“Thats one year versus 8 years (ok , admittedly of a not fully operational facility but . )”

Thanks for the link – I hadn’t seen that report.

If we’re going to be a spacefaring nation, then the research I think the ISS does better than any alternatives I’ve heard of is the following (page 9 of the report):

“Human Research Program
Research on the human body in space—how it reacts to microgravity and radiation—is a high priority for NASA’s ISS science portfolio (fig. 2). The Human Research Program (HRP) experiments aboard the ISS build from the large body of work that has been collected since the early days of space program, including a robust set of experiments that was conducted on Skylab, Mir, and shorter-duration shuttle flights. Clinical evidence demonstrated important physiological changes in astronauts during space flight. The HRP, together with ISS Medical Operations, sponsored experiments that study different aspects of crew health, and efficacy of countermeasures for extended-duration stays in microgravity. Up through the 15th ISS expedition, 32 experiments focused on the human body, including research on bone and muscle loss, the vascular system, changes in immune response, radiation studies, and research on psycho-social aspects of living in the isolation of space. Several of the early experiments have led to new experiments, testing details of observations or pursuing new questions that were raised by early results. One or two new experiments are started nearly every expedition (fig. 3).”

And then in another paragraph:

“Results from the initial experiments on the ISS are just now being published; most studies require multiple subjects over several years to derive the necessary data. Nevertheless, we have already identified 43 scientific publications from research sponsored by the HRP that was performed on ISS. These results document, in increasing detail, locations and parameters of bone loss, links between bone and muscle loss, renal stone development, rates of recovery and changes in recovered bone mass, changes related to the immune system, associated profiles of other physiological or biochemical parameters, and roles of diet, drug countermeasures, and exercise. Compilations that include the collective results and collaborations of ground and space-based human research experiments have also been published (e.g., Cavanaugh and Rice 2007). Since many of the human research studies continue aboard the ISS, results will continue to flow in from the early experiments.”

To me, this is the type of research that can only be done in space, and the ISS is well outfitted and supported to quickly iterate studies and potential solutions.

My $0.02

“Oh, and im not sure what your “congress designated national laboratory” means, but im pretty sure ISS has never been in this list here”

Yes, I noticed that when I was writing up my original post, but nevertheless it is true. Here is what the latest NASA Authorization Act says:

“SEC. 2. FINDINGS. (12) The designation of the United States segment of the ISS as a National Laboratory, as provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, provides an opportunity for multiple United States Government agencies, university-based researchers, research organizations, and others to utilize the unique environment of microgravity for fundamental scientific research and potential economic development.”

As I’ve mentioned before, Congress currently supports the ISS for research, and likely the earliest that it will come up for scrutiny and review will be in two years.

By that time we should have a good idea what’s going on with CRS (cargo resupply), which affects how well the ISS can be used through 2016. We should also have a good idea whether commercial crew will come online by 2016 (or even earlier), and that affects how easy it will be to support the ISS through 2020. And of course we’ll have two more years of activity on the ISS to evaluate.

But until then, I don’t see the point of doing much arguing with anyone about the merits of the ISS. I also think it will be two years until we can cancel the SLS, just in case you’re wondering, so I’m not being selective here. But just like I’ve been trying to “educate” people about the complete lack of need for the SLS, I’m sure you’ll advocate the same for the ISS.

We’ll see what happens in two years.

But seriously ? You want to compare ISS side by side with Sandia for instance ? Sandia has a comparable total budget figure across all of its areas, at around 2.5B
Do you want to look compare
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/labs-accomplish/2011/lab_accomp-2011.pdf
with
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/science_results.html
? Thats one year versus 8 years (ok , admittedly of a not fully operational facility but . )

“ISS does not have, and will never have the potential for anything that would justify anywhere close to $3B a year expenditures. Not even close.”

So what would be the number be that would make it worthwhile? Should we splash it, or would it be OK to sell it at a discount to another country (our ISS partners, China, Brazil, etc.)?

Congress has designated the ISS a National Laboratory – I wonder if you feel the same about the other National Laboratories? Sandia, Argonne, Los Alamos, etc.? Their combined budgets are around $30B/year. Should we get rid of them too?

Why should we have any National Laboratories?

I think im saying something different : ISS does not have, and will never have the potential for anything that would justify anywhere close to $3B a year expenditures. Not even close.

“Just for the record, i think both STS and SLS are insanity.”

A lot of people come to the this blog to promote different things, so part of having a discussion is understanding where people are coming from. For myself, I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space.

Regarding STS and SLS, I am of the mind that experimentation is a good thing if done right. STS (the Shuttle Transportation System) was an attempt at creating a significant leap in improving our access to space (frequency, cost, abilities, etc.). It should have had a critical review early and often in the program to see if it was meeting it’s goals – that it didn’t was a major failure for NASA and Congress, but I think the original attempt was worth a try.

The SLS doesn’t have any goals besides using specific Shuttle and Constellation companies and hardware. Oh sure it has capacity goals, but it is not being designed to solve a current or forecasted problem. The SLS is a failure of need.

The ISS, in my opinion, was built to help us answer the question of how will we live and work in space. You seem to have a lot of interest in this topic, but I’m still trying to understand how a working space station is of no interest to you, but many other basic abilities we need to learn are.

For instance, maybe you take for granted that two objects in space can dock together, but apparently this is still an art rather than a science. The CRS program is in some ways pioneering the standards that will be used so ANY spacecraft can dock with the ISS, not just ISS partner spacecraft. Your interest in in-space refueling benefits from this work, and I would agree that more innovation needs to be done so two objects in space can dock by just pushing the “dock” button.

Even the work of resupplying and maintaining the ISS is work that benefits your proposed “standalone experiments”, some of which may need human interaction (like a spacecraft visit). How do we create systems that can be robust enough not to fail, but easy enough to repair or replace? Sure you can do that individually, but at some point the pieces have to be brought together and tested out as a whole.

I’m not a science geek, but a manufacturing nerd, so the more exciting part of the ISS for me is how it’s built and functions, and how we keep it supplied and working. If we want to expand into space, then we have to be able to replicate the ISS and it’s progeny while simultaneously improving and lowering the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

This is the issue that confronts us right now, because some say the ISS must go so we can afford to go onto the Moon (or wherever). Until we can do more than one thing at a time, we’ll never expand into space. If $3B/year is too much to run the ISS, then we should be looking at ways of lowering it’s recurring costs before we decide to throw it away.

In any case Congress for now supports the ISS, so it will likely be at least two years before any major changes will get debated.

My $0.02

Thats actually pretty insulting. I am quite familiar with most major activities on ISS, and i have read most every summary research report that has come out of it. My personal favorites are actually MISSE series and things like SPHERES, but they are nowhere near $3B a year worth. Several orders of magnitude off, and again would be more efficiently done as standalone experiments without ISS.

:: So if you want to debate the ROI of that science, fine, but to say that none has been done is ignorant.

Where did i say there hasn’t been anything done ?
( beside the point, but i’m not a fan of fundamental science being done in space with the current associated costs. I tend to think that applied sciences and technology development should be way prioritized over fundamental sciences, to advance us further in space. )

::Secondly, the reason why I think you are focused only on the ISS is that you have said nothing of the budget for the SLS.

Thats a pretty bad debating tactic. You are trying to defend ISS with money being wasted elsewhere ? Wasting $3B a year is all right, because larger sums gets wasted elsewhere anyway ? Just for the record, i think both STS and SLS are insanity.

Go back in the thread, and see where the discussion started ..