Anyone want a used space station?

Paul Cardiff wrote:
On 2010-11-04 16:13:40 -0400, said:

On Nov 4, 9:24 am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:51 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

High mileage, but not much real use.
Note: Has had plumbing issues in the
past:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35218
I want to see who would actually want that much trouble, and not
even make a profit for taking the responsibility for it on their
shoulders.

Pat

Not much real benefit either, other than proving that billions of
our hard earned loot and decades can be wasted, not to mention
considerable global pollution from everything associated with
keeping that sucker up and running.

~ BG


yeah where that earthshaking science ISS was supposed to produce?

after all its now up to 6 crew members.......

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2009030907.pdf

That's a summary of the science they did with fewer crew and while
assembling the station.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/

Information about more recent research.

Does it pay for the cost? Nope. But it's not non-existant, either.

The problem is most science is BORING. People don't understand that. They
think it should all be earthshattering and groundbreaking and scientists
shouting Eureka from the mountain tops.

I've shown Bob the list of science experiments being done on ISS (actually a
more recent one) and his reaction has been yawn.




Paul

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Nov 5, 5:50*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Paul Cardiff wrote:
On 2010-11-04 16:13:40 -0400, said:

On Nov 4, 9:24 am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:51 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

High mileage, but not much real use.
Note: Has had plumbing issues in the
past:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35218
I want to see who would actually want that much trouble, and not
even make a profit for taking the responsibility for it on their
shoulders.

Pat

Not much real benefit either, other than proving that billions of
our hard earned loot and decades can be wasted, not to mention
considerable global pollution from everything associated with
keeping that sucker up and running.

~ BG

yeah where that earthshaking science ISS was supposed to produce?

after all its now up to 6 crew members.......

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...090029998_2009...

That's a summary of the science they did with fewer crew and while
assembling the station.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/

Information about more recent research.

Does it pay for the cost? Nope. But it's not non-existant, either.

The problem is most science is BORING. People don't understand that. *They
think it should all be earthshattering and groundbreaking and scientists
shouting Eureka from the mountain tops.

I've shown Bob the list of science experiments being done on ISS (actually a
more recent one) and his reaction has been yawn.



Paul

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

show some ISS experiments that really help people on the ground...

On Nov 4, 8:51*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

I want to see who would actually want that much trouble, and not even
make a profit for taking the responsibility for it on their shoulders.

I think the Russians would smile with glee if we sold it to them
cheap.

John Savard

On Nov 4, 6:58*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Perhaps they can deorbit that spendy sucker so that it hits our
Pentagon that needs to get replaced anyway,

There's an architectural critic in Pakistan or Afghanistan somewhere
who would be willing to do the job cheaper...

John Savard