This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
ISS News

Space Station Changes Attitude

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
July 1, 2013
Filed under ,

Space Station Changes its Position for Solar Science, NASA
The sun lightens our world and enlightens our scientists as they look to our closest star for a better understanding of solar activity and what it means for our planet. Unique data from solar studies help researchers build on their knowledge of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate change. June 30 marked the second time the International Space Station literally went out of its way to accommodate this research by providing a better viewing opportunity to meet Solar facility science objectives.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

15 responses to “Space Station Changes Attitude”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Is this really a big deal?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      In theory, no. But it is risky. Something that massive, with its somewhat vulnerable attachments between certain components has to be moved carefully. A single overstrained joint could literally “break” the station in two. Something as simple seeming as a broken connection to any of the solar cell units or trusses could potentially be life threatening if not repaired quickly (or the station may have to be evacuated). And, of course, any overstrain that causes a hull breach makes for a bad day. The ability to relatively easily reorient the station for specific fields of observation is one of the abilities that derives from having a microgravity station, as opposed to a rotating station. So, I’d say things are pretty much as simple as they seem.

    • Rich_Palermo says:
      0
      0

      It just highlights what a bad platform it is for earth science. Much more bang for the buck from purpose-built unmanned satellites.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        The station attitude change was more for solar science than Earth science and the ISS is not ideal for either one. But that’s not what it was designed and built for. They’re just trying to get a little extra out of it.

        • Rich_Palermo says:
          0
          0

          Ok on solar vs. earth science. But, the thing was put up ostensibly to do science. The scientific return for the cost has been less than dazzling. Having it maneuver to make a scientific measurement as opposed to, say, being a platform for twittering astronauts should be routine, not exceptional.

          Pro baseball teams often select kids as honorary batboys/batgirls. They make a fuss over them, bring them out on the field, and have the crowd cheer. And that’s all. The kids don’t actually perform any real duties. Science on the ISS is unfortunately in a similar position.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I see your point, but then again, you’re essentially saying science is science. However, many types of science exist and each requires its own specific tools. The ISS is just another tool and is not applicable to all sciences. For the sciences which were outlined when the original station was proposed, back in the 80s, the return has been, as you said, less than dazzling.

            I think doing a little solar science, which I believe was not on the original station list, even though it required an attitude change and return, adds a little to the station’s ROI. It certainly is worth more than any number of twitters, in my opinion.

          • Rich_Palermo says:
            0
            0

            I agree that the current solar measurements trump the twittering, singing, and may constitute some real science.

            But, I think that the ISS gets deeper in the hole with each passing orbit in what it can/will ultimately provide in return for the cost. I remember claims of much more than microgravity research and the effects of astronauts on themselves in the LEO environment.

            It will be interesting if the AMS actually solves the dark matter problem. Then, we would have to ask whether we could have gotten that answer for less by sending it up as a free-flier.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I’m curious about the dark matter question as well. It’s one of those areas where I think the current ratio of theory to experimental measurement is way too high, yet respected people seem to be treating dark matter and dark energy as facts, simply awaiting experimental confirmation. This is a trend I’m not comfortable with, and the longer it goes on, the harder it’s going to be to overturn it if the eventual evidence should dispute dark matter and/or dark energy. I think it’s in the same category as the Higgs Boson — to much conclusion from too little evidence. Science is supposed to develop theories based on experimental measurements, not devise experiments to attempt to validate theories already formulated based on what-if type thinking.

            Back to the ISS. Although we’ve agreed that it’s been terribly underutilized, I still see it as the best venue for doing the necessary work in microgravity science and humans-in-space bio-sciences that could/should have been done long before now. Given how long the base modules of the ISS have been up there, we might have had some meaningful, new answers by now if they had started an incremental science program once they could have.

            I’ve become fed up seeing reports that are re-re-re-confirming the same old questions and answers, instead of making progress. Of course, it’s not the make-up or capabilities of the ISS itself that are at fault, but rather the people who have failed miserably to bring the necessary ISS experiments and programs into existence (and secure funding for them). I’m half convinced that showing who is doing ISS experiments (students, minorities, small companies, etc.) is given more consideration than what research would most benefit basic scientific and technological progress. Politics is the culprit at every level.

            However, I intend to keep on believing that as long as the ISS is up there and being funded, there is hope for using it to work on the essential issues. But I’m not wearing blinders — it is ultimately the people who count dollars, not particles and field strengths, who will decide the fate of the ISS. And those people who argue for ending the ISS so as to spend its funding on going to the Moon or Mars either still haven’t thought the whole situation through properly, or can’t.

            There’s still a lot to be learned and developed before we can go back to the Moon for more than a couple of days at a time, or go to Mars at all, if we want to do as Kennedy said and, “bring [them] back alive.”

          • Rich_Palermo says:
            0
            0

            SteveW writes: “Back to the ISS. Although we’ve agreed that it’s been terribly underutilized, I still see it as the best venue for doing the necessary work in microgravity science and humans-in-space bio-sciences that could/should have been done long before now.”

            ” Of course, it’s not the make-up or capabilities of the ISS itself that are at fault, but rather the people who have failed miserably to bring the necessary ISS experiments and programs into existence (and secure funding for them). I’m half convinced that showing who is doing ISS experiments (students, minorities, small companies, etc.) is given more consideration than what research would most benefit basic scientific and technological progress.”

            I disagree on both instances. I think it is precisely the capabilities/makeup of the ISS or the lack thereof that are the problem. It was pushed based on unsupportable claims of scientific and technical merit as well as spinoffs. It was a concerted effort to fund a jobs program using science and unwilling scientists as a shield. They realized, as with other boondoggles like the Superconducting Super Collider, that there is a fixed and small pot of money available for science. If you put everything into one facility and one narrow type of work, the rest of it will not get done.

            Physicist Nicolaas Bloembergen famously said, “Microgravity is of microimportance”
            Ref: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pk

            Of course, there are many examples of famous misforecasts by Nobelists but this one, said in the 1990s (and possibly before) has been amply proven. The ISS was not doing any basic research until the AMS showed up. The recent solar experiment also qualifies. But, the AMS was delayed for years and cost a fortune because it was going on the ISS to begin with. And, I think there are much better and cheaper ways to do both the AMS mission and the solar observation without attaching them to the ISS.

            Blaming people for not bringing programs and funding into existence isn’t sensible. Scientists have finite careers and have to weigh what they want to learn and how they want to learn it against some tool that most likely won’t help them. The curiosity has to drive it. If you pick the wrong technology or wrong option, you go down paths from which you can’t return. Industry is even more so. There has to be bang for the buck, preferably someone else’s buck, before they’ll buy in and they have steadfastly refused to buy in. Because there is no business case.

            And, although I enjoy reading your posts even when I disagree with them, I am most surprised by the frustration you express at students, minorities, and small companies. By and large the first two have absolutely zero influence on any decisionmaking and funding. The third won’t invest precious startup money on something so physically and operationally cumbersome. I don’t like NASA’s PR, especially that devoted to the ISS. But, even if you vectored all that funding to Principal Investigators I don’t see how you’d get ISS-centered fundamental science out of it.

  2. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    …it is risky. Something that massive, with its somewhat vulnerable attachments between certain components has to be moved carefully. A single overstrained joint…

    No-sorry, I disagree. The ISS is in continuous movement and is continually maneuvering. Usually it is attitude maneuvering-whether it is for maintain an attitude with respect to the earth or the sun or an oncoming spacecraft, etc. Sometimes it is translational maneuvering whether to increase orbital altitude or get out of the way of debris,etc. Either way, its one of the jobs the ISS was designed and made to do. It is not an exceptional thing at all. Its a spacecraft. Its big and massive, yes, but a spacecraft nevertheless and one which is continuously maneuvering. It would be much more unusual if it were placed into ‘free drift’.

  3. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    “…more for solar science than Earth science and the ISS is not ideal for either one. But that’s not what it was designed and built for. They’re just trying to get a little extra out of it”

    No, this is misinformation.

    The ISS is a great platform for earth, solar and other kinds of observational science. It might not be at a Lagrangian point 250000 miles out where it could sit in one place and would be largely inaccessible, but it is above 99.9% of the atmosphere which makes it great for observing the sun and many other celestial objects. All it needs are the appropriate tools. Remember Skylab-it had a solar observation system that required maneuvering the entire spacecraft to point. ISS has all the right kinds of capabilities if someone wanted to put such a large solar telescope on-board it would be a lot less expensive to mount it on ISS rather than have to build and launch an entire spacecraft to support the instrument.

    ISS is also in a high inclination earth orbit which makes it great for seeing most of the populated area of the world, flying over within a couple hundred miles of virtually anyplace within its latitudes every couple of days. For some kinds of observations like views of natural and man made disasters, it is sometimes better that weather or reconnaissance satellites in fixed geostationary orbits. Because it is always up there, and always manned gives it a flexibility the other vehicles often do not have.

    As far as not being designed and built for these uses, this is nonsense. Its an observation platform. All someone has to do is design and build the optimized observational equipment, or alternatively they could use the complement of tools already up there. The PI just needs to figure out what they want to do and get it into the plan to do it.

    • Rich_Palermo says:
      0
      0

      The NASA A-train flies in polar orbit as do many other platforms that do consistent, continuous science-driven data collection missions over the entire planet for weather and climate. This is in addition to geo platforms. I don’t see where a 56-deg low-altitude orbit would be picked by any observational science mission ab-initio. ‘Always manned’ means the cost will always be high.

      • Littrow says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think its a question of either/or. If we are going to do spaceflight with humans, then there will be things they can do, sometimes better than automated machines or robots.

        Sure the Mars rover is roaming around and sending a lot of good data-has been for about 10 months. Just surpassed one of the Apollo rovers’ record trek over a period of a couple days.

        There is a lot more that can be done from space than just weather and climate.

        • Rich_Palermo says:
          0
          0

          I agree. I’m all for more rovers on more planets, more space telescopes, more earth observatories, and more planetary missions. But it definitely is a question of either/or. There are fixed dollars. When so many of those dollars are sunk in unproductive holes, there’s that much less you can do.