Comments on Dr Park's Testimony
Tom Abbott
http://www.reston.com/rif/congress/04.09.97.park.html
Testimony of
ROBERT L. PARK
Department of Physics
University of Maryland, College Park
before the
COMMITTEE On SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
concerning
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
9 April 1997
"it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
"What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
is widely perceived to be a science project?"
Dr. Park, I would suggest the opposition is based on the concern
that money which goes to the space station isn't going to other
research. A basic human instinct: "mine is more important than
your's."
"Our first space station, Skylab, was abandoned in 1974 because the
scientific return did not justify the cost of maintaining it."
Skylab wasn't abandoned, some dunderhead miscalculated when the
shuttle would be ready to reboost Skylab, and we didn't get back up
into orbit in time.
"What has been learned from Skylab, 83 Shuttle missions and a decade
of Russian experience on board Mir?
The micro gravity environment has been found to be far more
deleterious to human health than anyone had suspected.
Osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, diminished immune function and
chronic diarrhea have been carefully documented. Another 19 years
of urine assays on a space station is not going to tell us much we
don't already know."
These are just the kinds of things we need to learn and can only be
learned by doing them in space. If these deleterious effects prove to
be too great--and this hasn't been proven yet--then we move on to
providing ourselves with artificial "gravity" on our space station to
mitigate or eliminate these health effects. It's part of the learning
and enabling process which will allow humans to operate in the space
environment, and it can't be done any other way than in space.
"Astronauts in Earth orbit are exposed to cosmic and solar ionizing
radiation at levels far greater than we tolerate for workers in the
nuclear industry -- levels large enough to raise serious concerns
about central nervous system damage. The recent discovery of radiation
damage to laptop computers on Mir should serve as a warning."
Do you know of any astronauts or cosmonauts with serious health
problems related to long stays in space? I'm told by some nuclear
workers that their exposure level requirments are set artificially
low.
"The risk of a catastrophic encounter with orbital debris has grown
substantially since 1984. Plans call for the station to maneuver
out of the path of debris large enough to track, but smaller debris
can still penetrate the hull. The National Academy of Sciences
recently cautioned that there is a significant risk (to the ISS) of
being struck by potentially damaging meteoroids or orbital debris."
So what's the solution, don't go into space anymore? I don't think
so. If this problem is so serious, it can be mitigated by adding
layers of "tinfoil," wirescreen, or something similar to the modules.
This is not a showstopper.
"During the period that these missions have been underway, enormous
progress has been made in robotic technology. In particular,
telerobotics allows us to couple the creativity of the human brain
to machines that function unimpaired in environments humans cannot
endure. We continue to design better robots --humans, by contrast,
have not changed appreciably in 35,000 years. There no longer
seems to be any need to expose humans, willing or not, to space
environment."
You and Presidential Science Advisor Gibbons must get along
famously. He wants to explore the universe via "virtual reality" from
his couch like you. It will never happen in this way. Humans are
going into the universe, it's just a matter of time. They'll take
cameras with them.
"Micro gravity is the only unique property of a space station
environment,"
A staging base to the rest of the solar system is also a unique
property of a space station environment. The most important one.
" Time to Rethink
The failure of Russia to stand by its commitment to the space station
has resulted in a delay of at least seven months in the start of
construction. The time should be used to reevaluate what we are doing.
A panel of distinguished scientists who are not involved in the
program should be convened to evaluate the International Space
Station."
You would love that, wouldn't you! I wouldn't be surprised if those
non-involved scientists thought their particular area of science
endeavour was more important than a space station. Would you?
" Their charge should be to address whether the science planned for
the space station is the best that can be done in that environment,
but whether it justifies the diversion of resources from other space
research.
The heart of Dr Park's complaint. His "other" space research
meaning "unmanned."
" If this is simply an exercise in international cooperation, we
should say so and drop the pretense of scientific research."
It should be an exercise in establishing a foothold in low-Earth
orbit for the United States. Every other consideration, including
politics or its science value, should be secondary. Of course, this
basic space station doesn't require $40 billion, either. :)
I would argue that the parts of the space station which establishes
a US manned presence in low-Earth orbit are crucial to US national
interests, and MUST be put in orbit. You can argue about whether all
the addons to a basic space station are worth what is being spent on
them, and could make some good points, but I would take issue if you
argue against a basic manned space station.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
Graham Nelson
In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, Tom Abbott
<URL:mailto:tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> ROBERT L. PARK
> 9 April 1997:
> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>
> "What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
> is widely perceived to be a science project?"
>
> Dr. Park, I would suggest the opposition is based on the concern
> that money which goes to the space station isn't going to other
> research. A basic human instinct: "mine is more important than
> your's."
This is unfair (though your other rebuttals of Dr Park's remarks
are nearer the mark). The scientific justification for the space
station (or indeed the Shuttle) is close to nil, when the cost is
considered. If you gave any committee of scientists on Earth
a total of 18 billion dollars, they would not choose to spend 17
of them on a laboratory for microgravity research and divide the
rest up amongst every other discipline.
It's interesting to compare ISS in this regard with particle
accelerator projects: the proposed US super-accelerator
(priced I think at about 6 billion dollars, abandoned after 2)
would have significantly advanced theoretical physics, as
generations of ground-breaking accelerators have shown. Even these
laboratories are white elephants to some, but they've produced
important new thinking in physics, and earned numerous Nobel
prizes.
Whereas I can't think of even one mildly important paper resulting
from microgravity research, important that is to the scientific
community beyond. (Space research, yes; ISS-style research, no.)
I wish it were otherwise.
It seems now to be mandatory for NASA to contradict this impression
whenever possible -- the close of every paragraph in the last run
of Shuttle payload status reports tended to be something like "this
will lead directly to a cure for cancer and the end of poverty".
If an astronaut strikes a match, we are dutifully reminded that
fire causes widespread damage across the U.S.
So what's my point? I am in favour of ISS, unlike Dr Park, but
because I am in favour of human space-flight. He is quite right
that science is a desirable fringe-benefit of ISS and not its
justification: it's a shame NASA doesn't feel able to say this.
I wonder if any Congressmen are genuinely taken in by the "science"
rhetoric?
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Jim Kingdon
> Whereas I can't think of even one mildly important paper resulting
> from microgravity research, important that is to the scientific
> community beyond.
Well, protein crystals seem to be the most clear counterexample. Even
the scientists who had been skeptical are starting to buy the notion
that they are useful (or so is my impression based on secondhand
summaries of what places like _Science_ and _Nature_ have been saying;
I am a bit embarrased to admit it but I haven't looked up the articles
myself).
As for the rest, I dunno. Has any of the combustion stuff helped
design furnances here on earth or is that just hype? There is an
issue here about how we define "science" but it is not clear that the
only valuable research is the most basic theoretical research.
There is also an issue of whether the research is promising but has
yet to make a "big discovery" (e.g. zeolite research perhaps). If so
one would want to keep doing a variety of experiments in the hopes
that some of them pan out.
> The scientific justification for the space station (or indeed the
> Shuttle) is close to nil, when the cost is considered.
Well, lacking a fully costed funding structure it is very hard to put
a dollar figure on "scientific justification". It is awfully hard to
justify station and shuttle on science alone, but that is not the same
as saying that the science offers no justification at all.
Steinn Sigurdsson
tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
> Testimony of
> ROBERT L. PARK
> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
As an American Physical Society member I disagree with
this position of the society.
However, on a more serious note, just recently people have
started to realise some science uses for a permanently
manned space station (which may not justify the facility
by them selves, but which would provide part rationale
- the total justification for a space station is not
simply scientific).
Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
anxiety that deployment could easily fail - if the
telescope (and similar successor satellites which are
increasingly going to have to rely on folded or assembled
designs unless someone comes up with a bigger payload
faring real soon) could deploy in LEO, and be verified
by humans at the point of unfolding, and then be moved
with low force thrusters to its operational orbit, this
could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
IMHO.
Jim Kingdon
> Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
> deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
> deploy in LEO, and be verified by humans at the point of unfolding,
> and then be moved with low force thrusters to its operational orbit,
> this could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
The cost of a single shuttle launch exceeds the entire budget which is
contemplated for NGST. Furthermore, having humans on the scene is no
assurance that everything would work right. If there is a problem,
humans might be able to fix it, but might not.
If this is a concern you are better off with something like: (1) test
the deployment first, perhaps as part of a program like New Millenium,
and/or (2) build several space telescopes (although the funding
structure for that is another complicated issue).
I can sort of maybe see a value for this kind of "human-assisted
deployment" notion, but definitely not at shuttle prices.
Steinn Sigurdsson
kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) writes:
> > Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
> > deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
> > anxiety that deployment could easily fail . . .
> > deploy in LEO, and be verified by humans at the point of unfolding,
> > and then be moved with low force thrusters to its operational orbit,
> > this could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
> The cost of a single shuttle launch exceeds the entire budget which is
> contemplated for NGST. Furthermore, having humans on the scene is no
> assurance that everything would work right. If there is a problem,
> humans might be able to fix it, but might not.
If there are humans on the scene we might know what goes
wrong and learn from it, even if we can't fix it.
The point is not to justify a space station solely for
NGST deployment, but the point that if one exists anyway,
then its additional science benefits might be substantial.
> If this is a concern you are better off with something like: (1) test
> the deployment first, perhaps as part of a program like New Millenium,
Yeah right. You could also propose to build a heavy launcher
that could deploy a large single mirror telescope.
> and/or (2) build several space telescopes (although the funding
> structure for that is another complicated issue).
I wish. The way funding is currently assigned, if several
telescopes were built and all launched successfully
then there would be no money to actually operate them
and do data analysis.
> I can sort of maybe see a value for this kind of "human-assisted
> deployment" notion, but definitely not at shuttle prices.
And so we go round again... how are costs to come down
without someone paying the price of going up the learning
curve and figuring the cheap & easy way of doing things
by making a few mistakes...
pat
In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>"it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>
>"What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
>is widely perceived to be a science project?"
the fact that ISSA isn't a science project?
ISSA is
1) an aerospace welfare program
2) a foreign policy program.
3) a nationalist ambition program.
science is it's smallest by-product.
>"What has been learned from Skylab, 83 Shuttle missions and a decade
>of Russian experience on board Mir?
>
> The micro gravity environment has been found to be far more
> deleterious to human health than anyone had suspected.
> Osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, diminished immune function and
> chronic diarrhea have been carefully documented. Another 19 years
>of urine assays on a space station is not going to tell us much we
>don't already know."
>
> These are just the kinds of things we need to learn and can only be
>learned by doing them in space. If these deleterious effects prove to
>be too great--and this hasn't been proven yet--then we move on to
>providing ourselves with artificial "gravity" on our space station to
>mitigate or eliminate these health effects. It's part of the learning
>and enabling process which will allow humans to operate in the space
>environment, and it can't be done any other way than in space.
ISSA will consume over $100 billion dollars over the next 15 years.
The Human Genome Project is the largest medical research project at
the NIH. THis costs abotu $4 Billion. You are suggesting we cancel
25 HGP's, in favor of your program. sorry, i can get 10,000 scientists
to say HGP's are more important.
given teh basic research grant is 50K, that feeds a lot of scientists.
>"Micro gravity is the only unique property of a space station
>environment,"
>
> A staging base to the rest of the solar system is also a unique
>property of a space station environment. The most important one.
ISSA will not serve to stage anything except lunch.
>" Their charge should be to address whether the science planned for
>the space station is the best that can be done in that environment,
>but whether it justifies the diversion of resources from other space
>research.
>
> The heart of Dr Park's complaint. His "other" space research
>meaning "unmanned."
well for the price of ISSA, we can have Ten HST's, 25 Galileo's,
200 Pluto Expresses,,,,
>
>" If this is simply an exercise in international cooperation, we
>should say so and drop the pretense of scientific research."
>
> It should be an exercise in establishing a foothold in low-Earth
>orbit for the United States. Every other consideration, including
>politics or its science value, should be secondary. Of course, this
>basic space station doesn't require $40 billion, either. :)
so you admit the science is secondary, now you wonder why the scientists
are ticked.
>
> I would argue that the parts of the space station which establishes
>a US manned presence in low-Earth orbit are crucial to US national
>interests, and MUST be put in orbit. You can argue about whether all
>the addons to a basic space station are worth what is being spent on
>them, and could make some good points, but I would take issue if you
>argue against a basic manned space station.
the addons are teh science mission, the basic station will still
consume $100 billion.
what a deal.
now if we cancelt eh F-22, then we have osme money.
pat
Jim Kingdon
> And so we go round again... how are costs [of human-assisted
> deployment] to come down without someone paying the price of going
> up the learning curve and figuring the cheap & easy way of doing
> things by making a few mistakes...
There is no significant learning curve and corresponding cost
reduction without volume. And scientific missions alone will never
produce that kind of volume. You need something such as interest from
makers of communications satellites (but they seem quite content with
automated deployment, it seems). Even this is a pretty small volume
in the context of looking for a learning curve.
I'm still not convinced that human-assisted deployment will be better
than than automated deployment, even given space tourism or some other
scenario which has lots of humans in LEO, cheaply, but it is pretty
hard to know what cost structures will be like in a hypothetical cases
like that.
Keith Cowing
In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
Abbott) wrote:
Thanks Tom!
I will have an annotated version of Dr. Park's testimony online in a day
or so - complete with rebuttals for this year's incarnation of his annual
dump on space station.
Note a slight address change - part of the transition to NASA WAtch - a
modified version of this statement is online at
http://www.reston.com/nasa/congress/04.09.97.park.html You can also see
it on the House Science Committee's website.
> http://www.reston.com/rif/congress/04.09.97.park.html
>
>
> Testimony of
>
> ROBERT L. PARK
> Department of Physics
> University of Maryland, College Park
>
--
The Astrobiology Web - http://www.astrobiology.com
NASA Watch - http://www.reston.com/rif/watch.html
Space Policy Update - http://www.astrobiology.com/policy/index.html
The Whole Mars Catalog - http://www.astrobiology.com/mars/catalog.html
Tom Abbott
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, Tom Abbott
><URL:mailto:tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>> ROBERT L. PARK
>> 9 April 1997:
>> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>>
>> "What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
>> is widely perceived to be a science project?"
>>
>> Dr. Park, I would suggest the opposition is based on the concern
>> that money which goes to the space station isn't going to other
>> research. A basic human instinct: "mine is more important than
>> your's."
>This is unfair (though your other rebuttals of Dr Park's remarks
>are nearer the mark).
Graham, I don't know what's unfair about it, all I did was call him
a human with human instincts. :)
> The scientific justification for the space
>station (or indeed the Shuttle) is close to nil, when the cost is
>considered. If you gave any committee of scientists on Earth
>a total of 18 billion dollars, they would not choose to spend 17
>of them on a laboratory for microgravity research and divide the
>rest up amongst every other discipline.
You may be right about that. After we get a minimal space station
in orbit, I would be agreeable to having all the science expenditures
for the space station scrutinized to see if the space station is the
best place to do the science.
>It's interesting to compare ISS in this regard with particle
>accelerator projects: the proposed US super-accelerator
>(priced I think at about 6 billion dollars, abandoned after 2)
>would have significantly advanced theoretical physics, as
>generations of ground-breaking accelerators have shown. Even these
>laboratories are white elephants to some, but they've produced
>important new thinking in physics, and earned numerous Nobel
>prizes.
>Whereas I can't think of even one mildly important paper resulting
>from microgravity research, important that is to the scientific
>community beyond. (Space research, yes; ISS-style research, no.)
>I wish it were otherwise.
Well, microgravity really hasn't had a chance to get off the ground
on the American side. Two weeks in a shuttle is minimal time on orbit
and many processes need longer times. I think we can't judge until we
get a permanent space station. The Russians have been doing some
microgravity work on Mir and claim they are getting good results, but
I couldn't confirm or deny that. But I suspect if the US had a
laboratory in orbit, our microgravity efforts would eclipse the Russia
Mir effort by a substantial margin. In other words, I don't think
Russia has put a lot of money into microgravity research on Mir so I
don't think we can condemn microgravity research using the scant
evidence provided by the shuttle or Mir.
>It seems now to be mandatory for NASA to contradict this impression
>whenever possible -- the close of every paragraph in the last run
>of Shuttle payload status reports tended to be something like "this
>will lead directly to a cure for cancer and the end of poverty".
>If an astronaut strikes a match, we are dutifully reminded that
>fire causes widespread damage across the U.S.
You can't blame NASA for putting the best light on things, and I
believe they have had some recent news on microgravity advances.
>So what's my point? I am in favour of ISS, unlike Dr Park, but
>because I am in favour of human space-flight. He is quite right
>that science is a desirable fringe-benefit of ISS and not its
>justification:
All three of us agree on this. :)
> it's a shame NASA doesn't feel able to say this.
It's a shame they don't plan the space station that way: going from
the basic space station, to what can be done with a basic space
station. NASA seems to have started out with the science and then
tried to plan a space station around that, and forgot the propulsion
units.
>I wonder if any Congressmen are genuinely taken in by the "science"
>rhetoric?
As long as they'll fund a basic space station, it doesn't really
matter.
Tom Abbott
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
>> Testimony of
>> ROBERT L. PARK
>> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>As an American Physical Society member I disagree with
>this position of the society.
>However, on a more serious note, just recently people have
>started to realise some science uses for a permanently
>manned space station (which may not justify the facility
>by them selves, but which would provide part rationale
> - the total justification for a space station is not
>simply scientific).
>Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
>deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
>anxiety that deployment could easily fail - if the
>telescope (and similar successor satellites which are
>increasingly going to have to rely on folded or assembled
>designs unless someone comes up with a bigger payload
>faring real soon) could deploy in LEO, and be verified
>by humans at the point of unfolding, and then be moved
>with low force thrusters to its operational orbit, this
>could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
>IMHO.
Steinn, NASA could take the Interim Control Module they're
considering building to supply guidance and control for the space
station, and move your telescopes around with that, when not needed
for the space station.
A Shuttle-C side-mount cargo container could easily be sized to 30
or 40 feet in diameter.
Tom Abbott
p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>>
>>http://www.reston.com/rif/congress/04.09.97.park.html
>>
>>
>>Testimony of
>>
>> ROBERT L. PARK
>>"it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>>scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>>manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>>
>>"What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
>>is widely perceived to be a science project?"
>the fact that ISSA isn't a science project?
>ISSA is
>1) an aerospace welfare program
>2) a foreign policy program.
>3) a nationalist ambition program.
>science is it's smallest by-product.
>>"What has been learned from Skylab, 83 Shuttle missions and a decade
>>of Russian experience on board Mir?
>>
>> The micro gravity environment has been found to be far more
>> deleterious to human health than anyone had suspected.
>> Osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, diminished immune function and
>> chronic diarrhea have been carefully documented. Another 19 years
>>of urine assays on a space station is not going to tell us much we
>>don't already know."
>>
>> These are just the kinds of things we need to learn and can only be
>>learned by doing them in space. If these deleterious effects prove to
>>be too great--and this hasn't been proven yet--then we move on to
>>providing ourselves with artificial "gravity" on our space station to
>>mitigate or eliminate these health effects. It's part of the learning
>>and enabling process which will allow humans to operate in the space
>>environment, and it can't be done any other way than in space.
>ISSA will consume over $100 billion dollars over the next 15 years.
>The Human Genome Project is the largest medical research project at
>the NIH. THis costs abotu $4 Billion. You are suggesting we cancel
>25 HGP's, in favor of your program. sorry, i can get 10,000 scientists
>to say HGP's are more important.
No, Pat, I'm suggesting a basic space station doesn't have to cost
$100 billion over its lifetime, $10 billion would probably cover it.
Most of the $100 billion is not going toward establishing the basic
space station, but is for science. I propose we seperate the actual
construction costs from the science costs and maybe we can get a
clearer picture of just where waste may be found.
>given teh basic research grant is 50K, that feeds a lot of scientists.
>>"Micro gravity is the only unique property of a space station
>>environment,"
>>
>> A staging base to the rest of the solar system is also a unique
>>property of a space station environment. The most important one.
>ISSA will not serve to stage anything except lunch.
It would be nice if you would support your contention. Don't you
think you owe an explanation?
>>" Their charge should be to address whether the science planned for
>>the space station is the best that can be done in that environment,
>>but whether it justifies the diversion of resources from other space
>>research.
>>
>> The heart of Dr Park's complaint. His "other" space research
>>meaning "unmanned."
>well for the price of ISSA, we can have Ten HST's, 25 Galileo's,
>200 Pluto Expresses,,,,
You are talking about the ISSA "Program." The actual basic space
station is a small percentage of the total money spent.
>>
>>" If this is simply an exercise in international cooperation, we
>>should say so and drop the pretense of scientific research."
>>
>> It should be an exercise in establishing a foothold in low-Earth
>>orbit for the United States. Every other consideration, including
>>politics or its science value, should be secondary. Of course, this
>>basic space station doesn't require $40 billion, either. :)
>so you admit the science is secondary,
You imply that I said otherwise at sometime? I never have.
> now you wonder why the scientists
>are ticked.
What I say is the science and everything else about the space
station is secondary to building the basic space station, for the
simple reason that all the politics and science will never happen
until the basic space station is established. The basic space station
is the main goal to accomplish, then come the secondary considerations
such as science. This doesn't mean the science is unimportant, just
second in importance.
>>
>> I would argue that the parts of the space station which establishes
>>a US manned presence in low-Earth orbit are crucial to US national
>>interests, and MUST be put in orbit. You can argue about whether all
>>the addons to a basic space station are worth what is being spent on
>>them, and could make some good points, but I would take issue if you
>>argue against a basic manned space station.
>the addons are teh science mission, the basic station will still
>consume $100 billion.
The basic space station won't cost nearly that much.
>what a deal.
Here's everything required for a basic space station (this assumes
the shuttle can refuel the FGB, and the FGB has been upgraded to
control the space station at this stage of construction):
Space Shuttle///FGB///US Node 1///US Laboratory Module
Costs:
FGB (includes upgrade of $35 million) = $250 million
US Node 1 = $1 billion
US Laboratory Module = $2 billion
Z-1 Truss, Solar Panels, and Heat Radiators = $500 million
Shuttle refueling upgrade = $50 million?
Two Soyuz return vehicles = $20 million
Launch costs = $1.34 billion (2 Protons @ $100 million each and 3
shuttle launches @ $380 million per launch (USA figures).
Total = $5.54 billion
Now, Pat, $5.54 billion is a lot less than the $40 billion total
hardware and launch costs for ISSA. And the basic space station could
be operated for a lot less than ISSA's estimated $1.4 billion per
year. A years worth of supplies for six astronauts plus their
salaries doesn't amount to a whole lot.
Since we already have the US Node 2, the US Habitation Module, and the
remainder of the solar panels paid for, we might as well add it to the
space station, too, like this (this assumes Dan Goldin has enough
sense to specifiy that the FGB also be able to handle the addtion of
the Node 2 and Habitation Module):
Shuttle///FGB///US Node 1///US Lab///US Node 2///US Habitation Module
The US Node 2 costs about $1 billion and the US Habitation Module cost
about $2 billion and the solar panels about $1 billion so this
configuration costs about $10.54 billion (includes two shuttle
launches).
Now, some people want to siphon off money from the shuttle and space
station programs to use for such things as developing
cheaper-access-to-space vehicles, so I would say they have plenty of
programs to look at out of the $100 billion being planned to be spent
on the space station over 10 years, and the annual shuttle budget of
$3.2 billion. All the space station program needs is about $10
billion in hardware (which has already been spent) and two shuttle or
equivalent launches per year to keep a crew on it. The rest of the
shuttle and space station programs should be available for
modification if a better use can be found for the money.
Have at it.
Frank Crary
In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>,
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>Testimony of
> ROBERT L. PARK
> Department of Physics
> University of Maryland, College Park
> before the
> COMMITTEE On SCIENCE
> SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
> concerning
> THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
> 9 April 1997
>"it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
Well, it looks like Park is being true to his typical form. For those
who haven't heard of him, he sends (or sent, I haven't seen one
recently) out email news summaries to APS members. While they are
often entertaining (if you agree with him), they also tend to
be very opinionated and not all that careful about the facts.
The nice thing about them is that the tend to get people thinking
or arguing about the related issues, even if their information
content is debatable. Now this same Robert Park has made some
statements before Congress, which are opinionated and contain
factual errors. After his comments were posted to this newsgroup,
I notice a significant amount of debate, which is, in general,
more interesting and accurate than Park's original comments...
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Steinn Sigurdsson
tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
> >> Testimony of
> >> ROBERT L. PARK
> >> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
> >> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
> >> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
> >As an American Physical Society member I disagree with
> >this position of the society.
...
> >Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
> >deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
> >anxiety that deployment could easily fail - if the
> >telescope (and similar successor satellites which are
> >increasingly going to have to rely on folded or assembled
> >designs unless someone comes up with a bigger payload
> >faring real soon) could deploy in LEO, and be verified
> >by humans at the point of unfolding, and then be moved
> >with low force thrusters to its operational orbit, this
> >could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
> >IMHO.
> Steinn, NASA could take the Interim Control Module they're
> considering building to supply guidance and control for the space
> station, and move your telescopes around with that, when not needed
> for the space station.
Maybe, What thrusters does it have,
NGST need to get a long way out, and the optics
must not be contaminated by thruster exhaust.
Ion thrusters would seem the best bet for station keeping
and possibly for deployment from LEO.
> A Shuttle-C side-mount cargo container could easily be sized to 30
> or 40 feet in diameter.
If anyone builds one we'll know.
Best current suggestion I've heard for a single
mirror deployment is to develope a "wide" faring
for Ariane.
pat
In article <lkiv1rg...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>, ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk
says...
>> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>
>this position of the society.
>started to realise some science uses for a permanently
>manned space station (which may not justify the facility
>by them selves, but which would provide part rationale
>simply scientific).
>
>Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
>deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
>anxiety that deployment could easily fail - if the
>telescope (and similar successor satellites which are
>increasingly going to have to rely on folded or assembled
>designs unless someone comes up with a bigger payload
>faring real soon) could deploy in LEO, and be verified
>by humans at the point of unfolding, and then be moved
>with low force thrusters to its operational orbit, this
>could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
>IMHO.
Couldn't we do that with STS? Why do we need ISSA to do this?
If it's such a risk, why not build a prototype scope, fly that on
an ELV, and determine the exact risks in LEO, without humans in
the first place?
pat
pat
In article <lkybam7...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>, ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk
says...
>
>kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) writes:
>> The cost of a single shuttle launch exceeds the entire budget which is
>> contemplated for NGST. Furthermore, having humans on the scene is no
>> assurance that everything would work right. If there is a problem,
>> humans might be able to fix it, but might not.
>
>If there are humans on the scene we might know what goes
>wrong and learn from it, even if we can't fix it.
>The point is not to justify a space station solely for
>NGST deployment, but the point that if one exists anyway,
>then its additional science benefits might be substantial.
Pro : CGRO contingency EVA to fix stuck antenna.
Con : HST spherical aberration.
Moral : Humans are handy, but terribly expensive and no assurance of success.
>> If this is a concern you are better off with something like: (1) test
>> the deployment first, perhaps as part of a program like New Millenium,
>
>Yeah right. You could also propose to build a heavy launcher
>that could deploy a large single mirror telescope.
HLV 2-4 Billion dollars. DDTE.
STS Mission : 0.5 - 2 Billion O&M/mission.
NGST $300-500 Million DDTE (Plus launch).
New Millenium $80-150 Million (DDTE, Launch and O&M)
Discovery >$120 Million (Launch + operations).
Gee, unless you want to write a check, you can see what's affordable.
>> I can sort of maybe see a value for this kind of "human-assisted
>> deployment" notion, but definitely not at shuttle prices.
>
>And so we go round again... how are costs to come down
>without someone paying the price of going up the learning
>curve and figuring the cheap & easy way of doing things
>by making a few mistakes...
for 20 years almost we've been looking for cheap ways on the shuttle,
and not finding them. Logic would dictate that the problem is the
shuttle system.
Steinn Sigurdsson
prb(@)clark.net (pat) writes:
> Couldn't we do that with STS? Why do we need ISSA to do this?
Probably take longer than a single flight to be sure
to do it properly.
> If it's such a risk, why not build a prototype scope, fly that on
> an ELV, and determine the exact risks in LEO, without humans in
> the first place?
Because the US government in its infinite wisdom
does not do such things anymore.
Steinn Sigurdsson
prb(@)clark.net (pat) writes:
> In article <lkybam7...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>, ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk
> says...
> >kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) writes:
> >> The cost of a single shuttle launch exceeds the entire budget which is
> >> contemplated for NGST. Furthermore, having humans on the scene is no
> >> assurance that everything would work right. If there is a problem,
> >> humans might be able to fix it, but might not.
> >If there are humans on the scene we might know what goes
> >wrong and learn from it, even if we can't fix it.
> >The point is not to justify a space station solely for
> >NGST deployment, but the point that if one exists anyway,
> >then its additional science benefits might be substantial.
> Pro : CGRO contingency EVA to fix stuck antenna.
One would have been handy for Galileo too.
> Con : HST spherical aberration.
Funny, as I recall that was fixed by humans.
Couple of folks popped up and replaced the optical relays.
> Moral : Humans are handy, but terribly expensive and no assurance of success.
There are no guarantees.
> >> If this is a concern you are better off with something like: (1) test
> >> the deployment first, perhaps as part of a program like New Millenium,
> >Yeah right. You could also propose to build a heavy launcher
> >that could deploy a large single mirror telescope.
> HLV 2-4 Billion dollars. DDTE.
> STS Mission : 0.5 - 2 Billion O&M/mission.
> NGST $300-500 Million DDTE (Plus launch).
> New Millenium $80-150 Million (DDTE, Launch and O&M)
> Discovery >$120 Million (Launch + operations).
> Gee, unless you want to write a check, you can see what's affordable.
NGST is too big for discovery. New Millennium missions may
be proposed to test some of the technology for NGST but there
is the usual catch that there are essentially no engineering
test beds and no one wants their science mission mucked up by
someone elses test for a future mission.
Realistically NGST is close to 500M than 300M, construction
and instrumentation, not counting MODA, but, as I recall,
including launch.
STS costs a lot, but for science it is free. Not my accounting,
but I don't think for an instance shutting STS or ISSA would
free the money up for science missions, quite the contrary.
HLV is vapourware. I don't believe that development cost,
and NGST sure as hell doesn't justify such development by itself.
If someone else needs 10m farings and _low_ launch mass, well
that'd be great, but no one is holding their breath.
pat
In article <5irvtj$7...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <5ioe3q$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, Tom Abbott
>>> "it is the official view of the American Physical Society that
>>> scientific justification is lacking for a permanently
>>> manned space station in Earth orbit." . . .
>>>
>>> "What is the basis for such intense opposition of scientists to what
>>> is widely perceived to be a science project?"
>>>
>>> Dr. Park, I would suggest the opposition is based on the concern
>>> that money which goes to the space station isn't going to other
>>> research. A basic human instinct: "mine is more important than
>>> your's."
>
>>are nearer the mark).
>
> Graham, I don't know what's unfair about it, all I did was call him
>a human with human instincts. :)
>
>> The scientific justification for the space
>>station (or indeed the Shuttle) is close to nil, when the cost is
>>considered. If you gave any committee of scientists on Earth
>>a total of 18 billion dollars, they would not choose to spend 17
>>of them on a laboratory for microgravity research and divide the
>>rest up amongst every other discipline.
>
> You may be right about that. After we get a minimal space station
>in orbit, I would be agreeable to having all the science expenditures
>for the space station scrutinized to see if the space station is the
>best place to do the science.
>
Translation : Tom knows there isn't any science justification for
a space station, he just wants one for political reasons and that's
all. I guess he thinks it frightens off space elephants.
> Well, microgravity really hasn't had a chance to get off the ground
>on the American side. Two weeks in a shuttle is minimal time on orbit
>and many processes need longer times. I think we can't judge until we
>get a permanent space station. The Russians have been doing some
>microgravity work on Mir and claim they are getting good results, but
>I couldn't confirm or deny that. But I suspect if the US had a
>laboratory in orbit, our microgravity efforts would eclipse the Russia
I don't know, I'm guessing, but it doesn't matter, because the
science program is ir-relevant to the station anyways.
>>It seems now to be mandatory for NASA to contradict this impression
>>whenever possible -- the close of every paragraph in the last run
>>of Shuttle payload status reports tended to be something like "this
>>will lead directly to a cure for cancer and the end of poverty".
>>If an astronaut strikes a match, we are dutifully reminded that
>>fire causes widespread damage across the U.S.
>
> You can't blame NASA for putting the best light on things, and I
>believe they have had some recent news on microgravity advances.
was that the pepsi experiment or the pudding experiment?
>
>>I wonder if any Congressmen are genuinely taken in by the "science"
>>rhetoric?
>
> As long as they'll fund a basic space station, it doesn't really
>matter.
>
As long as they ride your hobby horse, you don't care how much
it costs.
pat
pat
In article <5is71g$8...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>>> These are just the kinds of things we need to learn and can only be
>>>learned by doing them in space. If these deleterious effects prove to
>>>be too great--and this hasn't been proven yet--then we move on to
>>>providing ourselves with artificial "gravity" on our space station to
>>>mitigate or eliminate these health effects. It's part of the learning
>>>and enabling process which will allow humans to operate in the space
>>>environment, and it can't be done any other way than in space.
>
>>ISSA will consume over $100 billion dollars over the next 15 years.
>>The Human Genome Project is the largest medical research project at
>>the NIH. THis costs abotu $4 Billion. You are suggesting we cancel
>>25 HGP's, in favor of your program. sorry, i can get 10,000 scientists
>>to say HGP's are more important.
>
> No, Pat, I'm suggesting a basic space station doesn't have to cost
>$100 billion over its lifetime, $10 billion would probably cover it.
>Most of the $100 billion is not going toward establishing the basic
>space station, but is for science. I propose we seperate the actual
>construction costs from the science costs and maybe we can get a
>clearer picture of just where waste may be found.
maybe, but you hate it when I do accounting, and what you do, would
get real fiduciaries sent to jail.
>
>>>"Micro gravity is the only unique property of a space station
>>>environment,"
>>>
>>> A staging base to the rest of the solar system is also a unique
>>>property of a space station environment. The most important one.
>
>>ISSA will not serve to stage anything except lunch.
>
> It would be nice if you would support your contention. Don't you
>think you owe an explanation?
ISSA is not in any orbit to support deep-space missions.
ISSA has no facilities planning to support Mission repair, assembly
or construction. ISSA is ir-relevant in any plausible scenario to
staging anything.
>
>
>>>" Their charge should be to address whether the science planned for
>>>the space station is the best that can be done in that environment,
>>>but whether it justifies the diversion of resources from other space
>>>research.
>>>
>>> The heart of Dr Park's complaint. His "other" space research
>>>meaning "unmanned."
>
>>well for the price of ISSA, we can have Ten HST's, 25 Galileo's,
>>200 Pluto Expresses,,,,
>
> You are talking about the ISSA "Program." The actual basic space
>station is a small percentage of the total money spent.
Not really. Most of the kiler costs for ISSA is the O&M after it's
built.
>
>>>
>>>" If this is simply an exercise in international cooperation, we
>>>should say so and drop the pretense of scientific research."
>>>
>>> It should be an exercise in establishing a foothold in low-Earth
>>>orbit for the United States. Every other consideration, including
>>>politics or its science value, should be secondary. Of course, this
>>>basic space station doesn't require $40 billion, either. :)
>
>>so you admit the science is secondary,
>
> You imply that I said otherwise at sometime? I never have.
>
Well to gie you credit tom, you are always up-front about your
pork-lifters and spam cans. You rarely dropinto any serious
justification for them. Im just so used to the other maniacs here
on the group, that I always try to pin them down on admissions.
>> now you wonder why the scientists
>>are ticked.
>
> What I say is the science and everything else about the space
>station is secondary to building the basic space station, for the
>simple reason that all the politics and science will never happen
>until the basic space station is established. The basic space station
>is the main goal to accomplish, then come the secondary considerations
>such as science. This doesn't mean the science is unimportant, just
>second in importance.
>
And the science willnever happen anyways so who cares?
You forget the ACRV's on this or the soyuz purchases.
SO that's a few hundred million.
a years worth of astronauts also means another year of STS missions,
well that's between 0.5 and 4 bilion dollars.
>
>
>Since we already have the US Node 2, the US Habitation Module, and the
>remainder of the solar panels paid for, we might as well add it to the
>space station, too, like this (this assumes Dan Goldin has enough
>sense to specifiy that the FGB also be able to handle the addtion of
>the Node 2 and Habitation Module):
>
>Shuttle///FGB///US Node 1///US Lab///US Node 2///US Habitation Module
>
>The US Node 2 costs about $1 billion and the US Habitation Module cost
>about $2 billion and the solar panels about $1 billion so this
>configuration costs about $10.54 billion (includes two shuttle
>launches).
>
I always worry when you add numbers tom, but for arguments sake
I'll accept these.
Of course you don't mention Ground support costs at JSC.
Those 6 astronauts don't fart without a procedures list from
JSC.
>
> Now, some people want to siphon off money from the shuttle and space
>station programs to use for such things as developing
>cheaper-access-to-space vehicles, so I would say they have plenty of
>programs to look at out of the $100 billion being planned to be spent
>on the space station over 10 years, and the annual shuttle budget of
>$3.2 billion. All the space station program needs is about $10
>billion in hardware (which has already been spent) and two shuttle or
>equivalent launches per year to keep a crew on it. The rest of the
>shuttle and space station programs should be available for
>modification if a better use can be found for the money.
Could ISSA be done cheaper?
sure.
Would it be worth doing?
nope.
The program has no justification now except for foreign policy.
why do more ?
Frank Crary
In article <lkzpv11...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>,
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> HLV 2-4 Billion dollars. DDTE.
>> STS Mission : 0.5 - 2 Billion O&M/mission.
>> NGST $300-500 Million DDTE (Plus launch).
>> New Millenium $80-150 Million (DDTE, Launch and O&M)
>> Discovery >$120 Million (Launch + operations).
>> Gee, unless you want to write a check, you can see what's affordable.
>NGST is too big for discovery. New Millennium missions may
>be proposed to test some of the technology for NGST but there
>is the usual catch that there are essentially no engineering
>test beds and no one wants their science mission mucked up by
>someone elses test for a future mission.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The New Millenium missions
are engineering test beds, and science is (at most) a secondary
objective. The way you phrased your remark, it seems to say that
New Millenium missions would have trouble testing new technology
because it might interfere with science goals. That's simply not
correct, since science isn't a primary goal of these missions.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Steinn Sigurdsson
fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
There are development programs, in particular for segmented
deployable mirrors. The problem is, if you are going to fly
a large deployable mirror, you have to put full optics on
it to see if the deployment worked and if the optics are
anywhere near diffraction limited. So you need sensors,
pointing capability, data storage and a ground relay
- that's most of the telescope right there.
So to do it half sensibly you're already practically
doing the original program - there's not enough money
to do a full size engineering test, a tiny one is
probably not all that useful, and an imtermediate size
one is relatively expensive and tantalisingly close to
being a full mission anyway so there is a lot of
resistance to such intermediate engineering test beds,
and in practise the mission becomes the engineering test.
The New Millennium optical testbeds will almost certainly
be interferometers, which are needed for granddaughters of
Hubble, but leave NGST as its own test.
It would be nice to see, say, a 2m segmented telescope flown
to test the actual deployment of the segments,
with say only a high resolution optical/UV camera, but such
a mission doesn't seem to fit in anywhere...
Hell, anyone want to do it as an explorer?!
1/2 :-)
| Dr Steinn Sigurdsson|I saw two shooting stars last night |
| IoA, Cambridge Univ.|I wished on them but they were only satellites|
| ste...@ast.cam.ac.uk|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
|"standard disclaimer"|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
| URL http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~steinn |
Richard A. Schumacher
>Current favoured design for the NGST is for folded
>deploying segmented mirror, there is considerable
>anxiety that deployment could easily fail - if the
>telescope (and similar successor satellites which are
>increasingly going to have to rely on folded or assembled
>designs unless someone comes up with a bigger payload
>faring real soon) could deploy in LEO, and be verified
>by humans at the point of unfolding, and then be moved
>with low force thrusters to its operational orbit, this
>could be worth a lot in terms of assured science return.
>IMHO.
All true, and none of it requires a permanently occupied
space station. A week long Shuttle visit would do nicely.
Do you have another scientific justification for space
station Alpha?
Richard A. Schumacher
> You may be right about that. After we get a minimal space station
>in orbit, I would be agreeable to having all the science expenditures
>for the space station scrutinized to see if the space station is the
>best place to do the science.
Spend the 18 billion dollars first, and then figure out whether the
science return can justify it? Nuts. If that happens it will be used
to justify _zero_ basic science activities involving Alpha: they will
all be determined to be too expensive!
Richard A. Schumacher
> Steinn, NASA could take the Interim Control Module they're
>considering building to supply guidance and control for the space
>station, and move your telescopes around with that, when not needed
>for the space station.
Wonderful. Build that module. Scrap the rest. Spend the 14 billion
dollars saved on more worthewhile space activities: science, engineering,
Lunar golf, take your pick; anything would be better than Alpha.
> A Shuttle-C side-mount cargo container could easily be sized to 30
>or 40 feet in diameter.
Get real, will ya? Nothing derived from Shuttle will ever or should
ever be built.
Steinn Sigurdsson
Only if it all went according to plan. Else you're
likely to need several weeks if not months.
> Do you have another scientific justification for space
> station Alpha?
Depends. A lot of proposed science missions could
use either deployable optics and antennae, or large diameter
farings. I think the possibility of using ISSA as a deployment
and checkout point for instrumentation has potential.
Do you think cancelling ISSA would actually do any good
in terms of redirection of funding, or just lead to lower
overall funding for everything space related?
Richard A. Schumacher
>> All true, and none of it [science mission deployment]
>> requires a permanently occupied
>> space station. A week long Shuttle visit would do nicely.
>Only if it all went according to plan. Else you're
>likely to need several weeks if not months.
"Months"? We're talking about deploying an instrument, not
building one from scratch.
>Do you think cancelling ISSA would actually do any good
>in terms of redirection of funding, or just lead to lower
>overall funding for everything space related?
Both. ISSA is a foreign policy tool, not a science or
engineering tool. It can be justified for foreign policy reasons,
but please let's not kid ourselves that it is in any way a cost
effective space science platform just because it appears on NASA's
budget.
Steinn Sigurdsson
schu...@rsn.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
> >> All true, and none of it [science mission deployment]
> >> requires a permanently occupied
> >> space station. A week long Shuttle visit would do nicely.
>
> >Only if it all went according to plan. Else you're
> >likely to need several weeks if not months.
> "Months"? We're talking about deploying an instrument, not
> building one from scratch.
Yes, months. If there is something wrong you need to
not just deploy it but realise there is something
wrong. Instrument engineering tests, focus tests,
pointing tests etc take many weeks to months.
As an example, the HST post refurbishment verification
will keep going till June - although they are doing a lot
of the verification in parallel with science observation with
the old instruments.
Jan Vorbrueggen
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Yes, months. If there is something wrong you need to
> not just deploy it but realise there is something
> wrong. Instrument engineering tests, focus tests,
> pointing tests etc take many weeks to months.
But you're not gonna do that with something like the shuttle near by - too
much local pollution!
Jan
Allen Karchmer
kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) wrote, in reply to Graham
Nelson's message of Sat, 12 Apr 1997:
gn: whereas I can't think of even one mildly important paper
gn: resulting from microgravity research, important that is to
gn: scientific community beyond.
jk: Well, protein crystals seem to be the most clear counter-
jk: example. Even the scientists who had been skeptical are
jk: starting to buy the notion that they are useful (or so is my
jk: impression based on secondhand summaries of what places like
jk: _Science_ and _Nature_ have been saying; I am a bit
jk: embarrassed to admit it but I haven't looked up the articles
jk: myself).
At the AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting this past January, Prof.
Franz Rosenberger of the Center for Microgravity and Materials
Research (Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville) presented a paper
entitled "A Rationale for System Dependent Advantages and
Disadvantages of Solution Crystal Growth in Low Gravity" (AIAA-
97-0679). A quote from the Introduction:
"About 20% of the protein and virus crystals grown under
reduced gravity show higher structural perfection as revealed
by higher X-ray diffraction resolution, than their controls
grown on Earth. The remainder either showed no improvement
or diffracted to lower resolution due to (a) smaller sizes or
(b) as documented for a few cases, lower crystal perfection."
I take this to imply that about 80% of the protein crystals grown
in orbit would have been purer, and/or larger, and/or much
cheaper to grow, in earth bound crystallization experiments. (The
paper does describe a systematic scaling analysis and numerical
simulation methodology to be used *prior* to embarking on an
expensive orbital flight experiment. The methodology suggested
provides guidance on whether or not a particular protein
crystallization experiment can significantly benefit from a
reduced gravity environment).
I mention this simply to point out that on-orbit protein
crystallization experiments apparently do not have a notably high
batting average, at least from the perspective of providing
improvements over earth bound experiments. Yet protein crystal
growth is often used as a major selling point for microgravity
science. I don't question the potential return to society from
the ability to learn more about the molecular structure of
certain proteins, particularly to accelerate advances in
microbiology or for the production of valuable pharmaceuticals,
including vaccines. I do question whether or not we know enough
about it (reduced gravity crystallization experiments) yet to use
it as a major justification for a one-million pound, $40B-$50B
(or more), not counting operational costs, *manned* space
station. I should point out that it is *crew* activity on-board
the vehicle which produces among the greatest disturbances to the
rigorous microgravity environment required.
Now, if I factor in the extent to which funding for the ISS
microgravity facilities has been cannibalized to keep the ISS
vehicle development and manufacturing alive, then NASA has
confronted itself with a genuine chicken/egg scenario. It is not
even known yet whether the chicken will be produce ANY eggs, and
if it does, whether they will be worth the enormous price tag.
Further, outside microgravity science, I don't believe NASA has
made the case for the science benefits of ISS. Surely there is a
less costly way to do all this with, for example, an unmanned
microgravity laboratory, or an extended duration orbiter.
Allen K.
====================================
Everyone is entitled to my opinion
====================================
Tom Abbott
prb(@)clark.net (pat) wrote:
>> You may be right about that. After we get a minimal space station
>>in orbit, I would be agreeable to having all the science expenditures
>>for the space station scrutinized to see if the space station is the
>>best place to do the science.
>>
>Translation : Tom knows there isn't any science justification for
>a space station,
Pat, I think there is a lot of science that can be done on a space
station. There is also a lot of science/business that can be done.
Global Outpost, Inc., the company that had a contract with NASA to put
an External Tank in orbit to use as a private space station, claimed
they had identified about 60 commercial processes they felt would
benefit from a low-Earth orbit environment. A low-Earth orbit space
station does have its uses.
> he just wants one for political reasons and that's
>all.
I want to develop the Earth/Moon/Mars system's basic infrastructure,
and a space station is one of the pieces required, whose main purpose
will be to serve as a "gas station" in low-Earth orbit.
[snip]
pat
In article <335836...@ix.netcom.com>, all...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) wrote, in reply to Graham
>Nelson's message of Sat, 12 Apr 1997:
>microgravity facilities has been cannibalized to keep the ISS
>vehicle development and manufacturing alive, then NASA has
>confronted itself with a genuine chicken/egg scenario. It is not
>even known yet whether the chicken will be produce ANY eggs, and
>if it does, whether they will be worth the enormous price tag.
>Further, outside microgravity science, I don't believe NASA has
>made the case for the science benefits of ISS. Surely there is a
>less costly way to do all this with, for example, an unmanned
>microgravity laboratory, or an extended duration orbiter.
>
>
>Allen K.
>
>====================================
> Everyone is entitled to my opinion
>====================================
for the $100 billion ISSA will eat we could fund over that same Five years
NIH, NSF and the DOE aspects of research.
Somehow, i can't imagine ISSA ever carrying this kind of return to the
public.
pat
Michael Martin-Smith
In article <5jb89p$a...@clarknet.clark.net>, pat <p...@clark.net.OMIT>
writes
>urely there is a
>>less costly way to do all this with, for example, an unmanned
>>microgravity laboratory, or an extended duration orbiter.
Mark Hempsall in the UK has designed a man-tended 12 tons space facility
, the OS-10, which could be built and operated for 3-4 years for $400
millions, suitable for launch by Ariane 5, Proton or Shuttle (take your
pick). 2 crew would spend 25 days a year on it, checking out/servicing
it, while samples/manufactures could be produced in uncrewed mode. In
time, it could be extended easily, like MIR, by conjunction with other
modules, leading, in time to more permanent crewing, or even basic
tourist facilites. Given a CATS system, eg SKYLON or even Pioneer, Space
operations could surely be done much cheaper; eg for humans, in research
and small scale manufacture, at 1 % the cost of Shuttle/ISSA??
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Graham Nelson
In article <ESRJJKAX...@miff.demon.co.uk>, Michael Martin-Smith
<URL:mailto:mar...@miff.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mark Hempsall in the UK has designed a man-tended 12 tons space facility
> , the OS-10, which could be built and operated for 3-4 years for $400
> millions, suitable for launch by Ariane 5, Proton or Shuttle (take your
> pick). 2 crew would spend 25 days a year on it, checking out/servicing
> it, while samples/manufactures could be produced in uncrewed mode. In
> time, it could be extended easily, like MIR, by conjunction with other
> modules, leading, in time to more permanent crewing, or even basic
> tourist facilites. Given a CATS system, eg SKYLON or even Pioneer, Space
> operations could surely be done much cheaper; eg for humans, in research
> and small scale manufacture, at 1 % the cost of Shuttle/ISSA??
MOL lives... perhaps we could build Gemini capsules to send the
crew up.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom