste. Maintain it, continue it, recycle it, reuse it in the future. Anything is possible if we put our minds to it.

One last note. I think the one thing everyone who has posted here up to this point has forgotten is that the ISS is a joint effort between many nations, not just something of the United States. In this world of disharmony and war, hate and murder, if nothing other than the governments and the people of the countries of the world learn to cooperate work together for a common goal, then that is worth all that has gone into it. For if it's possible to achieve that with the ISS, then just think what is truly possible for Mankind in the future.

Kahlan, Somewhere in Kentucky (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:38 AM)

Shrug? I certainly don't know all the whys and wherefores of the contracts we have to complete the ISS as it is, but it will never be useable. Somewhere around 2001 [Ironic?]it was decided for various reasons [mostly budget] to not send up the habitation module. recently the mothballed unit, was repurposed as a ground support lab.

So. So? There are 3 berths for crew. The habitation module was to be for an additional 4, who would be science crew. Without them, there is substantially less science that can be done, because my understanding is that a 2 crew is needed, just to keep up with maint. So. No matter how much other stuff you hang on this, there will NEVER be an appreciable amount of science, as a benefit versus cost. Oddly enough, not too many people seem to recognize that.

In theory, another country could build a habitat, but who wants to spend the money? Even if you started today, it would be years to build, and test... and then what will you fly it on? In theory you could use 2 Soyuz as lifeboats, for rescue, but no one is willing to pay for that either.

So. We are ALREADY throwing good money after bad. I think everyone should wake up and smell the toast burning.

Why is this? All the other partners have problems with cash too, but NASA's problem is a bit easier to understand. From the days of space station freedom, things have been changed, and changed and more. You've had at least 3 or 4 NASA directors, 4 Presidents, and 4 parts or wholes of new congresses. Budgets that shrink and swell. 2 space disasters. These things take LOTS of time to design plan and build. When the powers that be, change direction like a drunken sailor, you end up with a mish-mosh of a station that kinda cool, without capacity. You have a crew return vehicle IN THE DROP TEST PHASE, almost ready for production... cancelled. With no replacement, but to continue with one Soyuz that only holds 3. The costs of those direction changes, are the real over-run, and they are driven BY the Prez. Congress and NASA. The ONLY thing that can smooth that out is for the public to CARE about what you are doing.

Does a station in low earth orbit make people care? Not marketed this way. What do people care about? Exploration. What kind? Manned.

IF you market it right.
Didn't we all want to be Astronauts when we were kids? Or did we dream of being 'robot-controllers'? There is NO gain without RISK. Every Astronaut is by definition a test pilot. Even the shuttle, as often as it has flown, is a prototype. It isn't a bus, or aunt Gertrude's refrigerator. Saying it is too risky is a game for those too tired to live. I am not saying that safety should take a back seat. But risk gives rise to innovation. Space Ship One for example. Had a flight anomaly that was nearly fatal, and WOULD HAVE GROUNDED IT FOR 2 YEARS had it been a NASA craft. Figured out the problem, and went again in a week. There has to be a comfortable medium between using duct-tape, and having 58 billion reviews, only to decide safety based on faulty presumption.

Manned Space Exploration, is what will drive us on. The MER's are still running, but does anyone really care in the public? The are not going to bring a rock back from mars, and get a ticker-tape parade. They are not going to launch the dreams of thousands of children to strive, to design, to fill big shoes.

Finally Manned Space is important, because we live in a fishbowl. Take your fishbowl and see how many fish you can add, before they get unhappy, and start dying. Without the capacity to someday move out, we will stagnate and die here. It will take hundreds of years probably, without some big war, but it will happen. Importantly, when we decide we should go, we will have to have capable space travel. That sort of thing doesn't appear over night. Indeed it has taken us 100 years to get here. If you wish to take a journey, first you must begin. That is something that will never change...

D, Colorado (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:43 AM)

If we turn our backs on the scientists and astronauts who have worked so hard on this project, then we close our eyes to the ones who lost their lives as well.
Keep NASA on top of this program lets make the ISS fullfill all our dreams and those we will have in the future instead of bickering like children over cookies.
We can colonize the solar system if we stop fighting each other.Just think of the new discoveries we will all share in.
We can all learn. So let us learn.
This is the chance we need to build it better next time.And the governments of the world should not care about a "price tag" have the workers "commishend" and your resourses offered from one country to the next.
If we explore space together, then do it together.All the joys,pains,gains,and loses.

Jimi Weitzel (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:12 AM)

The ISS is a stepping stone to the moon and mars??? hooey... Scrap the shuttle? Another nasa waste of money like skylab was! I believe that skylab with all its faults could have been saved a lot cheaper then letting it crash, and if we did it would still be functioning and we wouldn't need to build the ISS. I have said for years that Nasa's main objective is nasa. Now the bright idea is what I have said repeatedly over the years, go back to Apollo. BUT scrap the shuttle NO!! Send it up and leave it there as a space tugboat, and lifeboat. It can be refueled of a saturn V flight, It has the robotics to build in space, it can retreive and return to duty satelites, the uses are endless. Its main problems are re-entry so just skip that stage unless in an emergency, let the Saturn V do the lifting and the shuttle retreive and do the final positioning.
If the MOON is the goal then why hasnt the shuttle taken a trip around it yet?????
Why do we design landers that leave half of it on the moon? Lets make a completely reusable lander and let the shuttle ferry it to and fro.
Hopefully when I get my degree finished I can submit some REAL/istic designs for the space program!

William Zych Wilmington, De (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:33 AM)

The ISS certainly started with the best of intentions. Anyone remember former President Reagan's call for space station Freedom to be built by 1990? Back then it was inconceivable for the Russians to be involved.

But unfortunately, NASA hadn't learned the lessons of the Space Shuttle. That started with the best of intentions too. A single purpose, reusable launch vehicle. But to "justify" the cost of developing such a machine, they had to bring in other agencies, namely the US Air Force, and create a multi-purpose vehicle. This new vehicle did a fair job at lots of things rather than a great job at one or two things.

The same is true with the ISS. They brought in other countries to get involved to help justify the costs. But now, it won't be able to complete some of its original goals.

Let us hope the lessons of ISS and the Space Shuttle are learned as Project Constellation, the return to the Moon, is developed. Keep a straight-forward vision of returning to the moon. Don't get side-tracked by bringing in other features and functions in order to justify the costs.

Steve, Grand Rapids, MI (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:43 AM)

At one time, our country had the technology to put men on the moon. During the middile of the 1970's we scraped that technology, tore down the launch gantries and placed the last of the moon rockets in museums. Most of the people who designed and built these machines later retired and died.

Now we are about to reuse both our "old" space shuttle technoloogy, and even some of our "old" Apollo technology, in an effort to return to the moon. Instead of throwing this technology away, we are reusing it and renewing it into a new set of hardware. Once again we will have a heavy lift booster that can place large components into earth orbit, unlike the space shuttle, that can only place relatively small items into orbit. Finally, NASA and its leadership are making the correct decision, using new and re-used technology to get us were we should have been, decades ago.

So what do we do with the space station in the mean time? I like Mr. Benito's idea of placing it into a earth/moon transfer orbit. Another idea, is to place it into a Earth/Mars transfer orbit. Both of these give value to the space station making it a "way station" for travelers and space ships. This would be far better then where it is now, in an orbit that is hard to achieve, and costly to maintain.

If it is time to retire the Shuttle, lets get on with it and start building the new rockets that will finally take us back to where we started and beyond.
Let's turn the space station into a way station for repairs and refurbishing of space craft, and a stopover place for travelers.

The shuttle and the space station are now drains on the new technology being designed by NASA and its contractors. They need to be retired, re-designed, and returned to operation in a new format that will server the 21st century, not the 20th.

Kevin Cousineau (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 10:51 AM)

The simple answer to the question, "Why a space station?", is that we are studying. To date all our space projects are part of a learning process. We cannot progress in any field of endeavor without that process.

Wayne Brazie, Orlando, FL (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:10 AM)

As the scientific value of the ISS seems to be marginal at best, perhaps adding additional modules to it to turn it into a space hotel, making it a commercial venture, would be of more interest.

David Martin (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:24 AM)

The ISS is the dream of lawyers, politicans, and cynics. No real pure science has been done there, only psudo-science.

It is not in a good orbit to do much good, inclination of 52 degrees. This was probally done to apise the Russians. This means about the usefull payload is about halfed compared to an inclination of 28 degrees. The other half is extra fuel needed to reach 52 degrees. This is not a good place to construct rockets bound to the outer planets. An internal pressure on the ISS of 14.7 # means a heavier structure to withstand the pressure. A comercial airliner is pressurized to about 7,000 ft. so it doesn't need such a heavy structure. The official language on the ISS is Russian. Maybe it it were placed in a higher orbit than 240 miles, it wouldn't need its orbit boosted so often.

Another thing that botters me is that it is composed of about 20 countries. When one country is attacked, like the US was in 9-11, the US recieved little or no support from the other 19. The other space faring nations like France have yet to send even a rocket to the ISS. NASA should have partnered with DARPA and resurected the Saturn 5 to go to the outer planets. The ISS is nothing more than a "White Elephant" execpt lawyers and politicans.

a p garcia (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:26 AM)

Everyone with such impatience, and lack of vision!

Pete Skills, New York, NY (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:05 PM)

Many of the technical innovations we use everyday were directly related to the space program when they were developed. Systems like the Hubble telescope and the Mars rovers continue to give us more information than we ever expected from them. The ISS however provides very little compared to the amount of money spent on it. Shutting the space program down will only slow the pace of new innovations and space exploration is still and always has been supported when there are current projects that test the limits of our imagination. The new shuttle designs and the ISS project don't show me that there is much creative thinking going on at NASA like there was in the early days of the space program. Lets design a space transport system that STAYS in space and get on with the deep space exploration we have been longing to see for so long and that fuels our creative imaginations.

Chuck Upton, Colorado Springs, CO (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:14 PM)

The exploration of space, with the intent to live and flourish in that environment, requires multiple scientific programs to ensure a successful project. Moon landings and Hubble provided us with the beginnings of those programs. The International Space Station (ISS) was the next logical step to habitation in space.

Any program funded by the government is susceptible to reductions in budgets over the years. NASA and the ISS is no exception. Had the funding been more aggressive, perhaps more scientific advances may have been forth coming from the program. Had we provided more funding to the Space Shuttle allowing for more missions to the ISS, the American public would probably be more willing to support the entire space program.

The virtue of the NASA and space exploration, in my mind, is without question a positive effort for all of mankind. It is essential that we continue to “reach for the stars” in order to extend human existence.

RC Henkle, Portland, OR (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:36 PM)

The ISS is an important part of developing the space infrastructure, if only as a proving ground that yes, we can build something in space. Space is not just the logical next step in aviation, it is in fact a whole new method of travel, and we are in the same state as the first caveman who saw a log floating on a lake and thought, "Hey, if I get on that and kick, I can go across the lake rather than around."
Scrap manned programs, and we'll never move forward from the log to the canoe to the Santa Marie to a Cruise Ship. Scrap the ISS, and we will never learn how to make the orbital docks needed when we get to that point.
Living is space is expensive and difficult, and likely will be for centuries to come, but it will only get cheaper by doing it for that extended period of time. After all, we have people living in all sorts of environments that are inherently dangerous to people, and we throw money at them to help them rebuild in these areas, only to watch them get destroyed again.

D Gordon (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:34 PM)

I was reading the present articles posted when suddenly it occured to me, we need to research more on gaining speed out in space.The ISS could be have a better docking bay added so that speed in an environment with less gravity and no atmosphere resistance could be researched, because the faster we can go out there, the farther we'll be able to get in our lifetime.
Also what occured to me from a couple of these articles, NASA's money issues could be well solved by providing trips to the space station. Think about it, there are plenty of private organizations in the world that would pay the money to set up the ISS for comercialized trips. All NASA would have to do is put it out there that they need someone to pay for it. They'd pay for everything at the chance of being the providers of such tickets.
The only thing NASA might have to pay for is security, which NASA might be able to make a contract with the CIA and the National Guard. I think such a deal would work because it would well improve recruitment in whatever branch provides security up there, as well as recruitment in the CIA. And then, how many people in the world do you think wouldn't be able to afford to jump at the chance to go up there even if it's only once. Many wouldn't afford it, but some would, and the numbers would grow as supplies of money causes the prices to be able to go down. The people of the world would pay the ticket price. At first only the rich, then in about 10-15 years people like you or me would be able to save for a few years and go as well.
And then, how many colleges in the world wouldn't pay to take thier students on a field trip to a place like that. How many governments wouldn't pay to see it once. It would be over a million dollars at first, but eventually the number of people would grow to millions of people paying for this trip. As the number grew, the price would fall, and then NASA would have lots of money from the world in which to fund it's ever growing need to research how we are to live elsewhere when we eventually over populate this planet. Thank you, and if I ever should educate myself far enough to work for NASA, I will be glad.

John Noel Camp Lejeune, nc (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:48 PM)

You, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the cost of space. It's ridiculous for us to sit here with our wireless laptops, our cell phones or the million other things that we have as a result of space research and whine that it costs to much to do this stuff. I know that's simplistic, but why should this be a complex issue?

The original space race brought us so much in terms of technology that I'm hard pressed to look at an object on my desk and NOT see connections to space-based research. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about furthering science and technology and expanding our knowledge, heedless of the financial cost.

Many of our worst problems aren't going to be solved quickly without continued access to the research we get out of our space scientists. Isn't dealing with pollution, or maybe even one day allowed every man, woman and child a chance to get off this rock worth the effort?

I think it is, and I think it's sick that I'm the minority.

Adam Maxwell, Tustin, Ca. (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:15 PM)

Not sending people on to the moon and Mars because machines are safer and cheaper is like not going outside because you have a window. It may be safer, but it is not the same. Yes, space travel is dangerous. I don't think anyone ever said it wasn't. Ocean travel was dangerous five hundred years ago but fortunately some took the risks. First you build the boats, then you learn to sail, then you go and explore. The ISS is just a step.
As for the climate, while we may speed or slow the process it is still a process and will do what it does. The earth was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now and much colder two hundred years ago than it had been for several thousand years.
Space exploration will continue to further research here and there. I would rather have my tax dollars spent on the ISS than the usual congressional pork.

K. Curtis, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:37 PM)

What occurs to me most often is that we put ourselves in a horrid state when we didn't continue to develop Saturn 5 class heavy lifter launch platforms. We relied on the shuttle and the idea of putting more humans in extream danger on board that rattling deathtrap is more than I can bear. ISS is lingering because of the dearth of true heavy lift capacity. The shuttle should be scrapped now and all funds for it diverted to hasten the development of the CEV and a Saturn 5 class launch platform. Only once we have a reliable heavy lift delivery system does anything else become possible.

Jeff Long, Plano TX (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:48 PM)

The ISS is but two words: "Foreign Policy." But with that said, the Space Station does offer a step, admittedly an expensive step, in the next phase of human space. Dr. Griffin will hopefully enable one or more private commercial space firms to begin to service the space station in 2010 or shortly thereafter. Thereafter, will a little nudging of our international partners, we can lease the space station to a private consortium to do science, manufacturing, and the like. It will be a MAJOR step to enable utilization of the station as a commercial station within the next decade. That would be progress.

Jack Kennedy (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:43 PM)

Does anyone remember the REAL reason we went into space? It wasn't science or for exploration, it was FEAR! Remember Sputnik? If the Soviets could put a satellite in orbit, then they were capable of sending a nuclear warhead over us! So out of fear we achieved some of the greatest achievements in space such as landing on the moon. These accomplishments during the cold war were disguised by being run by a civilian government agency (NASA) for the real purpose of developing, testing, and proving the technology for better military hardware. So out of fear, cost was no object if it meant the Soviets might beat us in some new technilogical development.

Alas, the cold war is over and the former Soviets are now our Russian friends and allies. With our friendship and the peace that comes with it, our national interest in space faltered. As a result, NASA has no real mission in life. Lots of dreams, but no mission. It is sad to say, but mankind's greatest scientific achievements seem to be during a time of war.

So, where do we go now with NASA? To Mars? Not doable. When our astronauts return from the ISS they cannot walk under their own power, they have to be carried. So how would we ever expect them to do anything on arrival on Mars? At the currect level of technology, their bodies would not handle the gravity on Mars after the trip. Not until some form of artifical gravity is produced in the spacecraft during the trip to Mars or a high speed trip there could we ever expect the astronauts to be able to function upon arrival. So for now, nix Mars.

Go to the moon? Doable but why? For all the wrong reasons? No. Lets go to the moon for the right reasons. Look for resourses that can be used to provide Oxygen, water, fuel and the raw materials for building a moon station. If found, establish a research station there. Set up telescopes on and around the moon so they could be operated and maintained from there. Set up a radar station that could monitor for more near-earth objects, the asteroids that could impact earth. Establish equipment that would monitor solar radiation, and it's effects on earth's magnetic field. There are many more things we could do there, it just takes some imagination and lots of money.

Money, now there's the problem. Too little coming in, too much wasted on things that provide too little return on investment. NASA should take a hint from America's greatest passtime now, the LOTTERY! Billions of dollars are spent each year around the country for an almost nothing chance to win the big one. Russia has the right idea, for $20 million dollars you can take a ride to the ISS. What if NASA offered a trip to the winner of the "ride to the ISS" lottery? It would take in millions for that chance of a lifetime to go into space. NASA could take in $200 million or more for each $20 million space ride.

Now lets revisit the waste. Again, Russia has it right. If it works, why change it? Quit reinventing the wheel. The space station modules are small and heavy. Therefore the shuttle has to make several trips to assemble the pieces. I recall both Skylab and Mir were put into orbit with one heavy lift rocket each. Get back to using rockets for the heavy stuff, and smaller rockets for personnel. Use the shuttle and it's successor for the work it is best suited for, repairing satellites like Hubble and SOHO.

Greg Pratt, Richmond, VA (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:57 PM)

Government is a beauracracy. It can never be efficient. The only way we can limit its damage, is to limit its involvement. It should be limited to creating frameworks, and enforcing rules.

Witness the X-prize. Compare the efficiency. Astounding difference.

Let the government, governmentS, set up some frameworks, with HEAVY involvement of the private structure, then get the hell out of the way, except for precisely agreed-upon usage availability.

I say, finish the damned thing, precisely as agreed-upon. Then, if anyone wants to put more money into it/ use it, let them bid, and take control of it, dependent upon agreement of a majority of the stakeholders.

One problem with governments, is that they don't honor their commitments. (- at least ours.) It's time to stop that nonsense.

There should be consequences for lack of throughput on any agreement, and consequences for incompetence. Any sensible commercial agreement would be written that way.

Meanwhile, we should be working on a REAL, heavy-lift, high re-use, methodology.

Why haven't we started building a mag-lev rail-gun launcher? If China can implement a mag-lev train, then it's hard to argue that the technology is not ripe. At the very least, the beginnings of the "rail-launcher" could be started. A great deal of that project would consist of simply locating and securing a site, and building the physical structure. Any efforts in that direction could certainly still be used virtually as-is, even if, e.g., the technology for super-conductors changes in the next few years.

There are a lot of things to be considered in siting such a project, but I believe most could be well met by placing the rail in the Altiplano, in Chile. This is a country with a long history of supporing science, even during political strife (which seems well past at this point); its high altitude is an advantage for high acceleration and limits wear due to weather; it is close to the equator; its down-range is sparsely populated; the territory itself is very sparsely populated, allowing for security, as well as ease of installation.

Let's put it under control of some visionary, non-government people (like Burt Rutan and friends). Let any and all governments use it, if they pay. Let our government handle the initial international frameworks, and then get out of the way.

Let's get on it.

Alan Montgomery, New Hampshire (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:29 PM)

A little dose of reality:
1. Chemical rockets are insufficient for ambitious space exploration.
2. Space elevators would be well worth the money, but NASA isn't going to do it.
3. The ISS is a black hole for money, and NASA is on the other side.
4. Rocket scientists won't invent warp drive; that's the physicists' job.
5 Physicists' won't invent warp drive; that's the genius' task.

Thomas Smith, Brookhaven, MS (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:04 PM)

How ironic. NASA used to argue that we need the space shutte in order to assemble the ISS. Now, after Columbia, we need the ISS as a lifeboat in order to launch a space shuttle.

I support having a space program, but not THIS space program. NASA should kill the ISS and put the shuttle out of its misery too. With the money saved the real science that could be performed would be staggering.

John Hardt, Dublin, Ohio (Sent Saturday, June 10, 2006 10:34 PM)

I think there should be a twenty+ year moratorium on human spaceflight, pending several technological milestones:
+ Self healing materials/computer science, tested in the harshest environment the planet has to offer.
+ Developments in genetics which will see breakthroughs that will eliminate ossification and the loss of muscle mass in humans who are subjected to microgravity.
+ Robotic technology capable of the most rudimentary "catch n batch" materials processing which will create a source of raw-materials and byproduct gases.
+ A Manifest Destiny of military and scientific control of the resources and presence throughout the solar system, both robotic and in adapted submarine designs which like the Tigershark would be lofted into orbit as sections, assembled by men and robots at one of the lagrange points and eventually crewed by military personnel who would run the ship like a submarine.

In support of these points:
+ Although there are rudimentary self-healing materials, we need to extend the definitions to include self-healing technologies which can be used in mission critical situations and eliminate mission-loss altogether and permit robotics to self-recover and even adapt to changing conditions.
+ Medical technologies will need to be tested. Tested using computer simulations and genuine spaceflight if and only if the computers say there's going to be a significant change in how people will withstand long-term exposure to microgravity. We can model so much in a computer it's a shame we're not more invested in such simulation and study.
+ By creating resources outside the gravity well the ability to create infrastructure and sustainability become exponentially possible. Once the cost of having to reach orbit goes away anything is possible.
+ Extend the US Navy's reach into the solar system. Nothing will see interest in human spaceflight blossom more than the possibility of serving aboard a "system" sub. National pride and military interest will see trillions of dollars invested, and nothing will generate a greater interest in the world. Humanity is ignorant of it's own solar system. Create a System fleet and extend the nationalist sense of Manifest Destiny, the president/government which does this will change the world forever.

Until these things take place, everything we've ever read, every movie we've ever seen about space and the future of humanity is a failed promise.

David Chandler, Tucson, AZ (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:08 AM)

Sink the International Space Station? I'm a life-long proponent of space exploration and settlement. And I say, scrap NASA's manned space program, and while you're at it, scrap the ISS, and the so-called "Shuttle."

To criticize a perfectly innocent hundred-billion dollar orbital ornament for its uselessness, is to confuse cause with effect. It is not useless... to the right people.

NASA is a federal jobs program. This is why Congress keeps voting it money. "NASA equals space" is their brand; but its specialty is to spend our tax money, and in the process, employ almost 60,000 civil servants and contractors. (http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/)

Anyone want to guess what congressional districts they happen to be employed in...?

It takes more than twenty thousand workers to rebuild the Shuttle for flight.(http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1509&wit_id=4268)

Anyone care to venture why a more efficent "space transportation system" hasn't been developed?

Anyone wish to observe why it still costs $10,000 to lift a kilogram of payload to orbit, even though we've now spent as much on the Shuttle as we did to get to the Moon? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Costs)

Our desire for unlimited energy beamed down from orbit, and for billions of tons of rare metals brought in from the asteroids, is the dream of many of us here on Earth. This vision is not NASA's business.

When you are guaranteed billions of dollars, based on political patronage, your "scarce resource" are not dollars, because those billions are not tied to any value you are actually creating. Your scarcity is in your political capital.

But, "NASA equals space," right? Getting stuff and people to orbit is still a terribly difficult engineering problem. Well, to certain politically minded operators, this spells "monopoly." In other words, NASA is the go-to agency if you want to translate space into some geopolitical advantage.

So let's not talk about optimal orbital inclinations, or the value of microgravity physiological data.

Or even of boosting the altitude of the ISS. Because to the people who matter, the ISS is exactly where it needs to be.

In their budget.

Bill Turnbow - Los Angeles, California (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:56 AM)

The ISS is a piece of orbital junk which never had a meaningful purpose. Meanwhile, they talk of dumping the HST into the ocean.

If the Space Shuttle cannot service The Hubble, then they should scrap that program and send Discovery to the Smithsonian. It's original purpose was to launch and service satellites. The problem has been that science and reasonable projects have taken a back seat to special interests that make big bucks off of boondoggles.

Greg S. Portland, OR (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:30 AM)

First, and foremost, let us all remember that ever since the assasination of President Kennedy, our government has been controlled by the very military-industrial complex warned about by President Eisenhower. Even though few openly agree that there was actually a conspiracy, I've never encountered anyone who won't admit to the feeling that this country is no longer under the control of its people.

Given that fact, what Nasa does with the shuttle, and what happened with the ISS (I expect basically NOTHING will happen) is irrelevant.

The future belongs to private industry. As wealthy Americans lose faith and patience with Nasa and the American government, we will begin to reach out to space without 'em. And, because the general distrust of the government more and more begins to marginalize it, future travelers to the moon, Mars, or even just to the great space hotels to be built may never even remember the influence of Nasa, or of the conspiracies that killed JFK, Robert Kennedy, and our faith in our leaders.

We were born to explore. If our government won't, or can't lead the way, still we will go. Let them feed off of their budgets and White-Elephant cash cows; Humans in general, and Americans in particular, are driven to explore the planets and the stars. And soon enough, we will all see whether Nasa stands to be an integral part of the glorious future, or a forgotten relic of it. For no conspiracy-controlled government has ever had the power to repress the future, and this American government will be no exception.

We're heading to space. Nothing can stop us.

SASS has spoken.

the SASS Man, Spokane, WA (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:02 AM)

Our misssions into outerspace are due only in part to science, for the real benefits come from the maturity of mankind.

The day that man steps onto mars and proclaims it a human world, is the day mankind can truly look past our worldly problems, and petty differences.

JJ Glendenning, Dibble, Oklahoma (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:37 AM)

The ISS might not have lived up to the hopes and dreams of its creators, but is not an orbiting piece of junk, it was and still is a building block, just like Mir, and every other space venture we have undertaken.

JJ Glendenning, Dibble, Oklahoma (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:41 AM)

Sink the ISS? Why not do as several posts above have suggested: MOVE it! If we can put a man on the moon, we can move the ISS to a more useful orbit.

A low thrust electric ion engine could easily move ISS into a KSC-friendly orbit. Then, it could be used for what it was intended: a way-station, on the way to moon or Mars.

Its orbit now is useless, except to a small handfull of NASA burocrats.

Rick Steele, Sarasota, FL (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:28 AM)

At the end of the day, there are two pieces of research that thew ISS can perform that will be difficult or impossible to perform anywhere except a platform like the ISS: long term effects of microgravity on people and basic materials science research on materials in microgravity.

The biomedical research is vital before we commit to any deep space manned mission, to understand and if possible minimize any adverse effects before we send a man someplace where we can't get him back quickly in a medical emergency. Only by studying human physiology and psychology in earth orbit can we learn what may happen on a trip to Mars or a year-long mission to the moon.

The second area (materials science) has been a target for modern day luddites even before the space program. It was 'common knowledge' that there were no more new materials of construction to be found right up to the buzz about nano-technology, therefore most companies and many universities suspended any investment into material science. It reached the point that some universities considered no longer teaching material science. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy: with no money being spent on research of course hadly any new materials were being invented. Yet during this time as a process/project design engineer at a small chemical engineering company I had 4 projects in a single year where I needed materials that did not exist. Zero gravity manufacturing expands the degrees of freedom of a physical system by one: you can mix materials that differ too much by density or surface tension to combine on earth. We currently make switch contacts by sintering tungsten and silver. You can make them in orbit because there the tungsten and silver won't seperate due to density. Imagine making steel that is foamed like styrofoam: it will have properties unlike any existing metal, but you can not make it on earth. We may learn things about making superconductors or semiconductors in orbit, but only if we have an orbital laboratory. We may also learn things about how liquids behave that have applications on earth, but because of gravity the subtle effects are blurred and hard to isolate.

We could not discover radioactive materials, much less their implications for treating cancer, until the Curies happened to use naturally radioactive rocks to weight down photographic film. The research on the ISS will be like the invention of photography: we will discover things in orbit that we had no idea are happening every day around us, we can't even ask the right questions any more than da Vinci could have discovered Einstein's theory of relativity. The people who oppose basic science research refuse to learn that the results of that research are always so unexpected, unpredictable, and change they way we live so profoundly that we take for granted afterwards what was lightning out of a blue sky at the time. I can't tell you what happens to the viscous forces in a liquid without gravity, but a better understanding will give us better lubricants, better steel, and better pumps. Just because I can't tell you today what I could find if you let me look seems like a lousy reason to keep our heads in the sand.

David Vetter, Lafayette, Indiana (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:54 AM)

I belive that a cheaper way to go into space is the way to go, but who will try out a layman's idea?
The secret is getting up to 100,000 feet without using
any fuel, the airship is the answer! If a Airship can
float up, then engines using low thrust and long burn
time could turn an airship to spaceship in hours,not
minutes like the shuttle. to return, use engine to
slow airship down from 18,000mph, to 1,000mph.
Then airship would "float" down. The airship to spaceship back to airship would be cheaper and safer.
single stage to orbit to moon and back, no parts lost
and turn around time faster than shuttle.
But would anyone try it? No! Why? It would put companies who make money off shuttle out of business!
That why! Cheaper ways to go into space can be developed, but no one will. Would anyone try my idea for putting an airship in space?

Gordon Younger (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:41 AM)

The technology needed to explore space in our neighborhood of the galaxy has already been proven in the Voyager missions and Galileo. The thing we lack is the willingness of people, who can finance larger scale and more elaborate spacecraft, to step up and help fund private space expeditions. With the sophisticated electronics available today there is no end to the data and visual information that could be collected from a multi tasking spacecraft. I believe with enough research we could conceivably make several spacecraft for exploration of all the planets in our system. Land them on their respective planet and launch samples back to earth orbit for collection by an earth orbiting platform.(ie:ISS)
After we spread our "feelers" into our own solar sytem (by remote) then maybe we start sending people.

Charlie Roach (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:19 PM)

I think the first or second post had it right, that bureaucracy can't get the job done very efficiently.
Question is, who CAN? Going do the moon isn't like getting in the car and rolling to Dairy Queen. Frankly, I think the mag-rail guys are on crack, too.
Remember the enterprise? Not the TV show, the BOAT.
The big one, with the airplanes on it, and stuff.
What I'm after is the steam catapult, only a little bigger. Make that a LOT bigger. Like, really big, and stuff. Big enough to take an object the size of our dear space shuttle several miles up into the sky, and not have the shuttle waste a drop of its' own fuel until high in the sky, where air resistance is less.
If the shuttle's 'flight' (draw against its' own onboard fuel supplies) didn't start until, say, about 30,000 feet, and moving at 600 MPH, what would it take to complete the trip as far as fuel requirements, given a smaller package overall with smaller fuel tanks, etc? *** and Burt Rutan figured out how to get WAY up there before their ship ignited its' engines. The X-planes of old utilized similar thinking, basically falling out of the belly of a B-29 before taking their ride to glory. Now, there's a few ways to get there, call it 'point X', either by catapulting what you have off the ground by mechanical means, which would mean tremendous acceleration in a short period of time on the ground, followed by a violent 'launch' that would then depend on your vehicle's inertia to carry it up, up, and away, you drop it out of another vehicle like the Rutans did, and NASA before them, years ago, OR you balance the whole thing on another rocket stage for the 'roman candle' style of launch we now see today, where the initial stage just gets the vehicle up to our point x. There's one more way, the hallowed SSTO, the spaceplane that was fodder for pulp fiction, a magical craft usually driven off hyrogen that would pave the inexpensive and safer path to space.

Perhaps there's a happy 'middle ground', so to speak.
We know that hydrogen is very buoyant. It floats, lighter than air, and stuff. lightest stuff known to man etc etc etc. What if you could build a platform using fairly easily obtained hydrogen as the buoyancy material, and just 'float' the whole business, space vehicle and all, up to say, about 50,000 ft, or even higher, and let it go from there? It'd be HUGE, and probably susceptible to winds etc., but not impossible to conceptualize, or construct. Kind of Rube Goldberg, but unlikelier things have been produced and used in the past in the name of achieving powered flight...They use the Goodyear blimp at most football games, why not build something Much Larger that could suspend a 200-ton space vehicle(including fuel) at about 60,000 ft. and let er go? Leftovers go in the ocean like the rest of the space junk. Worth a thought...

Bert (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:57 PM)

I can never understand how people can value "pure science" over technological accomplishment. Who cares if Hubble can see 13 billion years into the past? It's in the past and no human will ever venture that far out into the universe anyway. I'm far more interested in where humanity can actually go and how far humans can spread out into space. Is the ISS the best bang for the buck ever spent on space? No, probably not. But the work done on the ISS and hopefully on future missions to the Moon and Mars will have far more impact and benefit to life on Earth than any pictures of the Andromeda Galaxy or the Ring Nebula ever will. If humans aren't going to a certain place, then why do we need pictures of it?

Even if it's not perfect, the ISS is about science and technology and advancing humanity. Hubble and all of the other "big science" program do little more than create a support system for scientists and provide the average American the chance to say "ooooooh, pretty pictures...."

David C, Houston, TX (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:03 PM)

No serious scientist would question the ISS! Where else could the technology be tested to return to Moon and fly to Mars. Only arrogant people can underestimate the contributions of the Russians to safe space travel. Are Soyuz or Progress grounded? No - it is the shuttle. How does the CEV look like - like an old Apollo spaceship. There is no other way to learn about long-term problems e.g. of life support systems, human health in zero gravity or reliability of other essential technical systems, but in earth orbit where counter meassures to save the crew can easily be undertaken. Please stop this ongoing [b.s.] about questioning the importance of ISS! It is not just the only permanent outpost of mankind, but also a unique testbed for technologies, a place for space tourists and a real existing INTERNATIONAL starting point for explorations. There is no reason to punish the ISS for what has been done with the development and opperation of the shuttles. But even the shuttles are a lesson which was worth it to learn! Those shouting opponents of the ISS should use their energy to ask the US administration for adequate funding of space science. Only the stronger involvement of the private space industry including governmental subsidies for start-ups and a clear labour sharing where NASA should focus on exploration and the private industry on providing the means for that can solve the problem of underfunding and ongoing delays. Among those opponents of the ISS are no serious engineers who know about the complexity of technologies and the difficult route to make them reliable for REAL space travel - not just dreams! THANK YOU NASA!

Dr. Dieter Kaemmer, Wehrheim, Germany (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:19 PM)

"Crime wouldn't pay, if the government were doing it."

NASA is bloated, fearful, backward, and takes ten years to complete a two-year project. Do you really think they'll have the CEV flying by 2012? By 2014? I don't. Look how far behind schedule and over budget the Shuttle and ISS programs are.

We could have had much more cubic space in orbit by now if someone with a bit of imagination just pushed the shuttle external tanks a little bit faster and further, to get them into Low Earth Orbit. One of those has more cubic space than the ISS, and it's already 95% of the way there by the time the Shuttle separates.

I think that by 2012, NASA will be on the road to irrelevance for manned spaceflight. It will be the Spacedevs, SpaceXs, and Bigelows of the world who will be servicing the ISS, setting up new satellites and stations on orbit, and making the headlines that the government is too cheap to let NASA do, because it's a lot more fun to spend that money bossing around third world countries.

Loren, Bay Area, California (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:33 PM)

The main problem with space is that it's hugely expensive to get out of Earth's gravity well with any sort of meaningful payload.

People pointing to the success of the X-Prize are glossing over the fact that the crafts developed for that barely scrape the definition of space, and were as far from low earth orbit as the X-15.

The problem with NASA, is that it is always discretionary funding that finances it. That means the budget can be changed from year to year, and that means that it needs constant congressional support for long term goals in short term decision making.

That funding means that it vies for funds against roads and other pork. It fights against current funding for education and other needs of the dispossessed. And it only succeeds at all because large military industrial complex companies have strategically dispersed manufacturing facilities to congressional districts around the country. Even pulling up stakes and relocating in Republican dominated congressional districts to guaranty favorable treatment among the current dominant ruling party.

So even if NASA wanted to try going with smaller, more efficient contractors (if they really were more efficient and had the necessary innovative designs), they couldn't because their budget is dependent on delivering pork to their benefactors in Congress.

No private company is going to invest the money it really takes to develop a craft capable of heavy payload lift (like the fuel to get beyond low earth orbit) with their own money, because such development is so long term it would drain the private investment dry in a few short years. And certainly not without the necessary information it would take to make such investment profitable down the line (as long term exploration and geological surveys might provide). For now, the hope of private investment would be to draw government money down the line, which puts us back where we started.

Where does that leave the ISS? Well, at the very least it gives us some lessons learned from constructing things in space, and the problems with maintaining a long term space habitat. Which, evidently, are many. For either further manned exploration to somewhere as distant as Mars (at least a two year round trip with conservative fuel use) or long term lunar habitation, some of these issues need to be thoroughly researched.
If they ever happen, there will only be one shot at getting those things right.

The ISS fits the bill for now. Long term habitation, space borne assembly, structural wear from exposure to space and work that doesn't involve constant maintenance. Those aren't trivial considerations. They happen to be side shows compared to the publicized selling points of the project, but they're the actual more important ones.

We could have put our money in returning to the moon with total loss space systems and stays of a few weeks, or Mars, with a huge investment in completely breaking earth orbit and a hellish living environment for the astronauts, but those wouldn't have resulted in more than some feel good publicity opportunities.

If the people of the US had a sense of national accomplishment, they wouldn't be so easily bought off with tax cuts (that mostly go to people who can live very well without them) and would instead insist on spending that money on national achievements like the colonization of space to expand the human domain. But we Americans have become notoriously self-interested.

But I'll bet there's one country that will make the investment, eventually. China. They don't blink when it comes to big spending on big projects. When they feel their infrastructure is sufficiently complete, they'll be looking for other ways to invest in their national prestige. And you can bet they won't be territorially generous when they put that first permanent base on the moon.

Stephen Greenberg (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:42 PM)

Most of the complaints about the ISS I read are short sighted and woefully lacking in a basic understanding of the task of supporting life in space.

When The United States sent missions to the Moon in the sixties and seventies, we were sending explorers to step foot on the Lunar landscape and bring back a handful of soil for evaluation. We proved that we could GET A MAN TO THE MOON AND BACK. That's all. We have spent the last 30+ years learning how to SURVIVE FOR LONG DURATIONS IN SPACE. We have learned how to do that aboard the ISS with the help of our Russian, Japanese, Canadian and European partners.

It's a good thing that people are impatient for NASA to go to the moon again. But NASA cannot just recreate the same "touch and go" missions that it did 30 years ago. We must build permanent bases there. We have only one platform to learn these lessons. The ISS.

My team has studied NASA, its development partners and the challenges they face. We have concluded that sustaining human life in space is a worthwhile endeavor. Building a stable micro biosphere to sustain human life may also the one discipline that may help us save our own planet and manage the coming catastrophe of global warming.

Bill Mueller, Joppa Maryland (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:58 PM)

It seems interesting that we, as a country, can find 300 billion dollars in 3 years to fund a war in Iraq (with marginal outcome) but cannot seem to find the money for a better and bigger space station, improvements to the Hubble Telescope and real explorations in space. It does not seem that the money is not there, just being utilized for other things

Jack Kegley, Vista, CA (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:29 PM)

I remember years ago when I was director of Electronic Research at a fairly large company in New Jersy NASA would send us a monthly review of all their patent and research efforts with the request that we look at them and advise of any benefits. I would get my staff(about 35 engineers and scientists) and review the NASA information. Can you believe we never came up with a single use!

I feel the ISS is in the same category. I have yet to see a result that is really useable or worth while and reading all the above comments doesn't change that opinion.

Willaim Duerig, Venice, Fl. (Sent Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:52 PM)

If you include Mir and the ISS, humans have been living in Lower Earth Orbit, for most of the past 19 years. There were some gaps in Mir's occupation and another gap between Mir and the ISS. Still, humanity's near continuous occupation of space with Mir and the ISS is an accomplishment and it's worth something. The value of the ISS is that it's a permanent human home in space, which has been continuously occcupied for almost 6 years. Spacers who want humans to settle space might want to ask themselves whether they'd like to see the ISS end up as another Roanoke or another Jamestown.

Dave, San Diego, CA. (Sent Monday, June 12, 2006 12:26 AM)

Well, the potential for the ISS to be worth itself is there. It needs to be found. THE ANSWER to the ISS, going back to the moon, getting men on mars, all of that is, COMMERCIAL GAIN! ALL past exploration and development was driven by resources, profits, etc. Doing things in space is no exception. While in a 'perfect' society, the simple quest for knowledge, adventure, yadda yadda yadda, would be enough to spur space exploration and devlopment, we don't live in such a world. In order for any of these dreams to be actually realized, somebody's going to have to make some money from it, and I don't mean Corporation X making money from the taxpayers. Resources will have to be found on the moon that can and will turn a profit or esle the moon will not get developed, same with mars and as I see it, the answer to the ISS is manufacturing in low-earth, micro-gravity. When industry figures out how to manufacture something needed better and cheaper by doing it on the ISS, the ISS will survive and start to do something worth doing. Till then, it is just a drain on our pockets. NASA needs to focus their ISS experiments and exploration issues on the absolute neccesity of exploiting the micro-gravity environment for commercial gain. Same as with going to the moon and exploring mars. I would love to see men living on both and numerous space platforms in low-earth orbit. However, it will not happen unless there is money to be made. After that, science can and will tag along. Just like what has always happened in the past here on earth. This, to me, is the simple facts of things and I get really frustrated when NASA, who is supposed to be smart people, completely ignores something so basically simple. :o)

Terry Staggs (Sent Monday, June 12, 2006 3:38 AM)

Just As Jack said a few posts ago, "It seems interesting that we, as a country, can find 300 billion dollars in 3 years to fund a war ". I too find it interesting, or actually more like disturbing.
I'm sure if there was none of this " War Against _____ <--insert enemy here" nonsense going on that the money would dissapear elsewhere and NASA would still have to beg and plead for every nickle.

We have the heavy lift technology already, its called nuclear rocket engines. It completely blows away chemical rockets. The problem is the public perception of nuclear anything being dangerous and scary. Which it is, but no more so than rush hour traffic or skydiving, or any number of things that need controls and practice and by golly a few failures and deaths once in a while just to keep us respectful of it.
There's some facts and figures at http://nuclearspace.com for those interested.

Andy, Kalamazoo, Michigan (Sent Monday, June 12, 2006 6:01 AM)

I'm a space geek from way back. Is the argument between the Hubble and ISS the same old argument between scientist and engineers that has been going on in the space industry from since when…Goddard? I'm on the scientist side. I hate to have to choose between either one or the other. I would like to keep both

I was all for the ISS and still am but the one thing it has proven is that we will not be going anywhere until we solve the gravity problem. Our bodies have to be subject to gravity or we will not be able to function once we return to one. The resistance exercises will not be enough.

Of course, we could let the ISS be the beginning of humans in space. That is, humans who remain always in a zero gravity field and evolve into being who can only live in that type of environment and must send robots to do their bidding in places with gravity. I'd want to be able to replenish without the help of anyone on earth.

The Hubble should go only if there is something better to take its place.

scout29c (Sent Monday, June 12, 2006 8:55 AM)

When I was a kid I watched the moon landing live on television and was enthralled and inspired by it. NASA and the astronauts were my heroes. Now after watching NASA's main programs go nowhere, and doing so with such blandness and lack of vision, I can officially say I'm a cynic. The latest NASA plans to go to the moon with recycled Apollo technology is jaw-droppingly amazing and dissapointing (been there, done that). It's obvious that NASA blows to and fro with the whims and fancies of the administration that is in charge at the time. It's a beauracracy that's in survival mode existing basically for itself. A government jobs program in other words. They're losing the public and risk becoming irrelevant.

Tom, El Paso, TX (Sent Monday, June 12, 2006 10:02 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=290

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG