11 Things You Might Not Know About the International Space Station

[xcorps]

Without NASA’s Shuttle, Spacelab 3, and early follow-on micro-gravity research support, none of our bio-medical advances, with promise to provide enormous medical benefits to mankind, would have come to pass,†Dr. Wang says

That's a pretty dramatic fallacy, especially for a scientist. Unless of course Dr. Wang has some sort of device that allows him to investigate alternative reality...

http://xkcd.com/1379/

[AlamoVampire]

Nothing in Number 10 makes me happy that we spend billions on the ISS.

In fact, the experiments in number 10 make me happy that Number 11 is on the list.

<glares>

Allow me to be extremely blunt.

We need to explore. Not for the sake of glory, but for knowledge. It is arrogant beyond reason to think we know enough, that it is unimportant we do not invest in the knowledge to be gained by the science done not only here on Earth but in space. We as a species cannot extend ourselves beyond what we are TODAY if we do not learn, if we do not challenge ourselves to find out what it is we do not know and then strive to learn. Carl Sagan once said: We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster."

It is the narrow minded and extremely foolish who stand up and say: We must cut more funding to NASA because the risk is just too high, we know enough. YOU live and breath today not because you were born, but because your ANCESTORS and MY ANCESTORS stood up and said: I want to learn more, I want to BE more. We live in a wondrous world that is rife with knowledge to be learned. We need to spend more on exploration, more missions not only to LEO but beyond to the Moon, to Mars to other solar systems. We are condemned to die with the Earth when the Sun consumes us in a few billion years if we do not learn. Hell we will be LUCKY to survive another 50 YEARS if we do not learn from our mistakes and learn to LEARN.

In my opinion, manned space exploration in this century is as frivolous as Saturday morning cartoons.

Rarely is an opinion so exceedingly WRONG. Manned Space Exploration will bring us innovations in biomedical science, technology and any number of things. Hell, you probably have a smart phone. Id be willing to bet you use it for frivolous things like angry birds or any number of other inane games. Well, guess what, that phone has MORE horse power in terms of raw computing power than ALL of NASA AND its ROCKETS had when we put Neil Armstrong on the MOON.

Explore or DIE. That is our choice. Not as Americans or Mexicans or British or Brazilian, but as HUMANS. Explore or DIE. Learn or PERISH.

Edited June 12, 2014 by AlamoVampire

[xcorps]

<glares>

Allow me to be extremely blunt.

We need to explore. Not for the sake of glory, but for knowledge. It is arrogant beyond reason to think we know enough, that it is unimportant we do not invest in the knowledge to be gained by the science done not only here on Earth but in space. We as a species cannot extend ourselves beyond what we are TODAY if we do not learn, if we do not challenge ourselves to find out what it is we do not know and then strive to learn. Carl Sagan once said: We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster."

It is the narrow minded and extremely foolish who stand up and say: We must cut more funding to NASA because the risk is just too high, we know enough. YOU live and breath today not because you were born, but because your ANCESTORS and MY ANCESTORS stood up and said: I want to learn more, I want to BE more. We live in a wondrous world that is rife with knowledge to be learned. We need to spend more on exploration, more missions not only to LEO but beyond to the Moon, to Mars to other solar systems. We are condemned to die with the Earth when the Sun consumes us in a few billion years if we do not learn. Hell we will be LUCKY to survive another 50 YEARS if we do not learn from our mistakes and learn to LEARN.

With respect, not a single word in this post has anything to do with anything I said.

Hell we will be LUCKY to survive another 50 YEARS if we do not learn from our mistakes and learn to LEARN.

Microgravity experiments on renal stones are going to save the human race? Unlikely scenario, good sir.

[AlamoVampire]

With respect xcorps you could not be more wrong. here is why:

Actually it did. You said the ISS is a waste. W/out it space exploration becomes limited. We tie a hand behind our back, limit the knowledge we gain. Sure we can study other bodies in space, but, to be blunt, we need to see more about what makes OUR bodies tick, and for that, releasing from the bonds of gravity can teach us. They are right NOW working on an Osteoporosis experiment. Guess what? Astronauts lose bone mass in a manner nearly identical to that of a person suffering from Osteoporosis all be it at a highly increased rate, which makes experiments done on the ISS INVALUABLE to learning more about BONE HEALTH. The shuttle missions may have given us the power to cure DIABETES. They are doing experiments on bacteria that is antibiotic resistant. Hmm seems like the knowledge gained from that, would, oh i dont know PROVE INVALUABLE IN CURING DISEASE HERE. WE NEED THE ISS and any station we send up after it. SO, my statement stands.

[relin]

Microgravity experiments on renal stones are going to save the human race? Unlikely scenario, good sir.

That's a failure of imagination on your part, not an argument against research spending. In the real world, there is no one who can predict how useful (or useless) an avenue of research will be until it's done.

[vger]

The value of something like space exploration can also not be so easily quantified. In addition to discoveries and inventions (regardless of their impact on civilization), there's also just good old-fashioned spirit.

You don't WANT humanity feeling anymore trapped than it already does.

[fcbayerndm]

Hi everyone, this is just a quick reminder that the KSP Forums are a-political and that any thread that becomes derailed by political banter will be closed, don’t let your temper override your good sense.

[Klingon Admiral]

Why does point 6 not mention ATV-5 "Georges Lemaitre"? ATV > Dragon (oh so much)

[xenomorph555]

Guys, when I said it could cure cancer I was talking about the recent t-cells experiment.

[xcorps]

Hi everyone, this is just a quick reminder that the KSP Forums are a-political and that any thread that becomes derailed by political banter will be closed, don’t let your temper override your good sense.

I don't think anyone is having a political discussion. This is just a hearty debate over the usefulness of the ISS, which is on topic. It seems to me everyone involved is behaving splendidly. But thanks for the reminder!

[itstimaifool]

(I have to say I was kind of taken aback by how derailed this conversation got. I wanted to learn more about the ISS! )

Fact #13: There's a sign in the ISS that says "Speed limit: 17,500 mph" (And then another one in kilometers / hour).

Fact #14: The Russian segments of the station (At least, their "cargo hold," which was the first part of the station) have literally every surface coated in velcro. Also, every loose item (Pens, tools, etc) has a small patch of velcro on it so it can be stuck to the wall. Nothing is left free-floating on the station.

(I watched an hour-long youtube video that was a tour of the station. Pretty interesting!)

[Scotius]

Yeah, right I watched another short clip - in which astronaut lost his dinner. He left the package on the "table", and went to heat some water. When he returned his meal was nowhere to be seen I guess they'd find it couple of days later - following the smell

[rkman]

Nothing in Number 10 makes me happy that we spend billions on the ISS.

In fact, the experiments in number 10 make me happy that Number 11 is on the list.

I don't understand how someone can play a geeky, sciency game like KSP and then think space based science is useless.

[Camacha]

I don't understand how someone can play a geeky, sciency game like KSP and then think space based science is useless.

As a matter of fact, you would not be able to play the game without space science. No telecommunications, no small computers, none of that would exist without space research. Even the fact that we are communicating right now is thanks to stuff we learned through going to space.

[goldenpeach]

You think that we should stop spending on the ISS because it's useless?

Well, do you think that the pyramids in Egypt can help to cure cancer?

Lets carry them, it will make materials to make home for the homeless.

Do you think that the Eiffel tower can do it?

Lets destroy it too! We can recycle the iron used.

note: this is ironic: my opinion is that we should continue the founding.

(also, a snack for the first one that spot the reference).

Edited June 12, 2014 by goldenpeach

[xcorps]

As a matter of fact, you would not be able to play the game without space science. No telecommunications, no small computers, none of that would exist without space research. Even the fact that we are communicating right now is thanks to stuff we learned through going to space.

Yet another fallacy. You cannot make any claim to what would not have happened without the space race.

And your post by the way is a misrepresentation of my position.

Well, do you think that the pyramids in Egypt can help to cure cancer?

Lets carry them, it will make materials to make home for the homeless.

Do you think that the Eiffel tower can do it?

Lets destroy it too! We can recycle the iron used.

note: this is ironic: my opinion is that we should continue the founding.

(also, a snack for the first one that spot the reference).

Strawman much?

[AlamoVampire]

Yet another fallacy. You cannot make any claim to what would not have happened without the space race.

And your post by the way is a misrepresentation of my position.

it is no fallacy. Computer tech would not have had the need to shrink down if it was not for the need to try to reduce its size to launch it into orbit. Like it or not xcorps the majority of our tech today is a direct result of 1 mans challenge to see us on the moon by the end of a decade. HAD Kennedy NOT basically forced us into a space race, and had man kind as a WHOLE not been curious about what lays beyond our sky, the speed of technological advancement would NOT be where it is. Space based science is our future. To ignore it or to say its all a fallacy is to condemn yourself into willful and shameful ignorance.

I lay now unto you this challenge. PROVE, 100% PROVE that technology in ALL its forms would STILL be here as we know them TODAY w/out space based research, and PROVE 100% PROVE that space based science is not needed. The ball is in YOUR court. I want PROOF, UNDENIABLE, UNDER OATH IN COURT PROOF that we do not need space based science and our lives are unaffected by it at all.

/gauntlet THROWN DOWN.

[mellojoe]

Sattellites orbiting Earth are used as communication devices to connect people all over the globe, transmitting information and knowledge. Medical knowledge, treatment programs, education, jobs ... countless lives have been improved simply by having access to global communication. And we only got there because somebody thought it would be a good idea to strap a man to a rocket.

[Kryten]

it is no fallacy. Computer tech would not have had the need to shrink down if it was not for the need to try to reduce its size to launch it into orbit. Like it or not xcorps the majority of our tech today is a direct result of 1 mans[sic] challenge to see us on the moon by the end of a decade.

Nonsense. The computers on Apollo were nothing special; they were based on the miniaturised digital tech that had already been developed for missile guidance systems.

Sattellites orbiting Earth are used as communication devices to connect people all over the globe, transmitting information and knowledge. Medical knowledge, treatment programs, education, jobs ... countless lives have been improved simply by having access to global communication. And we only got there because somebody thought it would be a good idea to strap a man to a rocket.

Why does that have anything to do with crewed spaceflight? The first communications sat was launched three years before anybody went into space, again using missile technology.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Kryten

[Dkmdlb]

Computer tech would not have had the need to shrink down if it was not for the need to try to reduce its size to launch it into orbit. Like it or not xcorps the majority of our tech today is a direct result of 1 mans challenge to see us on the moon by the end of a decade.

You can't see any other use for smaller computer parts? You don't think there are millions of other reasons why smaller computer parts are better? Also, your second statement is a major exaggeration and everybody (including you) knows it.

[Ralathon]

Yet another fallacy. You cannot make any claim to what would not have happened without the space race.

And your post by the way is a misrepresentation of my position.

Strawman much?

You are awfully eager to point and shout "Fallacy!" for someone who's posts are riddled with:

Microgravity experiments on renal stones are going to save the human race? Unlikely scenario, good sir.

the Nirvana fallacy,

I say that the ISS (and most other space programs, and every US space program since Apollo) are wasteful. I believe the US should cancel public funding for manned missions beyond 50 miles. I believe the US government should use that funding to make the lives of people here on Earth better, because there is nothing on the Moon or Mars for us except dirt and rocks.

How does that make me greedy?

the Ludic Fallacy,

Yeah. Space internet and zero g sperm are GREAT for solving the worlds problems.

And a good old Missing the Point.

Civilization is an exponential process. More technology leads to more wealth leads to less suffering. If we pump all the money we don't use for base needs into solving the worlds problems we are in no way guaranteed that those problems are solved any faster than our current scheme, simply because research in the real world is not a simple input --> output system.

Think about your car. The wheels are from rubber technology. The block began as a steam engine, the gears come from waterwheels and the carburetor comes from a scent spray. It comes together like a jigsaw and you needed all those bits to develop a car. You can't simply pump money into X and expect results. Maybe for X to make a breakthrough you first need Y or Z or both.

[Camacha]

Yet another fallacy.

I think missed the first fallacy, and I am not representing your position at all. Please refrain from bad form and oversensitive reactions.

Sure, you cannot say with certainty what would have happened otherwise. I do know how it did happen and how much we depend on space bourne technology. It is highly unlikely that events would have happened at the same pace and in the same way. Miniaturization was initially fueled by going to space and big leaps in development were made because we wanted to go to space. Even the advent of the modern electronic computer came from a desire for better ballistic predictions. Why? Because we needed to shoot stuff into space (and onto our neighbours). Certainty? No. As probable as can get without certainty? Just about. Also please note that I was talking about space in general, not just the small window that was the space race.

Lest I forget - I was talking about KSP. I am very sure that KSP would not be possible without space science, since it is a game about space science. QED.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Camacha

[PakledHostage]

Civilization is an exponential process. More technology leads to more wealth leads to less suffering. If we pump all the money we don't use for base needs into solving the worlds problems we are in no way guaranteed that those problems are solved any faster than our current scheme, simply because research in the real world is not a simple input --> output system.

While I don't agree with the tone of some of the anti-ISS posts in this thread, I think that there is an underlying valid point. Manned spaceflight is expensive and new technology takes a long time to develop because of the greater risks involved. This limits our ability to do much beyond LEO. By comparison, missions like the proposed (but mothballed/cancelled) Titan Saturn System Mission and EJSM/Lalace mission to Jupiter's moons are cheap. Robotic missions like these and others such as a Mars Sample Return mission or a bigger, better telescope to replace Kepler would also advance scientific knowledge and technology.

In an era of cash-strapped governments, I believe the focus should be on maximizing scientific ROI. If that means manned spaceflight has to be scaled back so that robotic missions can venture farther into the solar system, then that's a harsh reality of economics.

Edited June 13, 2014 by PakledHostage

[Camacha]

Why does that have anything to do with crewed spaceflight? The first communications sat was launched three years before anybody went into space, again using missile technology.

We were not talking about just manned space flight. Although I think that certain experiments greatly benefit from the human factor.

[CaptainKipard]

The International Space Station is 357.5 feet (119.167 yards) longâ€â€a hair under the width of a football field, including end zones.

I don't know what end zones are, but I assume you're talking about hand-egg; a game that hardly anyone plays or calls "football".