“Oh wait, you’re all for spending other people’s money like water.”

And how much direct benefit to the U.S. Taxpayer has the WMAP program provided? Science for science sake?

Let’s not get ridiculous here.

“Why should I care about those things? Those are not burning scientific questions.”

Au contrare. According to the President:

“Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space—we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.”

– President Barack Obama, April 15, 2010

This is consistent with his predecessors too, so it’s not a partisan view.

The only way we’ll learn to live and work in space, is by living and working in space. There is no substitute. Will we be 100% successful and efficient with the ISS? No more so than any other large research facility – it’s an investment over time that may tell us the right approaches to use, or it may tell us the completely wrong ones to use.

But since our national goal is to expand our presence into space, we can’t do that sitting on Earth, so instead of moaning and groaning about the ISS, you should be suggesting ways to improve the results we get, whether that’s increasing the science or decreasing the costs (or both). Especially since it’s here to stay through at least 2020.

Your concern for the efficient and effective use of the taxpayer’s dollars is noted. Oh wait, you’re all for spending other people’s money like water.

Did WMAP tell us how humans are going to react to long-term exposure to zero-G? Did WAMP tell us how exercise and drugs can mitigate the effects of zero-G on the human body?

Why should I care about those things? Those are not burning scientific questions. They are, at best, bits of information that would be useful if you want to do manned space activities for some other purpose. They are not, by themselves, things that justify doing manned space activities at all.

The involuted, self-referential justification for space is what I was referring to as a “self-licking ice cream cone”. You can justify space activity on the basis that it’s necessary for space activity.

“WMAP produced about 3x the refereed publications of ISS, while costing about 700 times less.”

So what?

Did WMAP tell us how humans are going to react to long-term exposure to zero-G? Did WAMP tell us how exercise and drugs can mitigate the effects of zero-G on the human body?

The ISS was not built in competition with the WMAP, it was built to answer the question of how we will live and work in space. That is the only measurement that matters – is it helping us answer that question?

Comparing a boat to a llama would be more relevant than your comparison…

WMAP produced about 3x the refereed publications of ISS, while costing about 700 times less.

“I wasn’t requiring that ISS produce a large fraction of the papers in human health. I was merely observing that per dollar spent, it produces pitifully few papers.”

Observation is OK, but you are reaching a conclusion based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Your original statement was “Not only is ISS not producing great science, it’s not even producing much science, as measured by papers per unit of spending.”

Is that how the science community measures the effectiveness of the science being done on the ISS?

You also seem to ignore the quality and relevance of the science being done. If one experiment were to lead to the ability of humans to survive in zero-G and harsh radiation environments, then who cares how much it gets cited, right?

You also ignore comparisons with other human-tended science missions that are in situ. In biology, in situ means to examine the phenomenon exactly in place where it occurs (i.e. without moving it to some special medium).

And you still haven’t addressed my question of how do we learn how to live and work in space if we’re not living and working in space?

What alternative are you proposing in place of the ISS that will create the same or better output of the science we are looking for?

I don’t mind questions, and some level of complaining is OK, but whining without contributing potential solutions is useless.

I wasn’t requiring that ISS produce a large fraction of the papers in human health. I was merely observing that per dollar spent, it produces pitifully few papers. This would be true regardless of the number of papers produced elsewhere in research on human health.

As for establishing a good basis for comparison: you are quibbling. Can your quibbling and equivocation erase a factor of 2000 difference in research productivity? I think not.

I missed your response to the question, and the return question. Thank you for repeating. And no, I am not engaged in scientific research, on ISS or elsewhere, and receive no money from NASA or any other government ageny.

“When WMAP is 2000 times more productive (in papers/dollar) at producing scientific results than ISS…”

I’m getting the feeling that you’re not a science type of guy, since you are obviously arguing apple vs oranges.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology – the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. You can’t do that very well on Earth, so of course the paper count is going to go up astronomically (pun) now that we can do more direct investigations. It’s also a pretty small scientific community.

The field of human health is massive in comparison, so the percentage contribution by the ISS is going to be comparatively small.

Bottom line is that you haven’t established a valid basis of comparison. You think you have, but a good investigator would test their assumptions, and it doesn’t look like you have. You continue to have an unproved theory.

“CR: you never did answer my question about whether you’re doing ISS science. Are you feeding at this trough, sir?”

Not only did I answer you on May 30th, 2012 at 5:47 pm, but I posed you questions that you have failed to answer. Are you feeding at this trough, sir?

I frankly expected better of Coastal Ron and Vlad than this sort of laughable argumentation. You have to know your position is weak, guys. Maybe you should take a step back and ask yourself if you really want to be arguing this way.

CR: you never did answer my question about whether you’re doing ISS science. Are you feeding at this trough, sir?