The subject says it all. I have been looking for this information for some time, yet there are no wholly satisfactory answers to this question.
I am aware that a laboratory in space offers advantages that cannot be duplicated on the ground. But that cannot be the sole or even thel biggest reason why the Space Station is being built. So why are all of these countries conspiring to build this thing?
Promote international peace and cooperation, develop international relations in space programs, boost space programs of other nations, and the lab stuff for long-term space exploration experiments (effect of weightlessness, etc), get a better idea of supplying a station outside of earth, etc.
Exploration is hard-wired into our brains. At the emotional level, it’s up there because we can get up there. How could we not build in space?
Certanly, it evokes an emotional responce in me, and that makes it good art, if nothing else. Think of it as a monument, and the myriad of spin-off technology the space program has accelerated or just given us become merely a sweet bonus.
Do a google search on - Microgravity Experiments.
It has applications from Medicine to Semiconductors.
Missions keep on changing all the time.
If you are looking for a “Dilbert” like Mission Statement, please help yourself. I think those things are for the naive and should be kept out of the SD.
The “dilbert” like mission statement concept is new to me. Call me naive if you wish, but what is that?
Secondly, here is a link that suggests that microgravity experiments can be conducted better in a simple and small capsule than on-board the shuttle or in the space station. So, while this purpose is definitley there, it cannot be the purpose for which the space station is being constructed.
here is the link:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/foton_launch.html
as a footnote, the article suggests that the satellite is a derivative of a russian photo-survelliance satellite, hence I wonder what the mission of this particular satellite truly is
I think it is to provide work for the shuttle, after all what would the shuttle really be necessary for if there was no space station.
Yes I am aware that the Columbia did not go to the space station but how many of the missions in the last year were not for servicing it?
The main purpose of the ISS is to learn how to survive and work in space. The scientific experiments are just a side benefit.
Which isn’t to say that it’s not a good place to do science. The ISS provides a good infrastructure for scientific experiments. Designing and flying your own satellite takes a lot of time and money - each satellites needs its own power supply, radiators, communication systems (including use of a ground station), and a large support staff for operation. The ISS provides electrical power, cooling water and communications channels for the experiment modules, not to mention life support for biological experiments. The vibration level is definitely high, but for many types of experiments it’s low enough.
scr4 looks like he nailed it. It is international because the cost of such a project is so high that a single nation doesn’t want to flip the entire bill when they can get other willing countries to contribute. The contrubuting countries get a sense of national pride that they too are in the space age.
The ISS is an experiment. An experiment in complex assembly in space. An experiment in how to develop life support equipment. An experiment in effects of long term weightlessness. An experiment in developing the technologies and information required for the next step in space exploration - traveling to other heavenly bodies. This means long term return to the Moon, visits to Mars, etc.
Along the way, ISS provides a platform for long duration microgravity experiments. Sure, some experiments and uses of micro-g for growing crystals can be done with robotic satellites, but some require human interaction, or just work better that way. That’s what the Japanese module will be for - experiments. They will have a platform off the back exposed to vacuum with a mini robot arm and a small transfer airlock, specifically for that type research.
Our reasons for doing so include international cooperation and sharing, and our innate desire to explore and learn.
herman_and_bill said:
So what was the Shuttle doing for the past 20 years prior to STS-88? You’ve got your cart before your horse. The reason the bulk of the missions of late are station missions is because we want to assemble as quickly as possible. Especially important before the thruster packages were installed and ISS required the shuttle to reboost.
However, without ISS, there are other things to be doing. For instance, Hubble servicing missions are a fairly regular occurrence (every few years). Then there’s launch of other payloads, such as the Chandra X-ray telescope. Plus flying Spacehab and/or SpaceLab. Wakeshield.
Ficer67 said:
Who are you to state that that proves microgravity can’t be the reason for ISS? Do unmanned satellites provide a better microgravity environment? Yes. They are far more stable and don’t have the loads induced by crew movement and life support equipment. Wakeshield was just such a payload - a satellite deployed and retrieved by the Shuttle that used a large shield to provide a very high quality vacuum environment for microgravity crystal growth. But while some experiments and activities can be automated, some require human interaction. And ISS provides long term microgravity not available in a satellite that falls back to Earth in 2 weeks.
And just because there’s one method of doing something doesn’t mean another method might not also be good for other reasons. For instance, a person might own a car, or might take the bus, or might use a train/light rail/el system, or might rent taxis to move around the city. All are methods of transportation, each with advantages and disadvantages. Depending on what you want to do, and the situations involved, different ones might be preferred over the others. But all are useful. All have the same purpose - transportation.
Are you familiar with the “Dilbert” comic strip?
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/
Dilbert is a parody of modern business practices. These include coming up with confusing and bizarre “Mission Statements” to summarize what the goal and purpose of the company is. In theory, the idea is that by writing down what your specific mission is, you get your employees to focus on that core business and the purpose, rather than getting distracted by other things that aren’t on target. Also, you encourage your customers with your clear statement of intent. In practice, they are generically worded in bureaucratese, with meaningless statements.
Thanks Irishman for clueing me in about “Dilbert.” That clears that issue up purdy good.
I am willing to conceede that the ISS is a good platform for conducting many microgravity experiments. It is probably a good platform for conducting many other experiments as well. And, in and of itself, it is a good way to experiment with international cooperation, and zero gravity construction techniques. These things, NASA ought to be doing.
Putting a space station up there would allow for other countries to conduct experiments in space without the cost of supporting an entire space program. Consequently, could this be the mission of the ISS:
"To construct a market where-by space research can be
conducted, and NASA can be made profitable."
If this caught on, NASA could charge itself off to other countries, and then it would have a platform to conduct its own research at no cost to the united states.
They are building a giant orbiting energy cannon that can hit any spot on earth. 
I stand by my social/political definition as much as any of the scientific ones.
IMO its purely for political & P.R. purposes.All of this stuff can be done better using unmanned probes without risking lives, but it wouldnt catch the headlines.
Why do you think they landed men on the moon?
Why not twice?
Apart from the primary usefulness as a testbed for long-duration spaceflight and in-space assembly of large structures, there IS a more pedestrian reason for the perpetuation of the shuttle/station symbiosis: sustaining presence. Political decision-makers being the way they are, if at some point the manned spaceflight program is allowed to go into prolonged hiatus, it’ll be a bear to get it started again.
1st of all there were multiple manned lunar missions.
2nd of all robot technology was not nearly capable of doing what man could do back around 1970.
Robot technology today is not nearly capable of what men can do.
For stuff like this, it’s usually good to check Carl Sagan’s thoughts on the subject. He opposed the space station for most of his life because most of the science could be done better and cheaper by unmanned systems. Once the damn thing was started, he supported it for the intenational cooperation and to keep momentum going on space exporation. But there is no doubt that he thought the thing was a crock. I remember him taking Dan Goldin to task for a shuttle/station experiment to see how “newts breed in zero g. Do we really need to spend x million for that?”
IMO ISS is fine and dandy. The only problem justifying it comes when funds for all types of space programs is limited. In such scenario, ISS provides significant PR benefits, but science objectives could be advanced cheaper in other ways.
Not necessarily the best basket to put the majority of our eggs in.
:rolleyes: By saying Why not twice I’m sure you didn’t mean we only landed men on the moon one time. :dubious: But just in case:
[/ul]