Space Station - Why?

Originally posted by dryhump
I agree that we haven't explored it, but I don't think that explains why we need to. I can't help but feel the resources would be better spent on problems we face on earth at this very moment.

It is simply human nature to explore. Do not babies explore? Should not babies not be allowed out of the house?

Originally posted by twohybrid
It is simply human nature to explore. Do not babies explore? Should not babies not be allowed out of the house?

It doesn't cost billions of dollars (forcibly extracted by income tax) to let my 2 yr old play in the yard. I don't have a problem with spending on science, I don't even necessarily have a problem with spending on space exploration, I just haven't heard an argument yet that convinces me that we are getting the best return for our dollars by doing so.

Originally posted by dryhump
I just haven't heard an argument yet that convinces me that we are getting the best return for our dollars by doing so.

That's because there is no argument that will convince you. You've made up your mind, and your opinion is your religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Propaganda.

You really mean you are afraid of what will be learned in space.

Originally posted by twohybrid
It is simply human nature to explore. Do not babies explore? Should not babies not be allowed out of the house?

That is fine. Just don't force all of us to pay by taxes for things we do not want to explore. Take up donations, if you wish.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The necessity of the ISS stems from the fact that many experiments in microgravity need a human present to conduct them properly. The option of using satellites does not cover all the bases -- and I might add that those private companies that are preparing to conduct experiments using automated satellites are using tons of data from the ISS project. It i ...[text shortened]... important, profitable, and worth pursuing by any and all means, including automated satellites.

The necessity of the ISS stems from the fact that many experiments in microgravity need a human present to conduct them properly. The option of using satellites does not cover all the bases

How do you know this?
WHY can't it be automated to do everything the ISS does?
Except those experiments conducted directly on human beings (which are not really needed by humanity right now ) , can you give me a specific example of an operation on a microgravity experiment that could not be done by robots or machines in a satellite?
Can you do a breakdown on costs to show me that it wouldn't be more cost effective to do these experiments with satellites despite the huge costs of ISS?

I have several times read of research that indicate there are more cost-effective ways of not only doing these microgravity experiments but virtually all of the ISS experiments.

http://www.citizensinspace.org/tag/experiment-ideas/
“...
Once again, this is an experiment that could be replicated on a suborbital flight …
….
but suborbital spacecraft could provide a great platform for studying the basic behavior of solder in microgravity without the cost and complexity of an ISS mission.
...
....NASA astronaut Don Petit performs a simple microgravity experiment using Alka Seltzer aboard the International Space Station.
This experiment could easily be duplicated on a suborbital flight....”

-need I go on?

Originally posted by Soothfast
That's because there is no argument that will convince you. You've made up your mind, and your opinion is your religion.

It sounds like you're the one with your mind made up. Perfectly willing to dismiss any dissenters.

Originally posted by humy

The necessity of the ISS stems from the fact that many experiments in microgravity need a human present to conduct them properly. The option of using satellites does not cover all the bases

How do you know this?
WHY can't it be automated to do everything the ISS does?
Except those experiments conducted directly on human beings (which ...[text shortened]...
This experiment could [b]easily be duplicated on a suborbital flight....”

-need I go on?[/b]

If we are to get into space in a big way we have to learn all we can about living in space and the ISS is a long term platform for that. That is enough to justify it right there. The main finding so far: Don't subject yourself to zero gravity any longer than you can help. It has implications for travel to Mars where right now the best we can do is about 6 months or more and there are other hazards as well, solar flares for instance so that alone is incentive to develop MUCH more powerful long term thrusters, like Vasimr:

http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMR

If we can put together a 200 mw power source with the VASIMR we can potentially get to mars in 40 days not 6 months making the trip that much safer. Put up 4 GW into such a system and Mars is less than a week away and thrusting at one full g of acceleration. That is the future of space travel. It will get into full gear when we get space rated fusion power supplies of that kind of power.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If we are to get into space in a big way we have to learn all we can about living in space and the ISS is a long term platform for that. That is enough to justify it right there. The main finding so far: Don't subject yourself to zero gravity any longer than you can help. It has implications for travel to Mars where right now the best we can do is about 6 m ...[text shortened]... It will get into full gear when we get space rated fusion power supplies of that kind of power.

If we are to get into space in a big way

if what you mean by “a big way” is specifically by putting people in space, then I should point out we will not need to do this for a very long time and, in the mean time, we can do much more science in space with less cost by just sticking to putting unmanned probes, telescopes and satellites in space because it is very costly to put people in space and we surely can divert that huge cost from putting people in space to putting unmanned machinery in space.

Also, what about this idea:
robot and AI technology is improving with time so why not, say, make some robots (perhaps even some that are mostly remote-controlled from Earth ) and AIs designed good enough to replace everyone in the space station and thus turn the space station into an unmanned one and which thus doesn't need expensive life support for humans to run it and thus massively slush its costs? - (not to mention the fact that doing that would mean no humans life would be put at unnecessary risk by putting them in space ) Even if robot and AI technology needs a lot of improving before it is good enough for doing that, it would be far greater benefit to humanity if a lot of money was spent on improving that robot and AI technology for this than keep putting people in the space station because of the huge spin-off of that same robot and AI technology would then being used here on the surface of the Earth doing useful things directly for us (and nothing to do with space ) .
-Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by humy

If we are to get into space in a big way

if what you mean by “a big way” is specifically by putting people in space, then I should point out we will not need to do this for a very long time and, in the mean time, we can do much more science in space with less cost by just sticking to putting unmanned probes, telescopes and s ...[text shortened]... Earth doing useful things directly for us (and nothing to do with space ) .
-Just a suggestion.

Both manned and unmanned projects will unfold in the future, you see the new Chinese probe on the moon, you see the Survayers and Curiosity on Mars, those kind of projects will go on forever.

The biggest reason to get people in space in a big way is simply to put humanity out of harms way if the big one hits, whatever that 'big one' is, all out nuke war, a planet killer asteroid ALA the one that hit Yucatan 65 million years ago, killer volcanic activity that has happened several times in the past. If we have viable self supporting colonies even on the moon or Mars or outward, the human race survives, whereas right now we are in exactly the same boat as the dinosaurs as far as the big ones go.

If global warming puts the world temp up even a few degrees C we can kiss half of humanity goodbye.

The further out we go, the bigger the catastrophe has to be to off ALL humanity.

If there were a killer supernova nearby, say 50 light years out, and we happen to have colonies, say 1000 ly away, Earth could be vaporized completely and humanity goes on. Of course that is thousands of years from now assuming the next thousand years goes by with the present level of increase in scientific understanding.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If we are to get into space in a big way we have to learn all we can about living in space and the ISS is a long term platform for that. That is enough to justify it right there. The main finding so far: Don't subject yourself to zero gravity any longer than you can help. It has implications for travel to Mars where right now the best we can do is about 6 m ...[text shortened]... It will get into full gear when we get space rated fusion power supplies of that kind of power.

This is like us trying to live on the bottom of the ocean. Neither living in space or on the bottom of the ocean makes any sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is like us trying to live on the bottom of the ocean. Neither living in space or on the bottom of the ocean makes any sense.

And yet you live in an information vacuum. Ironic, no?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Both manned and unmanned projects will unfold in the future, you see the new Chinese probe on the moon, you see the Survayers and Curiosity on Mars, those kind of projects will go on forever.

The biggest reason to get people in space in a big way is simply to put humanity out of harms way if the big one hits, whatever that 'big one' is, all out nuke war, ...[text shortened]... the next thousand years goes by with the present level of increase in scientific understanding.

This isn't a good reason to put people into space now! Antarctica is actually a more hospitable place than outer space because at least there is breathable air there so why not use the same reasoning to justify putting colonies of people in deep underground disaster bunkers in the ice sheets right in the middle of Antarctica? Actually, I have a better idea: don't put people in space for now so that we can for now divert the money from that to doing such things as tackling global warming and prevent other disasters so that we are less likely to have to all escape to somewhere else in the first place. Then, later, when we are sure we have done everything we can humanly do possible to prevent such disasters (excluding the ones we cannot prevent ) and ended world poverty, start putting people in space, simple.

Originally posted by humy
This isn't a good reason to put people into space now! Antarctica is actually a more hospitable place than outer space because at least there is breathable air there so why not use the same reasoning to justify putting colonies of people in deep underground disaster bunkers in the ice sheets right in the middle of Antarctica? Actually, I have a better idea: don ...[text shortened]... ing the ones we cannot prevent ) and ended world poverty, start putting people in space, simple.

No no no no.

First off... you cannot know how long we have before we MUST become a space faring
species or go extinct. ANY delay MIGHT be too long, We spotted the two mile wide
comet that just hurtled into the sun 1 year ago and that was unusual.
If it had been on a direct Earth impacting trajectory what would we have done?

The dinosaurs might well still be around if they had a working 'dinosaur'd' space program.


Second... As I said before, the reason we have not eradicated poverty is not because
we are short of the money or resources to do so.

We have VASTLY more resources than are needed to eradicate poverty.

The problem is one of distribution, those resources are concentrated in a few at the
expense of others... which actually hurts everyone.

Solving this problem is ENTIRELY independent on whether or not we have a manned space program.

We could solve it with a manned space program, or without one...

So it would thus be idiotic to scrap the manned space program to solve world poverty as the
two have NOTHING to do with each other.

The manned space program inspires people in a way that robots don't and can't.
And fundamentally WE need to leave the planet in numbers if we want to survive.

And achieving that requires learning how to send people into space.


And finally. I WANT TO GO INTO SPACE. Along with a great many others.

And barring a miracle I will die before all your problems get solved.

I am not giving up my dream because the worlds politicians can't get their act together to solve
these problems. I vote for change, I argue for change, I support and advocate for change.

But I neither will, nor should give up on any other dream just so I can spend my one and only
short existence fighting this long battle to the exclusion of all else.

Particularly as building full on space habitats and gaining access to the vast resources in space
as well as developing the technologies needed to do so, could very well help bring about the changes
we want to see.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Second... As I said before, the reason we have not eradicated poverty is not because
we are short of the money or resources to do so.

In fact, we can watch as massive quantities of humanitarian aid are poured into a Third World country, only to see it vanish into the coffers of a corrupt government or rival warlords. As you say, resources are there to eradicate poverty, but bad policy and poor planning squanders it all. Are we to believe that launching space stations into orbit is somehow suppressing wheat crops in some kind of mysterious zero-sum game? Crazy. And anyway, NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the military budget, not to mention the federal budget as a whole.

People just don't think these things through. I suppose NASA could do better in the public education arena.