What is the value of the ISS?

On Jul 7, 2008, at 9:00 PM, ANTIcarrot wrote:

> > From: Joe Strout
> > Sure. But do we have the equivalent of a $20k machine-built car in
> > space? No, we don't, so let's not claim that the hand-built
> > SUV is no better than no vehicle at all.
>
> Nuh uh. That's a shell game. Mir was deorbited BECAUSE the ISS was
> going to
> replace it. Without the ISS they would have found some way to keep
> it going.
>

Maybe -- or maybe it was deorbited because it was falling apart.

> You are mixing your metaphors. Mir was designed to be assembled via
> automated docking. ISS was designed to be completely dependent on
> the US
> shuttle. NASA threw out a working and proven automatic docking
> system to
> give the shuttle a reason for existing. That is what I mean by 'hand
> built'.
> As another engineer, I appreciate the need to hand build prototypes.
> But
> it's still stupid to *destroy* a working CNC machine and light bulbs
> simply
> so you can practice your craft skills by candle light.
>

That's a fair point.
> I wasn't referring exclusively to the station but the shuttle as
> well. There
>
> is no reason for the US manned space programme to cost $10B a year
> when
> multiple design studies going back decades show the R&D cost of a
> fully
> reusable low cost launcher is in the $1-10B range in current money.
> Immortal
> mathematics (combined with real world data) show it doesn't require
> new
> technologies or materials either. Paying that once is in the region
> of any
> G8 nation, and several others, as are the $100M annual costs for a
> low-cost
> programme. Try and explain this though and the answer is, "Surely
> NASA can't
> be that stupid..." If NASA wasn't continually 'proving' space travel
> is
> impossibly expensive, and obstructing competition, there might have
> been a
> lot more interest over the past couple of decades.
>

I don't buy that. There are plenty of nations quite willing to
believe that NASA (and America in general) is stupid, and would be
delighted to prove it. If they saw a way to duplicate or exceed
NASA's capabilities for much less money, they'd be doing it. China's
the only one that's even come close -- using basically cloned Russian
technology, far cheaper than the STS -- and even so, they only manage
one launch every couple years.

> You can't use real history to predetermine the outcome of a what-if.
> If it
> was anything other than space travel, I'm not certain you would
> question the
> notion that 'if American doesn't, someone else will', or that
> monopolies are
> really bad for advancement.
>

I've never questioned that monopolies are really bad for advancement.
I'm certainly not a big fan of NASA as it actually does business,
either. But to say that NASA does nothing or that ISS has zero value
is going way past reason into frothing-at-the-mouth territory.

> > But that's easy to say in a hand-wavy, ignoring-the-details
> > sort of way. To do it real life requires mastery of many
> > thousands of
> > details, and that mastery comes from experience in actually reaching
> > and operating in space.
>
> Most of those skills are present in any aerospace company. Those
> that aren't
> (handling LOX for example) can easily be contracted for. You're taking
> proven engines and firmly attaching them to a well built fuel tank.
>

You seem to be talking about building rockets. I'm talking about
working in space. This is difficult, and while you can simulate some
aspects of it on Earth, all those simulations fall short in one way or
another. There is no good substitute for actually having boots on
orbit on a daily basis.

> > If you're talking about Bigelow's crafts, they don't count because
> > they do not (and can not) support humans.
>
> True, but they're only short a few dozen kilos of life support. If
> he wanted
> to Bigelow could put up another one tomorrow that could support
> people.
>
> I mentioned them only to show that ISS technology is already
> redundant. It's
> been over taken by something better.
>

Are you really going to claim that an inflatable space station has
nothing in common with ISS? Not life support? Microgravity? Docking
procedures? Power production & distribution? Navigation & control?
Airlocks? Working in a spacesuit? Dealing with unforeseen glitches?
Communications? Nothing at all?

> Oh, and out of interest: How exactly would one go about benefiting
> from ISS
> experience with (say) the common birthing module? If that's top
> secret what
> are the chances that private industry can obtain enough information
> about
> more important ISS systems for the 'experience' to be at all useful
> to them?
>

You at once gloss over some details while focussing too much on
others. Yes, experience with some *particular* technology will not
necessarily transfer in its particulars, just as experience with some
particular assembly language construct will not be of much use when
you move to C. What's important is the experience of space operations
in general, just as years of programming in assembly makes you a
better C programmer, because you know what sort of problems to watch
out for, how to avoid them or solve them when they come up, etc.

Best,
- Joe