Abandon the space station?

(Hallerb) wrote:

The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science.

Here's a clue for you since you seem to lack one;

It's quite common for unfinished facilities to produce very little of
their intended end product.


Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return,

Cite please?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Hallerb) wrote:

The best thing that could happen is scraping both programs and moving on.

Why?


If you freed up the $ being spent on ISS ^ shuttle they would quickly fund a
replacement manned orbiter and enough left over to get out of LEO./

Which means that you'd have to pony up *more* money to replace the ISS
later. The need for the research in question isn't magically going to
vanish when we get out of LEO. (Keep in mind there is a difference
between exploring & exploiting, and stunt flying. Unlike many, I am
firmly in favor of the first, and not of the second.

Just how much science return do you expect to get from ISS? Down here on
Earth, most small science labs don't generate large returns. Given that the

We could of done much the same by putting up a man TENDED station.

An assumption unsupported by facts at hand.

Visited by the shuttle perodically like 5 times a year for resupply and repairs
microgravity reseatrch without people moving about would of been better, and
overall cost less too. have the experiments run telerobitically from the ground
by rotating shifts of researchers.

An assumption unsupported by facts at hand.

Sadly the station lacks science....

Another contemptible and ignorant lie.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

John Doe wrote:
If you're planning on long duration space flights, you first have to get such
basic systems to work reliably and that means doing a proper shakedown of all
those technologies on the space station.

Yes, it always astonishes me that people seem to think that a
multi-year mission to Mars will be no more trouble plagued than a
typical Apollo mission. (For that matter, many of those folks are
ignorant of the problems on the various missions other than 13 and
17's very visible launch delay.)

Exactly how we are supposed to build such a trouble free Mars craft,
when we cannot do so with ISS escapes me.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Go away, JF. Your politics are belying your pseudonym.

How come you aren't blasting JimO who is the one who brought up the politics
in the first place ??????

Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return,

Cite please?

Please cite the plans for world class science

"John Doe"

You had me mildly bored up to the last part. Ain't nobody slapping the US
in the face, rhetorically or any other way.

If IBM had had an ounce of vision instead of just going through the motions,
we would be using IBM-DOS. Good for their stockholders, but not necessarily
better than what happened.

If NASA gets mired in bureaucracy and the Europeans and the Russian figure
out a better way to do things, then good for them. An if oil stays at $38 a
barrel the Russians will even be able to *afford* a space program.

Botch wrote:
Which is why a manned mission to mars shouldn't even be at the
discussion stage. It seems to me, if we kept our focus on building a
proper, working station/stations, the tech necessary to build reliable
interplanetary craft would come.

No, not quite.

Part of the reasoning given for cutting Transhab was that ISS budgets
shouldn't be used to test new technologies to go to Mars. By stating you have
intentions to go to mars, it allows the station to be used as a testbed for
new technologies wich could be used for mars missions.

If you look at Transhab as an example, it may look greart on paper and in test
articles, but you'll never know util you have one of these babies up in space
for 2 years to see how it behaves.

In fact, what they should have as an experiment is a miniature transhab
attached to the truss of other structure with initially 14.7 pressure in it,
and monitor how it behaves over a period of 2 years. It can then be returned
to earth for analysis.

On or about Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:14:44 -0400, John Doe made the sensational claim that:
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Go away, JF. Your politics are belying your pseudonym.

How come you aren't blasting JimO who is the one who brought up the politics
in the first place ??????

Because Mr. Oberg isn't a hate mongering troll. Neither is a retarded Mac user
who can't/won't upgrade from Netscape 4.76. I'm coming to the conclusion you
*want* us to know who you are.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

On or about Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:03:20 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
(Hallerb) wrote:
Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return,

Cite please?

Oh, almost any Rand post...
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

I suggest that humanity should demonstrate its commitment to the ISS by
transferring funding through the United Nations.