...replacement for ISS?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Apr 9, 2015.

  1. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Totally in agreement. The ISS has proved invaluable and will continue to do so.

    Any rotating space station would obviously be a further advantage, allowing for general living and research at 1G levels or thereabouts at the outer rim, and zero or low gravity research to be done near the center.
    In time, I believe we probably will have a rotating space station, but obviously costs and that terrible variable of economics does play a part.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    You do realize that cosmic radiation has nothing to do with the fast neutron radiation you'd get from a nuclear power plant, right?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    If they can shield against atomic power plant they should be able to shield against cosmic radiation.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Uh - no. That's like saying that if you make a bulletproof vest for cops, you have to be willing to be set on fire in it before you are allowed to sell it. (After all, it should protect you, right?)
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    In total agreement with those sentiments.
    Not only NASA of course, but all worthwhile space agencies everywhere.




    Obviously the ISS does have a "use by date".
    While I agree that one [at this time] is enough, we should always have one up there.
    A rotating space station, as I have mentioned, would be even more advantagous in the fact that living quarters and such could be situated at the rim with the 1G, and necessary experiments at various strengths of gravity to near zero at the center, could also be undertaken.
    A united effort again would be beneficial and necessary.
    If economics was to rear its ugly head, and a new space station [after the use by date of the ISS] was in competition against other space endeavours, then regretabley a decision naturally has to be made.
    Personally I disgreed with the "New Horizons" mission over the "Europa mission", but my support is 100% behind the success of New Horizon now that that decision has been made.
    Do you realize that there has now been a men in space now every day for the last 12 years or so?
    My position about space travel and exploration should be well known now....
    Back to the Moon, retrieval of an Asteroid, Men on Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Titan, and the stars.
    We would all benefit.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Our world needs a "Carl Sagan" in every generation.
    I dips me lid to the greatest educator of our time.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The original video had Carl Sagan. I had to go to youtube to find it as Erik Wernquist's site no longer hosts the version with Carl Sagan, just one with the music. Either way, both are equally stunning because it shows us from where we came from as a species and what the possibilities are for future generations.

    My kids are very partial to the Carl Sagan version. And I don't blame them. It makes them dream of the possibilities.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Sans inspiring music for a moment - that is a satellite opening an airlock and drifting about. Neither is this ISS replacement going to wander the stars, nor support interplanetary landings, and neither does it have an enormous internal ecosystem. I'm not sure how an enormous ecosystem could even be supported in such a vehicle, since the lead screening needed to protect it from wandering radiation storms is apparently too expensive to lift into orbit. Maybe the big companies have some solution for this but as written now it seems pointless.

    WRT to the link to the experiments being conducted - without looking, is there much on that list that should reveal some component of the detriments of space travel that aren't already known? I'm not willfully crapping on the space parade here, but what's the point of near-reproducible testing of the medical problems of zero G? It's not for the purposes of theory, surely. It's about the engineering of 0G and living bodies, and surely must already be known given how much time we've already spent in space.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And with such attitudes, with such questions of 'what's the point?', we'd still believe the Earth was flat.

    Early last year, scientists removed parts of flat worms and those parts were sent to the ISS. The purpose of the experiment is to monitor cell regeneration.

    Flatworms regenerate their own cells, replacing them as they age or are damaged. KS5: Role of Gravity and Geomagnetic Field in Flatworm Regeneration (Flatworm Regeneration) studies the cell signaling mechanisms these organisms use while regenerating their tissue in microgravity. Results provide insight into how gravity affects tissue regeneration and the rebuilding of damaged organs and nerves, which is important for understanding how wounds heal in space.​

    I shouldn't need to explain the absolute importance this study has for the medical field, especially when it comes to tissue, cell, nerve and organ regeneration.

    Then comes the experiments that many would consider to be "meh", or question their validity. But their potential for altering and bettering our lives is boundless. For example, these six experiments are just listed as some of the coolest ones, but think of the possibilities.

    One space station is not enough. The possibilities of what scientists could discover and do if they had more "space" time is endless.

    Most importantly, life on Earth is not infinite. It will end. Either by a giant asteroid or comet impact. We could very well end up killing the planet ourselves. The sun has a life expectancy. It will not continue like this forever. And we owe it to our future generations to start the process now, to start studying the effects of space and gravity on the human body, to start researching how to counter the deadly radiation.

    The video is not about 'why do they need to do that?'. It's about just how bloody endless the possibilities are and looks at our fascination with what is out there. Hence why the video starts by a graphical representation of our early ancestors walking the plains under the stars, going from one place to the other. If they had said 'what's the point?', if anyone in our history questioned what the point was behind exploration, behind any experiment in science, we'd still be rubbing two sticks together in a cave.

    The point is that we need to look to the next step. Previously the next step was flying up into space and putting man on the Moon. Now the next step is looking at doing that again and looking at the possibilities of going off planet, of mining asteroids, of conducting medical research and scientific research - such as the research on fire which, if you have ever watched a video on, is amazing. Research on why bacteria and viruses are more virulent in zero gravity, for example, of developing and testing new materials to be used in medicine and in our day to day life. That is what the current space station is doing. We have just started to lift a foot in that next step. We should not stop that walk. And that is the point of that video and the point of why one ISS is not going to be enough.
     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I agree 100%.
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Not in the slightest.

    Flatworm monitoring does not require an enormous space station. Neither is the Earth's lack of eternity a point in favour of building an enormous space structure that is - it must be said - still completely reliant on the Earth, itself. Neither is the objection to building a new ISS in any way a damnation of the point of space exploration, let alone science itself. Let us not descend into hyperbole for the sake of the emotional reaction to the notion of an ISS. (And neither, might I add, is a new ISS going to somehow cheat the Sun out of going supernova in about five billion years. That's not our actual timeline, but if it was, it could be fairly said that we have some space in which to consider our options.) Neither is that same emotional appeal - try it without the music and the vistas - a graphical representation of possibility. We, the critics, appreciate the possibilities. What we criticize is the approach. A new ISS will not begin to solve these problems. I find it hard to believe that the combined intellects of NASA and the ESA are unable to start on the concrete steps required to achieve those steps that will help our species starting now: Martian terraforming, for example. I think we know enough to start melting polar icecaps somehow. All the research being considered could be handled by simple, cheaply-constructed and deployed solutions (the madman Branson comes to mind) - from pathogenic virulence to radiation protection. It requires no station, no jaunts, no federal space tourism.

    The object of a new ISS is symbolism. Well, we have had enough of that. Lacking concrete developments in propulsion - or the use or even the testing of existing technologies in a manner designed to achieve some kind of off-planet activity - there is little point in bothering. A space station will not save this species. We know what we need to know. Let us begin solutions now, and save the symbolism for videos.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Who is this "we" of which you speak? Is it a general "we"? Because it is certainly no one else in this thread.

    We cannot know how well we will go in space, with more than 3 people in a space station, for longer than 6 months to one year, without further research.

    Medical and scientific research, the logs are full. We need more scientists in space and the only way to accommodate them is either to extend the current ISS or build a new one. The current one will not last forever. It is getting old.

    Flatworm monitoring in zero gravity is done for a reason. Measuring the rate of cell regeneration in zero gravity and on Earth is invaluable for medical research.

    And new and bigger space stations which could possibly look at growing food hydroponically, for example, the possibilities are endless.

    We need more research. Not less. Certainly not less under the guise of 'what's the point?' style of argument. That stymies scientific research. Don't you want to know why viruses and bacteria is more virulent in zero gravity than on Earth? What potential does that have for medicine on Earth? What about how cancers develop and grow in tissue in zero gravity? How does that behave in zero gravity? What about tissue itself? How does that develop in zero gravity? How does it generate and degenerate? Surely you see the necessity of understanding this before we even start considering terraforming Mars? Space is inhospitable, just as Mars is inhospitable. Sure, we can sacrifice people to get it all started, but what is the point of it all if we cannot ensure people's health and safety for the journey over? Zero gravity affects the body. We need to research why, while in zero gravity. We need to understand how and why fire behaves as it does in low and zero gravity. This is especially important if planning manned space missions to anywhere.

    We cannot terraform Mars without the ability to house more people in space. That is pretty much what it comes down to. We certainly will not be able to get there in a spacecraft, if we cannot figure out a way to maintain life support and allow them to grow their own food in zero gravity and then on Mars. The only way to do that is with more space in space, which means larger space stations. The next step is not Mars. It's the Moon. Because the moon will allow for cheaper travel to Mars - be it human or equipment needed for terraforming. Earth's gravity makes it exceptionally expensive to get to space and the amount of fuel that gets burnt in the process is insane. If we can launch ships and rockets from space itself, the costs go down. We need space stations to help develop and test new fuels and energy sources - to see the burn rate in zero gravity. I could go on and on. Do you know what they are currently testing in the ISS? A twin, the other remains on Earth. The effects on one twin's body will be tested and matched against the Earth bound one for the next year.

    It is bizarre to me how you, a scientists, can declare that this sort of research, which has had and has hand an amazing influence on science and medicine, is pointless. The ISS is an invaluable tool for science. And we need to make it better and safer and bigger - or build more - specifically to benefit science as a whole.

    There should always be a point in bothering.

    As I noted in the previous post, if people didn't bother because there was no point in bothering, we'd still be in a cave rubbing two sticks together, wondering if we go to the point of the horizon if we'd fall off the edge of the ground.

    The video shows the possibilities.. And Carl Sagan was correct. It's a shame his message didn't reach everyone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, you certainly win the argument of popularity.

    We do not need to, if we are traveling to what should be our primary target: Mars. It's near, it's probably terraformable and in that vein there's fuck all else at the moment.

    And? So what? What does "the logs are full" mean? If they're full, analyse what we have. Why do we need more scientists in space? What can they do there that cannot be examined with satellites and test animals? Or, if we do require them, why so much space, so much space station? Minimalization should be our key - or at least until capitalism is assigned to the dust heap of history.

    At that I wonder, but it is nothing that could not be duplicated with a simple, compact satellite.

    Well, the bloody costs are, I'm sure. But consider the why: hydroponics is more about the recycling and engineering and protection from cosmic rays, which apparently costs too much to do anyway. Demonstrating that it is possible is pointless. It is possible. But why right now? To show that we can? It's already known.

    Which could again be accomplished with cheaper alternatives than a whole station.

    None, unless we can duplicate a zero-G system here... which would also obviate the need for a space station to study the above.

    Well, I think fire behaves in low grav by just burning the hell out of everything 'like a living thing', or whatever it was they said in that sci-fi movie we apparently both saw. I appreciate all these things but unless we're going to start injecting people with cancer up there, we might be better off just launching melanomic rats. We can certainly do all that, and we'd have fewer primary school teachers burned up on reentry. How many shuttles have been blown to hell and gone now? All of them except one? The costs and risks are huge, and we're not in a state to begin manned manipulation of our nearest candidate, let alone really get out into the void.

    I don't know about that one. If you intended to house a long-term station above Mars, yes. But I don't think there's actually a need. Surely we can land simple nuclear reactors on the Martian poles, or position geosynchronous mirrors to start the process of ice melting. Remote operations are certainly not beyond us, and for the cost of one station a year round we could probably launch a dozen of the bloody things, vastly speeding up the process dollarwise compared to a space station and if one or two should go on the fritz, then so what?

    In point of fact I am only a single scientist rather than some kind of group thereof. Comedy aside: scientists make this kind of decision all the time, Bells. We don't fund every application to come through NSF/DEB. The vast majority are refused. Funding and research are competitive processes. Look, speaking frankly, I'd be all for every kind of space research if we didn't have to come to grips with the constraint of funding budgets. But we do. Limits exist and we can't stamp everything Go just because it has a proposition for space research, or else I'd be proposing space research myself. There are priorities. Sometimes space gets the money. Sometimes it's the guy studying beaver dams. But so long as we have the shackles of capitalist control, we're constrained. Our motto should be - and mine, being Canadian, always is - "do more with less". Cheaper alternatives exist, and we have a responsibility to at the least consider them.

    I'm sure Carl will forgive me, in time.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    A long term off-planet solution involves the ISS (or something like it.) What we learn from the ISS is not "how flatworms grow" (although that's important too) it's "how oxygen generators fail" "how to deal with micrometeoriod punctures" "how to navigate a vessel as large as the ISS" "how to deal with fires on a spacecraft" etc. It's all the mundane stuff about how to live for years on a spacecraft. And THAT is critical information.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I agree - but remote methods could achieve our aims and coincidentally provide more knowledge about those very processes. Humans are expensive, and we still can't breathe yet there anyway. That said, I'd be open to consideration of a plan that would put humans down there cheaply and effectively.
     
  21. TBodillia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    I tune people out once they start talking about terraforming Mars. Mars lost its atmosphere and its water when it lost its magnetic field. Mars has only 38% of the gravity of Earth. Any attempts to build an atmosphere will be stripped away by the solar winds. And also, no magnetic field means you'll be bombarded by the full solar radiation.

    Venus lacks a magnetic field too, but it has Earth's gravity. Only the lighter elements are stripped away leaving behind the heavier, carbon dioxide rich, atmosphere. The carbon dioxide atmosphere causes the runaway global warming.

    Virgin Galactic has been selling tickets for sub-orbital space flights for tourists since 2004 and has not even put a person up yet. Tickets were $200,000 each and are now $250,000. They have killed 4 people so far. 3 were killed because no safety precautions were taken in their first rocket engine tests and the 4th died on a test flight. It was also the 4th test flight. They are no closer to putting people in sub-orbital flights today then they were in 2004. Ticket costs will only rise.

    Studies on the effects of using rotation for artificial gravity have different outcomes. The first said that most people couldn't handle the major difference in gravity at 3rpm. The difference in gravity being the force at your feet versus your head. Adding 6ft to ~4000 miles is negligible. Adding 6ft to 300ft has an impact. Some studies suggest most people can adapt to 3-4rpm in~10 days. Others say people can handle up to 25rpm with no issues. If you don't know the connection: the greater the rpms of the rotation station, the lesser the radius. 1-2rpms would be a station with 1km radius.

    The ISS has only 5 years left before its retirement and there is no real reason to replace. If private industry wants to, go for it. They can sell $20 million tickets for trips to their space station again. Spend the money for "space stations" on propulsion research. Find a new engine that reduces the travel time to Mars to weeks or days.

    Dinosaurs ruled this planet for 165,000,000 years. Humans have been around about 400,000.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    And mammals for about 225,000,000.

    But what you're - a bit rudely - saying is that without a magnetic field (or at least one as complex and layered as Earth's, since Mars does actually have a magnetic field although apparently grouped around small "crustal areas" so that "mini-fields" are generated hither and thither) it's no dice on terraforming at all. Is that definitely so? Is there no means by which such local fields can be exploited? I assume the "internal dynamo" is not 'restartable'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/research/universe_and_solar_system/magnetic_field
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have often used the phrase that the biggest barriers to future space exploration are those two horrible variables of Politics and economics.
    The ISS has proved invaluable for many obvious reasons, not the least being International cooperation.
    The ISS is our [humanity's] outpost to the awe and mystery of what is beyond our fart arse little blue orb we call home.

    Sure we have criticism of the ISS on many grounds including costs, and some of those doing the criticising are genuine and probably would put the money involved in other aspects of our continuing journey into the Universe beyond our Earthly home. But we also have others that apparently get much pleasure out of whinging about the costs, no matter what aspects of space exploration we would undertake.
    They would be the same people shouting opposition particularly with costs, when we go back to the Moon. They will be the same ones that will ring their hands in despair when preparation for a manned landing on Mars is approaching reality with indignation about the Astronaut's safety and any other reason they can come up with.
    I feel sorry for those that fit that description.
    I'm 100% certain though, that with or without a space station, and irrespective of the two horrible variables, and the many dangers involved, we will continue our venture beyond our Earthly confines, to the Moon, planets and beyond.
    I see this all being done with a permanent space station....a space station maybe at a Earth/Moon system L point, L4 or L5 being probably the most advantageous.

    The variables of costs and politics pushed by the more pessimistic among us, may slow things somewhat, but they also most certainly will not halt the inevitable.
     

Share This Page