Somebody Just Buy the ISS Already, Wired
“Officially, Congress must make a decision on the ISS by 2024, when its funding expires. But beyond routine maintenance and the occasional orbital boost, the station needs no major repairs. “As it happens, some stuff is functioning vastly better than imagined,” says Keith Cowing, editor of NasaWatch (a NASA watchdog), who helped design the station as a NASA employee in the 1990s. “Maintenance is little things like replacing batteries when they die or tightening valves when they need it.”
… Even with a government-mandated nonprofit charged specifically with ginning up business, nobody has found a killer app for low Earth orbit. Yet. Cowing sympathizes with NASA’s funding plight, and says it shouldn’t indefinitely tie up resources on a mission barely beyond the stratosphere. But he doesn’t think that should seal ISS’s fate. “NASA has spent decades building and operating this thing, has gotten it just to the point where it can actually start doing things, and all of a sudden you want to scrap it all and start building something else,” he says. What a waste.
… Plus, buying it lets you do whatever the hell you want. “I like to refer to the ISS as the Undiscovered Country, both in the Shakespearean and Star Trek-ian sense,” says Cowing. “It’s completely underutilized.”
Is there any real science being done or is all the crews time spent on maintaining the station…..has always seemed to me that a crew of 6 was just not enough
Apparently you have never actually did a search to answer that question.
https://www.nasa.gov/missio…
I checked it out. Very, very vague and generic…my original question stands….any real science?
Yes, they do research, but yes, too much time is spent on maintenance.
Or I should say, the station was built for 7 and for space shuttle flight every two to three months. Each of those flights was to bring extra people to unload cargo and do maintenance. The ISS has only a crew of 6 and they don’t get the extra surge of people to do all that needs to be done.
Don’t worry, Congress and Executive branch will make this Skylab all over again. That shitshow way it ended put the space program back 20 years.
Is it really under-utilized? Maybe it is perfectly utilized for the actually utility that it has.
Just do some research on how backlogged the ISS has been over the last decade.
Any results published in peer reviewed journals? I assume there are some. But people, myself included, have asked for a list. Or even the number of papers. I’ve yet to see an answer. In planetary science, demonstrating that you are producing results, in the form of published papers, is essential to getting extended mission funding.
http://journals.aps.org/prl…
I didn’t mean to suggest there weren’t any journal publications of ISS science. Just that you have to dig to find them, and there doesn’t appear to be any project-wide information on the subject (either a bibliography or some summary of the number of publications, e.g. by year and topic.)
I’m used to Science Mission Directorate missions where this sort of thing is often no more than a couple of clicks away on the project’s main web page (e.g. for the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, https://mms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and then follow the link to the Science Data Center,
https://lasp.colorado.edu/m… )
More to the point, that sort of information is an almost mandatory part of a senior review for extended mission funding.
There is lots of science being conducted on the ISS – just check out this web site: http://www.spacestationrese…
Or go to the ISS R&D Conference this coming July in DC; you will be amazed – dozens of peer reviewed research will be presented in a wide range of subject areas.
Also, don’t forget the ultimate experiment; lots of humans in space for a long time. We’ve already learned how to mitigate muscle mass and bone loss and we discovered the optic pressure induced vision loss thanks to long term ISS missions. Without ISS, astronauts might have gone to Mars – but they might be blind or too weak to function on the surface..
Thanks. The link, or a page one click away from it is exactly what I was asking about. A searchable bibliography. As for the conference, conference presentations aren’t peer reviewed and R&D isn’t quite the same thing as science.
Also, this one seems to be ISS focused. I’d be more impressed by a large number of presentations at general conferences. I don’t know the name of the big, annual conference for medical researchers, but I assume they have one. How well represented is ISS research at meetings of that sort, as opposed to meetings only ISS researchers attend?
I guess that’s my concern. In the case of SMD (or ESA) unmanned missions, a great deal of work goes into communicating the results, both to other researchers outside a project and to the public in general. Impressive results don’t amount to much is noone knows about them. I’ve never seen it calculated for a project or mission, but it might be interesting to see an h index for ISS compared to HST.
ISS will not compare well with HST where the observational data is sent back for many researchers to use; ISS is not purely a scientific research facility – understanding how to live and work in space isn’t pure science but it remains essential to future exploration. They could do a better job of communicating and doing peer reviewed work – but all of the major research institutions have far more lines of inquiry than budget so they are set in their ways of letting NASA figure out what and how to do research on the station. NASA tried to fix this by setting up CASIS as an intermediary but it’s been a learning curve – they should have picked Battelle or some other organization that has done it before.
One piece of good news; when the commercial crew vehicles start launching, they are going to go to a crew of 7 – doubling the hours of time available to do science; turns out that yworking in space thing takes up a lot of time.
If the real experiment is learning to live and work in space, it could be structured more efficiently. For example, repeated EVA work to assemble and disassemble a truss or other structure, each time doing it differently to find the most efficient methods and practices. Or rearranging the layout or living or working spaces every few months, as an experiment in microgravity ergonomics.
Yeah but given how much crew time is currently spent on maintenance and operations, doing that would completely consume their science time.
Not only will they need to consider what to do with it in less than 6 years, they may have to figure out how to operate the ISS as partner countries drop out depending on ongoing political or financial difficulties. The US will have to decide if they will fill in any holes made by such large changes. Could this be the United States last space station?
If we are going to drop out because the effort is wasted, why did we go to such lengths to block China from participating?
and why is china going to such lengths to make thier own?
It will not be China’s alone. It will be an international collaboration. The goal of China’s manned spaceflight program is threefold: build national pride in their domestic audience by demonstrating that they have “joined the club” of the world’s leading nations, building international alliances by collaborating with other nations on a challenging technical endeavor, and marketing their commercial aerospace industry. All these goals could have been satisfied by participating peacefully in the ISS program, but when they inquired we stuck our finger in their eye, so they elected to create their own station program and open it to collaboration by all nations.
They may well go to the Moon, but in their own time. A race would serve no purpose. If they lost, they would look incompetent. If they won, they would irritate their largest customer.
As my Chinese friend says, “If you want to race to the Moon, go ahead. We will not race with you. You will be racing by yourself.”
Think I’ve heard that argument before. Apollo maybe?
Don’t worry, it will get extended to at least 2028. After that it’s going to start becoming a lot more expensive to maintain and repair.
ISS splash 2029ish.
What people fail to realize is that doing experiments is almost a lifelong process. You start doing experiments in grade school. Then more difficult ones in high school. If you pursue a career you will do more in college for a BS then on to a Masters and then a PHD. Even then it doesn’t stop as you join some sort of research unit in government or the private sector.
Going to the ISS is once again a learning center for doing experiments that is a whole new environment and researchers should be able to go there and do the most basic space based experiments to the most cutting edge.
How many people sat in a bathtub before someone shouted EUREKA! Well it will be the same in space and the more PHDs we can put in the ISS bathtub and conduct experiments from the basic to the most difficult the better off our Nation will be.
Indeed ISS itself is a grade school experiment.
And now, here’s some hyperbole for lunch:
Thanks, Vlad, for the link (elsewhere) to the on-going research on ISS. And, thanks for your appeal to see research for what it is: a mindset, and a commitment to the long view. An important distinction, particularly for a confused space agency.
As to ISS: Yes, there is some research. Yes, there has been limited manpower available. Yes, NanoRacks is quite cool. Yes. I know.
But my comments speak to the more general and global issue.
So, a melancholy question, in the manner of Fermi’s Paradox: Where are they?
Where are the rabble-rousing scientists armed all with proposals that would, if only an experiment could be fashioned on ISS, actually reveal the TOE? Or cure cancer? Or extend life? or? Where is the pissing and moaning by scientists worldwide, all complaining they can’t get ISS time?
Where’s the beaten path to NASA’s door, populated by profit-seeking private enterprise clamoring for an opportunity to use the ISS, each just “this close” to an incredibly profitable breakthrough if only they had access to ISS?
Equally: where are the basic science researchers? The ones following noses, and interests, and passions, the lab researchers grinding away on fundamental research that has always been the basis for scientific progress?
Answers: nowhere, nowhere, and nowhere. And “there are a few” isn’t the correct answer to this question.
This is because space is nowhere. It’s a big, pricey hammer looking for a nail. Here is the poignant truth, the reality breaking my own heart longing for humanity in a space-based future. Space is the cornfield diamond waiting for the Black Sox.
Why?
Space exploration is an endothermic activity, that’s why; the heat required to initiate the process is money. A lot of money. A really stupendously large amount of money that isn’t likely to appear because we are locked in a mindset measuring the implicit worth of everything from majoring in English to finding life on Europa with these odd units called “dollars”. And while the cost of research isn’t lost on me, my point remains.
Our space activities – ISS included – are like the drug user who, in an effort to conserve a dwindling supply of cocaine, limits each ‘snort’ to half a line: not enough to get high, but it sure lasts a long time. We piss away billions on this program and that program, but in the end, what do we have?
Nothing. $Billions a year on HSF and damned little to show for it.
Argh.
I agree for the most part. The space shuttle was an amazing machine, but many flights were “make work” deploying satellites and the like. Even Hubble repair missions were arguably a waste of money (why not build and launch another copy with a correctly ground main mirror instead of cobbling together “corrective optics”?).
ISS is similar in my mind, with the exception that we’re gaining valuable experience with *how* to do things in zero gravity like maintaining life support systems, doing EVAs, and etc. These are necessary skills to eventually go beyond LEO. But, it’s taking a frustratingly long amount of time for the “beyond LEO” bit. 😛
Not all the HST servicing missions were about fixing the optics. Mostly, they were about replacing gyros, repairing broken instruments or swapping out old instruments for new, better ones. Given the cost of building HST, and even given the cost of shuttle missions, that was cheaper than flying a whole new observatory. That won’t be possible with JWST and it’s operating lifetime will be very short compared to HST.
Yes, later servicing missions replaced components that wore out due to time and use. It’s only that first servicing mission that’s a bit debatable. It’s cheaper to build a copy of something than it is to design, build, and test the first copy. To keep costs down, Hubble 2 could have fixed the mirror and solar array issues and kept everything else the same. Instead, they designed “corrective optics” for Hubble and spent quite a bit of time, effort and money on a servicing mission just to get it up and running.
anyone want to buy a used car. 🙂
NASA’s PAO is still awful. Americans don’t appreciate the station because the don’t know if anything of value is being done on it. I’m at NASA, and I don’t even know. I am only familiar of the occasional insect experiment being built at the engineering lab and getting processed through the MCS.
I’d like to see some real stats on what sorts of things are really b eing done on the ISS. A long list of names is fine. But lots of those ‘experiments’ are internal NASA health checks on astronauts a lot are from other internationals, and a lot are from Nanoracks, which are generally small, automated things which really would not require an ISS except that its an easy place for them to get to. When the space program was established one of NASA’s jobs was to develop the uses of space. When this station program was first established its intended use was mainly for commerce. At the time NASA had a serious program of seeding funds throughout the academic and commercial communities to urge utilization. About 15 years ago NASA decided Boeing and its retired NASA management needed more money, so they eliminated funding for science on ISS and gave it to their contractors instead (like they needed even more money than the overruns they were already incurring). This program ha snow been ongoing for 32 years, in flight for 19 years, and assembly completed for about 7 years. So after the more than $$ hundred billion expenditure, I’d like to see hard data on real uses. For instance when I look at the crew timeline, every week the astronauts play with the Spheres free-flying technology demonstrator. They have been playing with this for about a decade. Is that the best thing they have to do? Same thing with CASIS; are they making any progress?
As far as longevity of the ISS, I think the 2024 date is now just the standard OMB planning horizon of about 6 years. No reason why, with modularity and refurbishment, ISS could not keep going indefinitely, especially if systems are not showing the anticipated wear; god knows there is nothing to replace ISS in 2024. NASA will be lucky if they can get an Orion airborne, and then what will they do with it?
It would be worthwhile to see some genuine stats on what is being accomplished. If NASA is not going to operate ISS as a real research facility, maybe the operations community ought to split off. If NASA doesn’t think there is enough technology development and research on-board, then let NASA go do some real R&D, and some alternate group can operate the facility.
No Mars gravity on ISS. I like the sat that will grow tomatoes with Mars and Moon gravity. Not a NASA experiment of course. No artificial gravity at NASA. One test with Gemini, A person needs to experience Mars gravity for awhile to see if there are health problems. But as Musk says, no new money for Mars. NASA is just thinking about The Journey to Mars. Zero G for the 6 month trip. The stay on Mars, they will just see what happens. Musk could put a weight on a tether and reel it from Dragon. He hasn’t showed any interest though.
There would have been (at least for small animals), but the CAM (Centrifuge Accommodation Module) is sitting on earth, half built, instead of attached to ISS.
If a company could get ISS “free and clear” from NASA and its partners, fine. But I believe NASA and some or all of the partners would insist on some continuing usage rights, and if those include NASA astronauts living on-board, NASA would likely insist on veto power on experiments and ops for safety reasons. The owner would have total freedom of usage of ISS Freedom only when its own crew members are on-board. Also, would NASA/US Govt require a controlled de-orbit capability be installed before the sale is completed, and/or require deposit of a large money bond against deaths, injuries, and damages on the ground from entry-surviving debris? Those would be up-front costs for the buyer.
“If a company could get ISS “free and clear” from NASA and its partners, fine.”
That would never happen, because the US as a nation is responsible for any damage, injuries, or deaths which would result from ISS “falling to earth”. This means keeping ISS operating safely until it can be disposed of in a controlled manner. So, NASA would always have to maintain “control” of ISS in order to insure that the US isn’t going to be liable for the thing crashing down on someone’s head.
Privatizing the ISS, to be a serious study, needs a complete openness on all data with any partner, buyer, consortium that might be interested. All contractors who currently manage and are part of operations would have to give data away, a big barrier, as incentives naturally make it difficult for a company to give away data that another company can use to replace them. Mission control would have to be recreated by the private outfit as well, in all likelihood, at vastly less recurring cost to perform what they do now, deleting much of what lacks value along the way.
In my experience, these two issues alone get skipped, glossed over, and outright ignored in such discussions, dooming the whole effort at the start. Just as with the same discussions on Shuttle.
You can’t get people to understand something when thier salary depends on them not understanding.
When the modern space station concept was first proposed in the late 70’s its primary missions were earth and space observation and satellite servicing. Unfortunately the first two disciplines have been so sharply divided from human spaceflight that Earth obs is just beginning to be explored and space observation remains hobbled by misconceptions about the degree of contamination of the vacuum around the ISS, with the exception of AMS which does not depend on optics. http://journals.aps.org/prl… Refueling and servicing of satellites and space probes is understudied partly because of the belief that the high inclination orbit of the ISS makes it impractical; in reality the merging of spacecraft and propellant into an existing logistics stream and the availability of human oversight for space operations might more than compensate for the extra velocity needed.
Much of the effort to date has focussed on microgravity and life science research, but its applications, though real, are limited.
In the beginnings of the ISS program, there was a reasonable plan as to its scientific and operational goals. The primary operational goal was the fueling, refueling, and servicing of upper stages, satellites and space probes. The high inclination of the ISS reduces the payload of a costly delivery service like Shuttle, but for SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin this will be less of a problem as fuel and spacecraft parts can be delivered on regular logistics flights.
Regarding science, the idea developed early in the Shuttle program that microgravity manufacturing would be unique and revolutionary, and many applications have been proposed. The fact that the crew would operate such experiments directly was seen as proof of the value of human presence in space. However even the first major applications, purification or the hormone erythropoetin by continuous flow electrophoresis and production of defect-free semiconductor crystals could actually be performed in normal gravity. The only valuable product that can currently be produced in space and transported to Earth is information.
Experiments on the function of living organisms in weightlessness produce useful but rather limited information, since a change in gravity does not directly reveal physiologic mechanisms.
Observations of Earth and space from the ISS can in contrast produce vast amounts of useful data that can be easily sent to scientists on the ground, and the presence of humans is required only for installation and maintenance of the equipment.