In article om,
says...

On 13-08-30 00:26, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Right, and the first step would be to do it on a Vomit Comet. I really
don't see your objection to this.


The whole point of building the ISS was to be able to do research in 0g
instead of having to use vomit comet for short periods of time.

No, not "instead of", "in addition to". For a concrete example, see the
(link below) recent article talking about flying a magnetic propulsion
experiment to ISS. Note the pictures aboard the Vomit Comet and the
article mentioning how valuable testing on the Vomit Comet was to
prepare the experiment to fly to ISS.

RINGS propels satellites without propellants
By David Szondy
August 18, 2013
http://www.gizmag.com/rings-satellite-iss/28712/

So, if you still must do research on a plane instead of ISS' it means
that the ISS has failed to reach its intended goal of providing a
research laboratory to do exactly this type of research.

Pathetically failed logic here. The two compliment each other. Vomit
Comet is (comparatively) very cheap, has higher availability, and has
much faster turn-around time. The one obvious downside is that the
period of microgravity is necessarily very short and the quality of
microgravity isn't as good.

Yes, ISS provides extended duration, higher quality, microgravity, but
it will never completely replace the Vomit Comet.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer