4 ms·

There is no way we could have achieved a similar volume of data without ISS. With ISS we get six astronaut-years of data every single year, and it’s got at leas

There is no way we could have achieved a similar volume of data without ISS. With ISS we get six astronaut-years of data every single year, and it’s got at least another decade in it, barring political stupidity. The argument could be made that we could have made do with less data, perhaps. But we could not have gathered this volume even once without ISS, let alone “many times”.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> There is no way we could have achieved a similar volume of data without ISS NASA spent 72 billion 2010 dollars on the ISS [1]. (Total cost is over $150 billion.) From Expedition 1 in 2000 through Expedition 53 in September, the ISS played host to 25,290 crew days of human occupation [2]. That comes to $2.8 million per day for NASA or over $5.9 million more generally. (Remember: this does not include the cost of getting to nor from the ISS.) The Apollo program cost $107 billion 2016 dollars [3], or $98 million 2010 dollars [4]. (This includes the cost of the Saturn I, Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles.) From Apollo 7 in 1968 through Apollo 17 in 1972, the Apollo program hosted 305 crew days of human spaceflight [5]. That comes to $3.2 million per day. TL; DR We could have replicated the time spent on the ISS with a series of Apollo programs, using Apollo technology and Apollo-era costs, and had budget left over for a manned (probably non-landing) interplanetary mission [6]. The ISS is a boondoggle [7] on every measure except number of dollars funneled to defense contractors. It's not fun to trash these programs. (I grew up adoring the Space Shuttle and the ISs.) But over time, I've realized it's necessary. We cannot correct failures we refuse to recognize. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_expeditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_St... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program [4] https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Mission_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Mission_summary [6] Keep in mind the degree to which I'm putting my thumb on the scale in the ISS's favor. We're counting the Apollo program's launch costs but not the Space Shuttles. We're including, in $2.8 million per day figure, everyone's crew member hours but only NASA's costs. [7] I am not (yet) in favor of de-orbiting the ISS. Sunk costs are sunk. Looking forward, there is probably something useful to be done with the beast.
- msl 9y ago
  > We could have replicated the time spent on the ISS with a series of Apollo programs I doubt an Apollo CSM [1] could support astronauts for a full year (although Mir could [2]). It has proven very handy to have a space station within reach of resupply missions and with enough space to house some gym equipment and a whole bunch of medical equipment. You might also have trouble finding people willing to spend much time beyond the Van Allen radiation belts [3] in an Apollo era space craft [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_EO-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_EO-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-18 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt [4] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astron...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> There is no way we could have achieved a similar volume of data without ISS NASA spent 72 billion 2010 dollars on the ISS [1]. (Total cost is over $150 billion.) From Expedition 1 in 2000 through Expedition 53 in September, the ISS played host to 25,290 crew days of human occupation [2]. That comes to $2.8 million per day for NASA or over $5.9 million more generally. (Remember: this does not include the cost of getting to nor from the ISS.) The Apollo program cost $107 billion 2016 dollars [3], or $98 million 2010 dollars [4]. (This includes the cost of the Saturn I, Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles.) From Apollo 7 in 1968 through Apollo 17 in 1972, the Apollo program hosted 305 crew days of human spaceflight [5]. That comes to $3.2 million per day. TL; DR We could have replicated the time spent on the ISS with a series of Apollo programs, using Apollo technology and Apollo-era costs, and had budget left over for a manned (probably non-landing) interplanetary mission [6]. The ISS is a boondoggle [7] on every measure except number of dollars funneled to defense contractors. It's not fun to trash these programs. (I grew up adoring the Space Shuttle and the ISs.) But over time, I've realized it's necessary. We cannot correct failures we refuse to recognize. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_expeditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_St... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program [4] https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Mission_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Mission_summary [6] Keep in mind the degree to which I'm putting my thumb on the scale in the ISS's favor. We're counting the Apollo program's launch costs but not the Space Shuttles. We're including, in $2.8 million per day figure, everyone's crew member hours but only NASA's costs. [7] I am not (yet) in favor of de-orbiting the ISS. Sunk costs are sunk. Looking forward, there is probably something useful to be done with the beast.

msl 9y ago
> We could have replicated the time spent on the ISS with a series of Apollo programs I doubt an Apollo CSM [1] could support astronauts for a full year (although Mir could [2]). It has proven very handy to have a space station within reach of resupply missions and with enough space to house some gym equipment and a whole bunch of medical equipment. You might also have trouble finding people willing to spend much time beyond the Van Allen radiation belts [3] in an Apollo era space craft [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_EO-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_EO-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-18 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt [4] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astron...