/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11532463]

Name me any discoveries/advancements in research that were worth the $150 billion.

[Anonymous No.11532470]

begin able to safely and permanently maintain a human leo presence. the tech alone to do that is worth it as a (small) stepping stone for manned space exploration

[Anonymous No.11532482]

>>11532470
This. Though honestly, I don't hate the ISS, but I do think they could've done more with it. What are they planning for the next 10 years?

[Anonymous No.11532484]

>>11532463
We now know that rats can bang in space.

[Anonymous No.11532518]

>>11532463
Refrigerators

[Anonymous No.11532818]

>>11532463
Roses smell the same in zero g

[Anonymous No.11532829]

>>11532470
will this gets delayed by coronachan?

[Anonymous No.11532830]

>>11532463
Cool livestreams

[Anonymous No.11532841]

>>11532463
>Muh money

Worthless.

[Anonymous No.11532849]

>>11532463
I can hear the BRRRRRRRRRR from here

[Anonymous No.11532850]

>>11532463
This >>11532470

The real point of the ISS was to prove that humans can safely live and work in space for long periods of time. It was used to develop the technology and procedures needed to live in space for longer than few weeks at a time, which will be essential if we ever plan to live on the Moon or leave Earth's SOI.

[Anonymous No.11532915]

>>11532850
>>11532470
That technology isn't exactly hard (after all, all ISS really proved was we got the big stuff right the first time).
The real value of ISS is it stopped us from regressing ALL the way back to zero spaceflight capability. In the 50's and 60's we went from suborbital flights to rapidly iterating and learning on longer and higher space flights around Earth, culminating in a push all the way out to the first real destination in space, the Moon.
However, because we pushed so hard, we ended up having to carry unsustainable costs to run those Moon missions, and after a handful of successful ones the rest were cancelled and the technology mothballed.
To replace the old rockets they wanted to build a cheaply reusable launch vehicle, which would mean being able to put up more mass and do more missions for a fraction of the cost. Problem is, the last thing the government wanted to do after the Apollo program was to spend another shitload of money on space, so they agreed upon building what seemed to be the cheapest option. This caused the Shuttle program to fail in achieving literally any of its objectives by a huge margin.
To keep Shuttle alive, Space Station Freedom was proposed, which was eventually modified and built as the ISS. This kept the American (and to a similar extend the Soviet/Russian) manned space programs on life support for a long time.
Shuttle was finally cancelled after it killed a second group of 7 astronauts, which meant in the meantime they'd need to scramble to get other manned vehicles developed and ready to minimize the capability gap. We're finally going to be closing that gap with Dragon 2, and if Boeing ever gets their shit together Starliner will be available as well.
The money that NASA funneled into SpaceX to build Dragon, then Dragon 2, has allowed that company to become the most successful private space launch venture ever, by a huge margin. It's also let them set the stage for Starship, what Shuttle should have been.

[Anonymous No.11532937]

>>11532463
You know how IFLS people repeat how
>$1 spent on space returns $X to the economy
How do they know? I looked up studies on Google Scholar and found zero (0) studies on the topic. Is it even feasible to set up a counterfactual for this sort of thing?

[Anonymous No.11533075]

>>11532482
Retiring it.

[Anonymous No.11533112]

>>11532915
>all ISS really proved was we got the big stuff right the first time
The ISS did improve a lot of understanding though. Prior to the ISS no one could spend more than a few months in space because of bone/muscle atrophy. Extended visits to the ISS have worked out much more effective diet/excercise routines that can nearly eliminate bone loss and regulate blood flow much better. The actual machines used for exercise have improved as well. Another thing the ISS has vastly improved are the general life support systems. Prior to the ISS there were no space toilets or space showers, astronaughts just crapped in bags and lived with the several week stink on them, or used wet wipes. It's still not super comfortable on the ISS in terms of hygiene (showers are still somewhat rare since water is precious), but these are essential improvements none-the-less. We also learned other simple fixes like how to sleep comfortably in space, how to build workstations/footholds/etc in a 4d environment, etc. The ISS has taught us a ton about living in space for longer than a few weeks at a time.

Another improvement in the ISS are the life support systems. The ISS life support systems are leaps and bounds ahead of the old Apollo capsules. We can actually filter and recycle oxygen and water 100x more effectively than before the ISS, which is absolutely an essential tech if we ever want to go anywhere beyond Earth orbit.

It's a bit minor, but the ISS also helped us work out how to, you know, actually build large structures in space. That knowledge may be really important down the road when humans start building more permanent space stations and installations. You can't build a moon station without first learning how to build in LEO.

I don't want to discredit anything you posted, but the ISS was far more useful than just keeping space programs alive. If that was the case, than NASA should have just spent that money on unmanned spacecraft instead.

[Anonymous No.11533160]

>>11532463
Do not ask yourself what the point of spending this money was, ask yourself what else the government would have it spent it on.

If the US government were to literally burn billions, that would be in the top 5 of most productive things it does with it's budget.

[Anonymous No.11533380]

>>11532482

[Anonymous No.11533418]

>>11532470
?
And what practical advantage comes from this “small stepping stone”
What future mission might involve the iss?

[Anonymous No.11533434]

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/b4h-3rd/ev-iss-economic-value

[Anonymous No.11533460]

Congress told Bill Clinton to pick between the International Space Station and the Texas Superconducting Super Collider. Wonder if the TSSC would have advanced science and knowledge more than the ISS.

[Anonymous No.11533502]

>>11533418
See >>11533112

If you want to put humans on another world, you first need to learn how to survive long term in space.

[Anonymous No.11533586]

>>11533075
>>11533380
Aren't there still like 2-3 more plans for additional modules though?

Also aren't they trying to retire it in 10 years?

[Anonymous No.11533667]

>>11533586
It's being debated. I've heard proposals for 1-4 more decades or so. I think right now the ISS is funded through 2030. One of the plans being tossed around is to allow a private company to operate the ISS as a space hotel for the ultra-rich using Dragon 2 or some other private launch company.

[Anonymous No.11533672]

>>11533502
No you go to the moon and you don’t bother with busywork like recycling anything

[Anonymous No.11533713]

>>11533672
If you want to STAY on the Moon you most certainly DO need to learn how to live in space. You are aware that the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and it's a low grav irradiated mess right? You can go to the Moon and spend a few days with proper planning, but if you want a permanently manned Moon base it's going to take things like recycling and other basic life support functions. Not to mention, you need a "jumping off" point for construction of your moon base; an LEO station where you can refuel orbital tugs and crew transfer vehicles, where you can store propellant and resources while you build. You can't just fly an entire moon base into orbit, then get it to the moon, then land the motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.11533759]

>>11533713
Low grav and availible resources basically makes irrelevant the entire ISS experience
You don’t need to recycle oxygen when there is a trillion tons of it waiting to be extracted and electrolysed
Same with waste which can just be dumped into a crater

A practical LEO space station would be fine
But that first involves a practical affordable modern launch vehicle
If launch costs aren’t a small multiple of fuel costs then you can’t do ANYTHING in space anyways.

[Anonymous No.11533936]

>>11532829
No. Astronauts were quarantining for three months before going to space as a standard procedure to not get sick, long before the coronavirus thing.

[Anonymous No.11533995]

considering that many many thousands of experiments have occurred with ISS, it's pretty stupid to think that 5 of them alone should have to justify its expense

[Anonymous No.11534017]

Take all garbage from earth, compress into ball. Throw into space. Moon 2 happens.

[Anonymous No.11534038]

>>11533759
>You don’t need to recycle oxygen when there is a trillion tons of it waiting to be extracted and electrolysed
What about the first few months before you can get that mining operation going? What if your initial base isn't close to an easily accessible source of water because it's not in a polar crater? You have to get all that water from the crater to the actual base. And as far as waste is concerned, you still have to develop a method of getting the waste outside of the habitat without having to go through an hour long decompression and air lock cycle.

Not to mention, all of this only applies to the Moon. If you are going to Mars or anywhere else in the Solar system, you are going to need all the things we've learned about micro-gravity living and life support in space. Hell, Mars is often cited as a huge reason the ISS exists, it was necessary to prove that humans can survive for years in space at a time and return in decent condition.

>practical affordable modern launch vehicle
That's exactly what the shuttle was supposed to be before the military and congress fucked the thing up. One of the major initial points of building the ISS was supposed to be the development of cheaper launch systems. Obviously NASA and the government dropped the ball massively, but the intent was there at least.

[Anonymous No.11534042]

>>11533460
Considering we already have LHC not really. The ISS fills a niche.

[Anonymous No.11534067]

>>11532463
The Manhatten project

[Anonymous No.11534415]

>>11532463
See >>11532915
Without the ISS manned space wouldn't even be a thing right now.

[Anonymous No.11534425]

>>11532849

[Anonymous No.11534687]

man we could have sent all that money to Israel instead...

[Anonymous No.11534698]

>>11532463
Define "worth"

[Anonymous No.11534706]

>>11533460
Jesus imagine that state of the Space industry without the ISS. No one would have been to space this century.

[Anonymous No.11534708]

>>11534698
well since you zoomers don't pay taxes and its not your money being spent, you're not likely to care much about the expenses. you probably want free college tuition and $1000/month freemoney for life too.

[Anonymous No.11534716]

>>11534687
imagine launching $150 billion worth of ICBMs all at the same time and at the same target, would be a beautiful sight to see.

[Anonymous No.11534782]

>>11534716
Missed Erdogan's palace.

[Anonymous No.11534835]

>>11534716
To get a crater that big you will need a lot more than 150 billion worth of ICBMs. Making some very generous assumptions (10 mil for each ICBM, 10 megaton yield) that only nets you 150 gigatons, which is less than a thousandth of the energy the Chicxulub impactor released and that resulted in a crater only 200 kilometers wide.

To make a hole that big you need amounts of energy that will probably blow away the entire atmosphere of Earth at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11536071]

>>11532463
Aztec Peanut Butter, but that's another story entirely.

[Anonymous No.11536075]

>>11532463
>$150 billion
>no spinning artificial gravity modules
NASA is a failure.

[Anonymous No.11536480]

>>11536075
The spinning module has to be pretty large or the spinning is noticeable and makes people sick. Really the only way to do something like that currently would be a giant inflatable wheel like module, because it's the only way to fit something that size on a rocket. Even then the "gravity" you could get by spinning say, a 100m-200m diameter wheel structure would be pretty low, less than .5 G's. It just wouldn't be worth it.

[Anonymous No.11537443]

>>11536075
>>11536480
My hope is that if ISS is truly extended to 2030 or even beyond, then we can eventually have a centrifuge module like what was planned. Or even Lunar Gateway.

I think considering the benefits of, you know, GRAVITY, we'll probably get some kind of space station or spacecraft with it eventually, but it might not be for decades sadly. At some point, they're going to have to check it out.

[Anonymous No.11537535]

>>11533380
what does this do that the existing station doesn't do?

[Anonymous No.11537544]

>>11532463
Microwaves for frozen pizza.

[Anonymous No.11537592]

>>11537443
>Lunar gateway
I've never like Lunar Gateway. The only reason to build a moon station is for building a moon base or running a long series of moon landings; but NASA keeps trying to sell it like it would help us get to Mars. It's easier to just, you know, go directly to Mars. Personally, I think a manned Mars mission should come before we start worrying about a permanent lunar space station and surface presence.

As for using centrifugal "force" as fake ass gravity, it's a good idea but hard to execute. As I pointed out earlier your spacecraft has to be a lot bigger and lot more heavily built in order to effectively pull off that effect anyways, and you would need a huge ship for the spinning to be at actual 1g equivalent force.

I've heard of SpaceX planning on tethering two starships together and spinning them while they head to Mars, so maybe we'll see something like that in the near future.

[Anonymous No.11537632]

>>11537592
Why would you need 1g? Some actual long term experimentation could have easily been to optimize exercise vs a low g to negate long term harm

Maybe merely sleeping in a capsule that is reeled out till you reach 1.25 g is enough to compensate for being in micro g the rest of the time

[Anonymous No.11537657]

>>11534708
nice image
btw, did you get your $1200 check?

[Anonymous No.11537667]

>>11537535
It has a sick cupola and luxury interior. Designed for tourism.

[Anonymous No.11537676]

>>11537667
Isn't tourism a no-go for nasa?

Also how can you build a cupola like that? The existing one has micrometeor shields and probably for a good reason. You could keep this airlocked when not in use, but if it were ever struck it's going to create a thrust vector and be an instant waste of money.

[Anonymous No.11537682]

>>11532463
Protocols, flight rules, instrumentation tech and just experience. Many experiements were performed using tech with various TRL, everything documented. We've discovered new issues that weren't considered before. By themselves, they don't seem that valuable, but if you add it all up, you've got yourself a significant amount of knowledge that pushes the envelope. If it were to be "deleted" right now, it'd throw us back two decades.

[Anonymous No.11537709]

>>11537676
That one has a shield too. It opens up kind of like a sunflower.

[Anonymous No.11537713]

>>11537676
and it's a private station, they're just contracting with NASA to use the ISS as construction site

[Anonymous No.11537780]

>>11537592
I actually really like Lunar Gateway, as its entire purpose is to further explore deep space conditions, which is what astronauts will have to do on the way to Mars anyway, not to mention it being a sort of fail-safe in case anything goes wrong on the Lunar surface. Personally, while I don't believe it's 100% necessary, I think its presence is justified much more than not. Especially as a test experiment to see how we might go from Martian orbit to surface and back.

>Personally, I think a manned Mars mission should come before we start worrying about a permanent lunar space station and surface presence.
I actually disagree. I think short-term, the Moon is going to be much, much more important, as a staging base to go anywhere else in the Solar System since shit is going to be much easier to launch from there than on Earth. I think colonizing the Moon and setting up infrastructure there first and foremost has more near-term benefits than Mars.

As for centrifugual force, yeah hopefully that Starship shit will work out or a future space station might utilize that sort of technology.

[Anonymous No.11537973]

>>11537632
You don't need any G at all is my point. One of the huge contributions the ISS has made to manned space flight is the fact that we have nearly eliminated many of the negative effects of micro-gravity with proper exercise and diet. Having any fake g's at all isn't really necessary, just a nice bonus idea for human comfort.

>>11537780
>as a staging base to go anywhere else in the Solar System since shit is going to be much easier to launch from there than on Earth
That isn't really true though. For one, direct lauch trajectories (from Earth's surface directly into Solar orbit to a destination) actually costs less delta V than parking something in LEO, then sending it to the Moon, then going from the Moon into Solar orbit. I'm not arguing that a Lunar space station shouldn't be built eventually, but I think a manned Mars mission is something that could be done with current tech on a reasonable time table; while Lunar gateway will inevitably end up being a several decades long project for something that is only practically useful for exploring the Moon.

[Anonymous No.11537990]

>>11532463
The ISS allowed us to discover how to effectively negate microgravity-induced bone loss. This was an absolutely critical development in long-term human habitation of space.

[Anonymous No.11538536]

>>11532463
Retards like you are reason why space exploration is slower than what it should be. (Antispace fags from conspiracy circles have no power to influence anything so they dont count)

[Anonymous No.11538590]

Have you ever used a cell phone? Ever used GPS? How about TV that isnt cable? Or how about a computer? Or even anything with an integrated circuit? Although not originally created as a direct result of space exploration, the integrated circuit business got off the ground pretty much only because of space exploration (and ICBM's as well, but thats pretty much just space exploration with nuclear warheads instead of science). Without the very small, very light guidance systems made possible by transistors embedded in an IC, rocketry as we know it simply would not be possible. Sure, we might have developed the same technology eventually, but it would have taken much longer, and there would have been a lot more failed companies along the way before someone finally made it economically viable.

Space exploration has quite possibly the most significant long term, big picture return on investment. The only other thing that even comes close in terms of advancing society and civilization is war/military, but that has the side effect of killing lots of people and destroying infrastructure.


Unless you are talking about the ISS specifically? In that case I don't know as much about the direct benefits we have derived, but I do know that there are many.

[Anonymous No.11540182]

>>11537973
>then sending it to the Moon, then going from the Moon into Solar orbit.
Anon, that's why you mine the Moon, send whatever additional materials you may need to the Moon, then just build everything out in space.

[Anonymous No.11540265]

>>11532463
Concorde

[Anonymous No.11540399]

>>11532463
$150B over 20 years, paid for by a bunch of different countries.
You realise that is chump change right?
Where else are you doing microgravity experiments?

[Anonymous No.11541321]

>>11532463
>Name me any advancements that were worth the $150 billion.
$150 billion less for africa and dem social programs

[Anonymous No.11541407]

>>11537713
didn't they planned that with Mir back in the day?
speaking of which, did everyone just forget about the thing?

[Anonymous No.11542034]

>>11541407
I member