3 ms·
I understand why people might feel this way. Esp, if you think of the ISS as "a bunch of tired astronauts in a floating lab box" But the ISS should be consider
by jvanderbot 3y ago
I understand why people might feel this way. Esp, if you think of the ISS as "a bunch of tired astronauts in a floating lab box"
But the ISS should be considered a manned instrument bus. Consider OCO-3, a gimballed observer on the exterior of the ISS. It has revolutionized our understanding of global carbon cycles, and local carbon sink/sources.
There are numerous such missions that benefit from a common, well supported platform to operate from.
The next one should be robotic though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_...
- baud147258 3y agobut did it need to be attached to a manned space station, or could the observer run from a sattelite?
- jvanderbot 3y agoThe cost of attaching a satellite is more than attaching it to the ISS (which has large solar panels, processors, downlink equipment, etc). We are essentially shipping up an instrument only, rather than the instrument + all the supporting equipment. For a datacenter analogy, it's like adding a HD to a server, rather than buying a new server for more storage. It could run from a sat, but then we'd have much fewer missions we could fly.