ISS nears completion but what is its purpose?

[Tyr]

It's a very critical piece in the evolution of space exploration. Having said that, it's value is diminished somewhat over international "squabbling" and the price tag associated with it could have been better spent on other avenues (the moon, Mars, Venus)

In 1998, Reagan's proposal finally started to take physical shape with the first piece of the ISS launching into space.

Since then, a major construction program has been ongoing some 350 kilometres above the earth to complete the station.

Although it won't be fully assembled until 2010, the ISS is already the largest human-made object ever to orbit the earth.

But, while the flashy space shuttle launches to the ISS make for good TV, often the actual purpose of the mission gets overlooked.
All the scientific jargon aside, the main reason the ISS was built was so that scientists could observe how humans live and work in space during extended durations.

Scientists say that knowledge will help them with future missions to the moon and even Mars -- which takes six to nine months travel time each way.

For example, on his upcoming six-month stay aboard the ISS, Canadian astronaut Robert Thirsk will take medicine as part of a study to see how his bones react to the weightless environment.

"For a long-duration space flight the physical toll is primarily on the muscles and the bones that support our bodies," Thirsk told CTV.ca in a recent interview.
"The muscles of the back, legs and then the bones in the vertebrae, in our hips, in our shins and in our heels, those will all waste away."

The medication, commonly used to help people with osteoporosis, will hopefully help minimize his bone loss.

That research will help scientists who are trying to figure out how to send astronauts on long-distance flights without their bones deteriorating.

Scientists are also using the ISS to study the impacts of long-term confinement and isolation on the astronauts.

Thirsk leaves for the ISS this May as the crew on the station will grow from three to six people for the first time.

The upcoming space shuttle Discovery flight, scheduled to blast off Sunday, is bringing up a US$300 million set of solar wing panels.

Those panels will help power the ISS as the crew expands from three to six. During Thirsk's stay, there will also be a number of shuttle missions to the ISS.

In June, the first shuttle crew to visit the six astronauts will include Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. Her trip will mark the first time two Canadians have been in space simultaneously.

It'll also be the first time every single partner of the ISS project will be represented in space.

"When we're all up in the hatch, the seven of us from the shuttle will join the six from the station for a total of 13 people, which will be historical," Payette told CTV.ca in a recent interview. "There's never been that many people in space at the same time -- ever."

In 1999, Payette became the first Canadian to participate in an ISS assembly mission and to board the space station.

At that time, the station was very small with only two modules and nobody permanently inside.

"Since then, the space program has grown 10 times over," Payette said.
During her upcoming 16-day trip, Payette and her crewmembers will be responsible for five spacewalks to install the remaining components of Kibo, a Japanese-built experiment facility.

Payette will serve as a mission specialist responsible for the station systems and will also be operating the Canadarm.

 

[earth_as_one]

Its purpose is mainly to study the effects of living in a space environment. Its done some other science but that's the main part.

I see unmanned efforts in space collectively as more important scientifically than the ISS.

Kepler Mission > Overview

Robotic spacecraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sooner or later we are going to have a practical reason for people living in space longterm. That research takes time (decades), so we may as well do this research now in anticipation of an inevitable future need.

 

[petros]

The real reason? To send geologists into space to mine asteroids on the taxpayers dime. Do your homework and find out yourself. It's already been planned for 15 years.

 

[Tyr]

The real reason? To send geologists into space to mine asteroids on the taxpayers dime. Do your homework and find out yourself. It's already been planned for 15 years.

No.

The "real" reason is to get really cool pictures of earth

 

[earth_as_one]

Human space flight is 99% research with very little commerical application. ie. Space tourism

More likely robots will mine the asteroids.

 

[RanchHand]

"In June, the first shuttle crew to visit the six astronauts will include Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. Her trip will mark the first time two Canadians have been in space simultaneously. "

This quote reminds me of the greatest straight man of all time, Bud Abbott.

 

[Tyr]

Human space flight is 99% research with very little commerical application. ie. Space tourism

More likely robots will mine the asteroids.

In a round about way that's true as there is a component of military research that the ISS undertakes

 

[petros]

More likely robots will mine the asteroids.

Mining equipment breaks down like no other. Robots can't fix themselves or make decision at an instant. It takes 30 mins to send a signal to Mars and 30 mins to get one back. The asteroids are another 15 mins away. Only people can do it.

Why do you think they are surrounding Russia and China with missile defense systems? To stop nukes or to prevent Russia and China from getting there first. Same with Iran. The nuke threat is a diversion. You don't need centrifuges and plutonium processing to make a hydrogen bomb do you? Iran and North Korea both launched satellites which is a threat to Space Command. The new military is useless without space. try and fly a predator without satellites.

NASA has already stated the minute they can turn a profit mining space NASA goes privatized. LOOK IT UP and prove me wrong don't just make asshole comments on something you have no idea about.

 

[petros]

Human space flight is 99% research with very little commerical application. ie. Space tourism

No? How much is your internet bill every month? Do you like cable TV and phoning Australia at any time day or night? That sound commercial to me.

 

[petros]

Space will go the ame way as all other new technonlogy. Taxpayers bought the first ships to get to the new world then and shuttle furs back to Europe then they were sold to HBC. Then the taxpayer built the railroads guess what happened? They went private Telegraph...same thing. . Suez and Panama canals who owns those now?Telephone same thing. Former taxpayer highways are now toll roads. It has already happened with satellite telecomm. Next step is the minerals and H3.

 

[petros]

Enjoy the read....

1. The Issue

The mineral exploitation of outer space is decades away yet since the mid 1970's, this activity has been the subject of countless feasibility studies. For some, the activity brings to mind visions of tapping extra-terrestrial treasure troves, for others merely the chance to supply the raw materials needed by the fledgling space industrial complexes which many see as an inevitable result of current economic trends. This case explores the present state of space usage, technical issues which surround space mining, the economic necessity of the activity if space is to be utilized and the most likely economic and environmental effects of this activity. While this activity if it takes place will to a large extent be global, the interests of the United States are addressed and given preeminence over those of foreign competitors.
[SIZE=+1]2. Description

The Moon landing of Apollo 12 in 1969 fired the imagination of the nation. Whereas spaceflight had been the province of science fiction writers, fantasy had now become reality. During the 1970's mainstream scientists were predicting the establishment of a permanent Lunar base by the year 2000 and Martian colonies soon to follow. However these predications were not realized for several reasons. First of all fiscal constraints caused by the Oil price hicks of the latter 70's and deficit spending to finance the increased military buildup in the 80's, limited the amount of resources which could be devoted to space exploration and economic exploitation. Secondly there was no sense of urgency, resources are seen as abundant. However recent environmental depredation, especially dealing with the oceanic environment has led many to believe it would bet better environmental policy to remove harmful extraction and manufacturing processes out of the ecosystem (See COBALTcase). While colonization has not occurred, space has still become an invaluable economic resource.
The satellite communications industry generates $3 billion annually from the transmission and reception of electronic signals from E-mail to television broadcasts. In addition satellites have become an invaluable resource in many diverse areas. Landsat satellites launched in the 1970's have photographed remote areas which has enabled accurate mapping of areas largely inaccessible to ground observation. Other satellites are used to track the sources of pollution which causes acid rain, track hurricane paths and to study the affect insects have on cropland. The estimated total space bossiness which includes rocket and satellite production, in addition to satellite launching is around $100 billion yearly. "Peter Glaser, a vice president for space operations at Arthur D. Little, A Cambridge Mass., consulting firm, has studied applications for years. He has, he says, come to a new conclusion; We're not going there for the glory anymore, We're going there for the money." (Bernstein 82) As a result of the tremendous growth in space communications, great interests in future expanded economic utilization of space exists.
In 1986, a multimillion dollar grant was awarded to the University of Wisconsin-Madisson's Engineering department to study commercial applications of space. The grant was for research in food production, the use of robots, and to study the feasibility of mining Helium 3 on the Moon. Helium 3 is a gas which is not present on Earth but is known to be plentiful in space. This gas is seen as a critical component in the development of the emerging technology of nuclear fusion. "Faculty at Wisconsin Madison have developed a concept to use Helium 3 in a radiation free Fusion reactor. In order for that concept to be implemented it would first be necessary to procure the gas in sufficient quantities to experiment on. While there is disagreement over the advisability and timing over space exploitation, most agree that we have only scratched the surface of the economic potential of this "final frontier."
The manufacture of materials in space such as crystals, alloys, and pharmaceutical are as potentially lucrative, if not more so, then the current computer revolution and the emerging field of genetic engineering. Why then hasn't the pace of space utilization increased. As with most new untried ventures the tremendous cost of getting started has prevented a quickened pace. In May 1989, a conference on the costs of transporting materials into space and the feasibility of mining in space was held in Colorado. Egons Podnieks, a senior staff scientist for the bureau of mines described differing costs inherent in material transportation form earth and the moon. "Consider that only 1.5% of the total mass of the space shuttle is actual payload when traveling up to low earth orbit (LEO). A launch from the moon would contain up to 50% if desired. The cost for attaining LEO varies with the delivery system, with a minimum cost of about $2,000/lb. A corresponding launch from the moon would require only 5% to 15% in terms of energy." Podnieks, who is familiar with the mining industry, believes that it makes sense to plan to mine the moon and other spatial bodies by building on current technology and forming simple and practical plans as opposed to futuristic exotic scenarios. One example is that the best location for a space mine is primarily underground as opposed to open pits. Podnieks states that it makes sense to have the miners work ia am environment which can be pressurized and necessitate little use of bulking spacesuits except when leaving the mining area. (Zaburanov 46k)
Who will benefit from the exploitation of space? Information on this area has made plain that the costs of initial start-up and initial maintenance are beyond the capability of the non industrialized nations and can only be undertaken by nations with large developed economic infrastructures, specifically the European Union, The U.S., possibly Russia and Japan. Each of these has positive and negative factors which will determine how large a share of space industry and mining they will control. The U.S. has several advantages. First of all the previously mentioned public and private commitment to space research. Secondly a great deal of governmental research has gone into space "Space ventures require investments beyond the capacity of the private sector. Already the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has spent more then $200 billion (in current dollars), much of it to create the infrastructure needed to exploit space." (Osborne 45) Like any momentous undertaking a planning stage is required, thanks to some far-sighted policy makers a fair amount of planning has already been accomplished.
During The presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, space was seen as a possible solution to pressing international and domestic problems. Reagan is famous for his commitment to SDI, an antimissile system of laser tipped satellites. Although never implemented, billions of dollars were poured into research. Once the threat of the Cold War ended it seemed like a good policy to push space utilization. President Bush on the other hand was interested in offsetting the recession caused by demobilization of most of America's military infrastructure, channeling more resources in the direction mapped out by his predecessor seemed prudent. However the U.S. has some negative factors. First of all American's are very finicky and without a common threat like the former Soviet Union, they are unlikely to support a long costly program showing little or no return in the short term. Another negative factor is the deficit which we have not yet been able to eradicate. Unlike the 1950's when we had large amounts of discretionary income, todays lean budgets preclude any massive investments in space.
On the other hand several factors benefit foreign competitors. "Foreign companies, particular in France, Germany, and Japan have expressed a willingness to invest now for profits that they may not see for fifteen or twenty years, a luxury that very few American companies can afford." Also as has been mentioned in numerous other business reports foreign companies have benefited from their acquisition of U.S. R&D. The foreign space program,s have the advantage of concentrating their resources into areas which U.S. research has shown to be promising avenues for commercialization. Since these companies have not had to bear the costs of initial research they are in a much better position financially. (Osborne 45) The Russian space program also has a key advantage over ours. In the area of materials processing, experimenting to see which materials can be engineered profitably in space the Russian's have conducted 1500 experiments as opposed to approximately 100 conducted by NASA. Japan has also has made some concrete plans to use space for economic gain. "According to Yasunori Matogawa of Japan's Institute for Space and Astrophysical Science, several Japanese companies are making efforts to participate in the development of a manned lunar base early in the 21st century. Shimizu Corp., the worlds largest construction company, has opened a space projects office, with an eye toward lunar base and other related concepts." Other companies have set up research grants to plan on building space habitats. (Zubaranov 46k)
Despite their commitment to space, many of our potential competitors have their own problems which also slow down their dreams of manufacturing in space. Japan and Germany (the driving engine in the EU) are facing their own fiscal crisisses. Japan is facing the problem of dealing with a greying population and Germany is still dealing with the problems of reunification. I should mention the Third World, as they are the ones who will not benefit if space mining ever becomes a reality. While many of these countries have valuable resources, none of them has the necessary human capital or economic resources to mount a successful space mining venture of their own. In order to compete with space mining they will probably resort to cutting corners environmentally in order to continue to finance their economic development (see PAPUA1 case). What then will this activity be like, unfortunately the only answers are a few hypothetical responses crafted by men like Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke.
Despite this dearth of information a few educated guesses and suppositions can be made. There are concerns that increased launches of space vehicles will cause weather imbalances as a result of upper atmospheric disturbances caused by expelled rocket fuel, There have been several studies done on this issue but so far the results are inconclusive. On the whole the widespread movement of industry and mining would be seen as a boon to the planet environmentally. All hazardous materials produced would be disposed of either by disposing of it by sending it to the sun or by leaving them at the mining site. While it will be necessary to make sure there is no danger of such materials reentering Earth;s atmosphere, on the whole this concern seem minor compared to our present proliferation of hazardous waste dumps.
The first likely mineral sources in space will be near earth asteroids. While most asteroids which number in the millions are located in a belt between Mars and Jupiter, there are some near neighbors which are highly promising mineral sources. The first two were discovered by NASA JPL scientists who are on constant watch for heavenly bodies which might collide with earth. Using telescopic spectroscopy, which analyzes light reflected from objects, the scientists were able to determine the nickel iron makeup of the two asteroids, known as 1985 EB and 1986DA. Both asteroids are about the same distance from the earth as the moon, though they are not in the lunar orbit. (Ricks 77) More recently 1993 BX3, another near earth metallic asteroid was discovered. This asteroid is a few hundred meters across and ways several million tons. It is estimated that two to three thousand such asteroids are in near earth orbit, though all are not metallic, and thus unsuitable for mining except as a source for stone. (Pockler 14) Why do we need to mine for iron and nickel in outer space? According to most experts we have enough of all major commodities to last at least 300 years. The answer is economic. While the initial construction of space stations dedicated to manufacturing new higher quality goods the costs of maintaining and expanding these initial ventures would be cost prohibitive if materials needed to be sent from Earth. In addition to high tech electronics, water and fuel among other bulk materials will be necessary to sustain the new manufacturing complexes. Water is for most of us a resource we take for granted. However in space it is worth more then it's weight in gold. Besides drinking water can be used to manufacture oxygen, a material which also is bulky in large amounts. John Lewis who works at Arizona State's space research center had this to say about mining."A mine in space would cost millions to operate, but this is far cheaper then the billions it would costs to continuously ferry supplies up to the industrial enterprises. However Lewis does see problems with setting up a lunar mine. While sufficient water is known to exists at the moons poles and deep within craters finding actual mineral deposits could prove tricky. Unlike the earth which concentrates minerals in specific areas by the virtue of volcanic eruptions, the moon is volcanically inactive, so new ways of locating minerals will need to be found. (Gamernman) No statement about the future can be sure to come to pass. However as a recent article dealing with predictions about life 30 years from now that we need to make guesses about the future so that we have some idea of what is likely to happen, and that we can then plan for it. (Coates 51) While much of the preceding has been based on conjecture there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that space exploitation will become a reality within the near future. If the U.S. wishes to attain an integral position in this new area a longer view must be fostered among various private and public organizations. It will be interesting to see if the claims asserted by this study come to pass.

[/SIZE]

 

[Spade]

Alien Spongebob-Squarepants look alikes seen prowling Fresno, California and near Lima, Peru! Call in the NASA animators!
Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country

 

[earth_as_one]

No? How much is your internet bill every month? Do you like cable TV and phoning Australia at any time day or night? That sound commercial to me.

I was talking about humans in space. All the above can be accomplished without putting a person in space.

 

[petros]

The average person ever going to space is a just a big ruse to keep the cash flowing.

 

[lone wolf]

They'll give it some catchy name and fleece space tourists....

 

[earth_as_one]

Mining equipment breaks down like no other. Robots can't fix themselves or make decision at an instant. It takes 30 mins to send a signal to Mars and 30 mins to get one back. The asteroids are another 15 mins away. Only people can do it.

Why do you think they are surrounding Russia and China with missile defense systems? To stop nukes or to prevent Russia and China from getting there first. Same with Iran. The nuke threat is a diversion. You don't need centrifuges and plutonium processing to make a hydrogen bomb do you? Iran and North Korea both launched satellites which is a threat to Space Command. The new military is useless without space. try and fly a predator without satellites.

NASA has already stated the minute they can turn a profit mining space NASA goes privatized. LOOK IT UP and prove me wrong don't just make asshole comments on something you have no idea about.

Hey P, I'm just expressing my opinion. No need to get personal.

Lighten up and read this article:
The Space Review: The new humans vs. robots debate: introducing the FH Prize

Humans have the strengths that you mention, but its still cheaper to send an army of robots into space, than a single human. Humans require all kinds of support systems that robots don't. Robots are expendable and/or can go on one way missions. Humans are less expendable and have to make round trips. Robots can handle longterm weightlessness, exposure to radiation, no atmosphere... and many other space environment stresses much better than humans.

I'm sure we'll eventually find reasons for putting people in space, but most commercial space activities will be done by semi-autonomous robots, like the comunication satellites you mentioned, rovers on Mars or Cassini in orbit around Saturn.

 

[petros]

Most of the satellites up there were put in place by man to ensure a correct alignment and maintenance. It will be a 50/50 split of mining tech and man just like it is on earth already. We've been using robots to mine uranium in SK that is too hot for humans. If a robot dies it stays down there and a new one is sent down but once in a while men still have to go down to production levels and set them up when they get stuck and can't move. those guys get big pay and a month off after just one 12hr shift underground. It's not the technology that is the issues but rock is just damn hard and hard on equipment.

 

[ironsides]

Space will go the ame way as all other new technonlogy. Taxpayers bought the first ships to get to the new world then and shuttle furs back to Europe then they were sold to HBC. Then the taxpayer built the railroads guess what happened? They went private Telegraph...same thing. . Suez and Panama canals who owns those now?Telephone same thing. Former taxpayer highways are now toll roads. It has already happened with satellite telecomm. Next step is the minerals and H3.

Christopher Columbus convinced the Spanish monarchy to underwrite a western expedition to the eastern countries.

The Portuguese all throughout the sixteenth century ruthlessly and aggressively built a monopoly in the spice trade from the east by dominating the trade routes around the continent of Africa. Spain, on the other hand, began thinking of ways to get around this monopoly by developing a western route to the eastern countries.

Business financed the exploration of the "new world", not taxpayers.

 

[earth_as_one]

Yes but government financed research and initial exploration. Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I financed Spain and England's intial explorations. Also Prince Henry the Navigator:
Henry the Navigator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After galleons of gold started coming back from the new world, suddenly more people became interested.

The same will happen with space exploration. Huge profits await, but we need to develop technology first, then discover what's out there and exploitable, then comes commercial exploitation.

 

[ironsides]

You are absolutely right, at some time in the future private enterprise will be the prime motivator for the exploration of space there are vast treasures and knowledge just out there waiting for us. It is already beginning to happen.
SPACE.com -- Paul Allen: Private Spaceflight's Financier