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

[Urwumpe]

The only South African in Space was Mark Shuttleworth. History can be ironic.

 

[T.Neo]

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.

You cannot compare a disease which afflicts people to an entirely voluntary excersise.

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.

You still fail to see my point. I respect your facts, but it annoys me that you do not acknowledge the fact that things could have been done better on the ISS in many respects, that were not.

And I am sure we agree on some things. I'd love to have seen a Centrifuge Accomodations Module on the ISS, and not sitting on the ground as an incomplete shell, used as an ornament...

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.

I don't care if you ignore me, but I will respond to you anyway, for the... pleasure of everyone else... :dry:

The capabilities of the Shuttle are nice, but the failings of the vehicle prevent them from being worthwhile. In addition, some of these capabilities are not intrinsically needed in the modern spaceflight market. While I too would like to see a development on the Shuttle, it simply does not make sense at this time, even if its core concept is sound.

Just liking the idea of a shuttle isn't good enough to justify it, especially when it does not live up to its expectations or deliver an overall package with an improvement over competing technologies. I like the Shuttle too, but I fear some take this affinity too far.

And you are incorrect on the fact that South Africa does not have a space program. We do, it just isn't a very grand one. We had a satellite, and there are also some interesting developments floating around here, in regards to spaceflight. But nothing major, and this is obviously to be expected from a small developing country.

And yes, I will laugh at you when you shout alarmism about deadly bolide impacts and the Sun making the Earth uninhabitable. While the former is a risk, it is a very small one, and while the latter is a good point, it is extremely remote and a pretty bad reason for 'escaping' Earth out of a plethora of slightly better but still problematic reasons.

And yes, it is nice that people continuously cite the colonisation and exploration of old, but space exploration and colonisation are not like that. It's different, we know the dangers, we know the problems, we know the difficulty it would entail, even with advanced technology. History has shown us how the 'promise' of human spaceflight can fail, and there is good reason to be skeptical.

But you don't get what I'm saying at all, of course. I'm not against using technologies developed on the ISS, just like I am not against using technologies developed here on the ground. What I'm saying is that projects like the ISS are hugely expensive and we are unsure of their returns. To maximise the efficiency of projects like the ISS, reducing cost and increasing capability is paramount. This is an argument for spaceflight, not against it. By increasing efficiency cost/return is improved and justification becomes easier. It isn't about killing the space program or splashing the ISS.

Of course the Earth is important. It is the most important location in space.

The only South African in Space was Mark Shuttleworth. History can be ironic.

Maybe, but he flew on Soyuz, and with his own money.

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

Ok, let's assume first, a version of the ISS launched by vehicles cheaper than STS. Let's take the Delta IV Heavy, with a payload of 22 950 kilograms to orbit and an assumed launch cost of $200 million*.

- The modules are presumably designed to take launch loads and be mounted differently.

- A propulsion module is included for rendezvous with the station.

- The modules are manuvered into the range of something similar to the SSRMS, are grappled, and then berthed to the station. Power, propulsion and manipulation would have to be launched first.

Let's assume the cost of each propulsion module is $75 million, and 20 cargo launches overall- enough to roughly encompass the truss and all modules of the USOS. This would be nearly $5.5 billion, assuming these costs.

Assuming 12 flights of a $400 million logistics vehicle on a $200 million launcher, this is a further $7.2 billion.

Throw in ~2 billion development for the logistics vehicle/propulsion stage, and that is a cost of $14.7 billion. Assuming an STS launch cost of $600 million, 27 construction flights and 12 MPLM flights with a cost of $400 million for each of the two MPLMs flown, that is a cost of 16.2 and 8 billion, respectively, or roughly $24 billion combined.

Replace 8 of the unmanned resupply missions with STS/MPLM and gain recovery capability on some missions for a similar cost.

Spend $4 billion on a minishuttle (similar to HL-20) with a unit cost of $1B each. Assuming station lifetime of 20 years, a flight 2 times a year, a $200 million launch vehicle and a refurbishment cost of $50 million, deliver a crew member to the ISS for $400 million a seat and/or deliver/recover cargo.

This does not include other development costs, module construction costs, experiment costs, ROS/Soyuz/Progress costs, and other vehicle and program costs.

For a free-flying, unmanned recoverable miniature laboratory;

- Assumed launch cost $200 million.

- Spacecraft cost $400 million.

- Total spacecraft mass 20 000 kilograms.

- 5000 kilograms return payload.

- At 2 launches per year over 20 years, 200 tons of flown payload returned to Earth at a program cost of $33 billion (including $5 billion development cost, not including payload costs).

* Cost reduction caused by increased launch rate assumed, may be unrealistic.

Please pick apart at your own pleasure.

 

[Cras]

The only South African in Space was Mark Shuttleworth. History can be ironic.

And he is quite the interesting guy to boot

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

You still fail to see my point. I respect your facts, but it annoys me that you do not acknowledge the fact that things could have been done better on the ISS in many respects, that were not.

And I am sure we agree on some things. I'd love to have seen a Centrifuge Accomodations Module on the ISS, and not sitting on the ground as an incomplete shell, used as an ornament...

I do agree that ISS could have been constructed cheaper and more efficiently - I'm just saying that there's nothing we can do about it now. We can either splash ISS, which won't get our $100 billion back, or we can get all the knowledge we can out of ISS and get as much return on our investment as possible.

And yeah, let's build a new CAM - maybe with commercial involvement. :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

You cannot compare a disease which afflicts people to an entirely voluntary excersise.

Of course I can. Easily. Those who have the disease have rarely time to study medicine and cure themselves. Of course people have to volunteer, who don't have this illness. Of course people have to pay this, who have the money, because who has ALS has rarely the chance to get a job at all.

Do you think science has only to be done because some supreme soviet commands them to? And if you only do things because they give you an instant profit, I can promise you a bitter life of loneliness. Most good things are invaluable by capitalist means, and those few things that have a price, require strategic thinking beyond the scope of your wallet.

Do you think aircraft are a bad idea? Not worth their money? In 1915, when the last Wright Brother sold his company, this likely was the case. But today?

 

[garyw]

And yeah, let's build a new CAM - maybe with commercial involvement. :thumbup:

Bigelow were talking about extending the ISS with at least one new module. not something they could do if there was no ISS.

Do you think aircraft are a bad idea? Not worth their money? In 1915, when the last Wright Brother sold his company, this likely was the case. But today?

I recall that when Frank Whittle first proposed the Jet Engine the RAF told him that it was a waste of money, would never work and just to go away.

 

[T.Neo]

Of course I can. Easily. Those who have the disease have rarely time to study medicine and cure themselves. Of course people have to volunteer, who don't have this illness. Of course people have to pay this, who have the money, because who has ALS has rarely the chance to get a job at all.

Still not seeing the correlation here, sorry.

Do you think science has only to be done because some supreme soviet commands them to? And if you only do things because they give you an instant profit, I can promise you a bitter life of loneliness. Most good things are invaluable by capitalist means, and those few things that have a price, require strategic thinking beyond the scope of your wallet.

There's a difference between an instant profit and one that you can set yourself on 20 or 40 years ahead, knowing why and what it will be.

Do you think aircraft are a bad idea? Not worth their money? In 1915, when the last Wright Brother sold his company, this likely was the case. But today?

I may be wrong, but I have a general impression that by that time, aviation was becoming pretty successful. We haven't seen an explosion in manned spaceflight similar to what occured in aviation. Aviation, like colonisation of the Americas, was not as demanding as spaceflight is.

When I doubt things like space colonisation, I don't do so because I 'couldn't possibly think such a preposterous thing would make sense' but because I see broken promises and problems that we know of right now.

I really want to see a logical- rational explanation- of why colonising Mars is so important, when the more hospitable and more easily reachable Sahara desert has not seen a huge amount of interest or influx of people.

Because in my mind, a Mars colony would be awesome. The problem is that it needs an exceptional justification.

Bigelow were talking about extending the ISS with at least one new module. not something they could do if there was no ISS.

Bigelow have also proposed their own space station, though one might doubt the viability of that plan...

I recall that when Frank Whittle first proposed the Jet Engine the RAF told him that it was a waste of money, would never work and just to go away.

The issue here isn't an argument of ignorance, but an argument of observation. Space is incredibly hostile and poor, why should there be major industrial/migratory interest in it if it cannot be exploited viably?

 

[Urwumpe]

I recall that when Frank Whittle first proposed the Jet Engine the RAF told him that it was a waste of money, would never work and just to go away.

Happened pretty often. How had been the words of Napoleon...."What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense."

http://www.permanent.com/quotes.htm

We should gather all T.Neo quotes here, just to make sure he is added to the collection in 50 years.

 

[T.Neo]

Am I really as short sighted as those who dismissed the jet engine out of ignorance, when I say Mars can be considered too poor an environment to viably attract people, based on available information we have about this planet and our hypothetical studies on how to survive on its surface?

I can't help but think that this idea sticks around because people believe it "has" to happen, regardless of whether it is viable or not, and is thus based on preconceptions not dissimilar than those used to dismiss rocket flight in a vacuum, or personal computers...

 

[Urwumpe]

Am I really as short sighted as those who dismissed the jet engine out of ignorance, when I say Mars can be considered too poor an environment to viably attract people, based on available information we have about this planet and our hypothetical studies on how to survive on its surface?

Why does somebody want to live in Pretoria anyway?

Would you go to Mars to raise a family? Sure not, unless you live in deep misery. But would you mind going to Mars for work? For tourism? For research?

Also, being on Mars is not much different to working at the Antarctic for a year, it just takes three times longer and is more complex.

Without proper clothing in Antarctic, you are just as dead as on Mars. And during the Antarctic winter, you sure don't want to go outside at all.

 

[T.Neo]

Perhaps, but that is no colonisation like many people suggest- it is just a short stay, establishing a small base or research station.

What is the cost of good, warm clothing for withstanding Antarctic weather, and a spacesuit for surviving on Mars?

 

[Urwumpe]

Perhaps, but that is no colonisation like many people suggest- it is just a short stay, establishing a small base or research station.

Yeah. As small as McMurdo and with as long gaps without crew?

"...capable of supporting up to 1,258 residents..."

What is the cost of good, warm clothing for withstanding Antarctic weather, and a spacesuit for surviving on Mars?

The differences are tiny there, since it isn't just the clothing. The clothing for the Antarctic costs maybe 1/10th of what you will use on Mars. Which is no full spacesuit, but likely closer to a diving suit. Mars isn't that evil compared to LEO or moon. You don't need expensive technology there. What NASA does is again multipurpose, one suit for all missions. If you would refuse to work in space, you get something much lighter, smaller and simpler.

 

[Capt_hensley]

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)

My research shows that the "ISS program", which includes "Space Shuttle Operations" was some 300 billion(this is only one estimate not a consensus). It included shuttle ops because without which the ISS would not be possible.

But my curiosity is where the 100 bil number comes from. I use 300 bil to estimate my Gateway Station project to be @1 trillion.(Gateway is some 3 times as large as ISS, but costs even out because of mass production of certain modules) This includes ground test articles, R&D, 5 year near tech maturation, the flight article, neutral buoyancy article, dry sim article, flight systems sims, test facilities, control facilities upgrade, tracking system and communications upgrades and launch facilities upgrade. Not to mention the direct employment of several thousand people under NASA.

It excludes the shuttle initial costs, block upgrades, new launch facility at Vandenberg and Cape upgrades from Apollo including VA bldg, Huston control facility upgrade from Apollo, shuttle launch systems refurbs (SRB and SSME rebuilds, ET production) and all shuttle ops thru 5 missions prior to ISS.

I call this subject because cost seems to be a thorn for you guys. I think cost is an issue for making practical use of a station, but it's not the root of all evil and certainly should not prevent such a useful endeavor. Cost should not be a limfac.

Please try to stay on subject why only 100 bil?

 

[Pyromaniac605]

I've figure out what the problem here is.

T.Neo, I think you fail to properly understand science and the purpose and uses of science, science is not for the sole purpose of improving our lives, science is about much more than that, science is about curiousity, experimentation and exploration.

Scientists don't say "This isn't going to help humanity, I won't bother with this." they say "I wonder what would happen if I did this, maybe I'll try it and see." or "I wonder what might be over there, let's go there and have a look."

 

[T.Neo]

If it doesn't help anyone, it is useless.

This "quest for knowledge" and "curiosity, experimentation and exploration" philosophy that you describe, is just that. It is just philosophy, your philosophy, and you can't force it on everyone universally.

I'm not strictly against research for the sake of research, but there is a very big difference between doing things that are beneficial, and doing things just to fit into a very specific philosophy that a few people follow.

I'm trying to argue from a different point here. The sort of space community gets an idea and clings to it like cyanoacrylate glue on skin, that these ideas just become so ingrained. I guess it doesn't help that I can't argue a point properly at all. :dry:

 

[Pyromaniac605]

This "quest for knowledge" and "curiosity, experimentation and exploration" philosophy that you describe, is just that. It is just philosophy, your philosophy, and you can't force it on everyone universally.

I'm not trying to force anything onto anyone, I was simply stating fact about the general philosophy of science that is accepted by most people. :dry:

 

[T.Neo]

Science is a concept that organises and builds knowledge, it is not based on your philosophy of "let's expend a huge amount of effort to discover trivia". Science is not a subset of that philosophy, that philosophy is a subset of science, and not one that should be given undue importance.

 

[Pablo49]

Science is a concept that organises and builds knowledge, it is not based on your philosophy of "let's expend a huge amount of effort to discover trivia". Science is not a subset of that philosophy, that philosophy is a subset of science, and not one that should be given undue importance.

Trivia is knowledge. Science builds knowledge. Problem?

 

[T.Neo]

Worry about things with practical applications first (even if they are remote) and then bother with trivia as an afterthought only.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Worry about things with practical applications first (even if they are remote) and then bother with trivia as an afterthought only.

The problem with that approach is that you can't be certain what has practical applications and what is trivia until you research it. Things that are seemingly trivial can often lead to unexpected practical applications.