MORE proof of the inferiority of unmanned probes

I think a space station could be a worthwhile resource for our space
program, but only if it were the equivalent of a good gas
station/service station in orbit, ie, real space infrastructure in
support of other space activities, not just a platform for what some
have called glorified science fair projects.
Clif

In article , Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Brian Tung wrote:
Greg Crinklaw wrote:

I don't see this weighing very heavily on the primary assertion that you
and Del are making: that the research potential of the ISS is not worth
the expediter, e.g. the common myth that no good science will come from
ISS. Is it not just possible that the three of us aren't in a position
to say that with any degree of certainty? That's my primary point.


At the risk of violating the usual SAA customs, then, let me put this
as directly as I can. What good science can or will come out of ISS?
Does anyone know?

I sure don't. But someone must.

Remember the report from a couple of years ago? A group of scientists
complained bitterly about the cuts being made in the ISS -- for example,
being limited to a crew of three. They limit its use to the point that,
according to their report,
``NASA should not claim the ISS is a "science driven" program''.

I haven't heard anything since then to indicate that those limitations
were to be lifted.

There's a good article still on line, including a summary of the ReMaP
group's view of ISS research priorities (i.e. some answers to the question
of this subthread) at:

http://www.space.com/news/iss_remap_020710-1.html

Stuart