Slashdot Mirror
Huge ISS Science Report Released
Earthquake Retrofit writes "NASA has released an extensive report (PDF) on science results from over 100 experiments performed at the International Space Station. From the summary: 'One of the most compelling results reported is the confirmation that the ability of common germs to cause disease increases during spaceflight, but that changing the growth environment of the bacteria can control this virulence. The Effect of Spaceflight on Microbial Gene Expression and Virulence experiment identified increased virulence of space-flown Salmonella typhimurium, a leading cause of food poisoning. New research on subsequent station missions will target development of a vaccine for this widespread malady." I can't tell if this is good news, bad, or both. Also from a quick look at the report, I see that soybeans grow bigger in space with no harmful effect."
Just wait for the "concerned" special interest groups to claim that it's unnatural and that selling the resulting product should be banned.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
When it comes down to it, if food products are larger but do not provide additional "food value" to go with the size, the only benefit would be for those trying to lose weight, since there is less food "value" for a given mass. 1000 calories of something grown in space may take up more room, but it is still only 1000 calories worth of food. Now, if you take a plant that on Earth provides 1000 calories and when grown in space it provides 1500 calories, THEN that would be worth looking at.
I wonder if there is an "ISS v2" on the cards or if they will only keep expanding this one?
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
It's a necessary building block that has, now, been demonstrated. After that, everything else is of secondary importance (but I do think that demonstrating VASMIR will be cool.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Once again, besides Velcro and Tang, what have we gotten from manned space flight?
As we all know, there is no spinoffs. Ever, all data is useless. How ignorant.
Om, nomnomnom...
When it comes down to it, if food products are larger but do not provide additional "food value" to go with the size, the only benefit would be for those trying to lose weight, since there is less food "value" for a given mass. 1000 calories of something grown in space may take up more room, but it is still only 1000 calories worth of food. Now, if you take a plant that on Earth provides 1000 calories and when grown in space it provides 1500 calories, THEN that would be worth looking at.
A reciprocal argument can be made about mass-farmed food on Earth. Generally the calorie content is higher in industrially farmed foods while the nutrient content is lower. Therefore it's a problem for those looking to lose weight because getting the required calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, etc. are diluted relative to the calories that come along with them. Furthermore, since grains (the source ofproblematic omega-6 fatty acids) replace leaves (the source of important omega-3 fatty acids) in industrial meat farming, some important nutrients are very difficult to consume regardless of the amount of calories consumed. Supplemental nutrients are often added to make up for these deficiencies, but considering that nutritionists have only vague ideas of which nutrients matter, whether quantity or ratio matter, or whether seemingly unimportant chemicals are necessary to properly utilize the nutrients that we know are important, this doesn't have a reliable effect.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
An easy way to taste this fact is to compare apples or strawberries of different sizes. (But presumably not comparing apples to strawberries.) Same total amount of sugar per fruit, usually, so the big ones are less sweet.
Revive the Constitution.
Yeah! I mean, really, who uses vaccines? And there is plenty of food on earth for everyone forevermore why are they wasting there time with enhanced growing techniques? And I see they are working on a targeted cancer treatment. Hah! Cancer is so 90s. New solar cells? What?!!!1!1 I've seen the commercial, America has "LOTS of oil." These experiments are such a waste of time. Why don't they just find a spot of microgravity on earth and do the experiments there? Why do they have to go all the way up to space? I don't understand any of this, obviously, that means this is all worthless.
As much as I respect him, I kind of blame Carl Sagan for the ISS. He argued that we should use a space station for international brotherhood, and it seems like that goal detracted from the goal of actually accomplishing something tangible.
Revive the Constitution.
This research does little to get us closer to actually bringing life to other planets. A few weeks back, NASA released a report saying that they can't keep running the ISS, the Shuttle, and their other experiments while also gearing up for a return to the Moon or a mission to Mars.
More specifically, the Augustine commission said that a commitment to going to the moon or Mars would require actually budgeting money to do so-- exploration is not going to happen unless money is allocated to do it. And, in fact, despite great words about exploration, the trend has been for NASA's budget to be cut, not increased, with more and bigger cuts projected in the future. NASA's budget was five percent of the federal budget during the Apollo years. It's recently dropped to a little less than half a percent, and the trend is down, not up.
If I could drop the ISS into the ocean next year and use the money for a Moon/Mars venture, I'd definitely do it.
That's flawed thinking in many ways. First, of course, is that the Space Station is bringing us closer to habitation of space. It may seem dull and routine, but in fact you do need to demonstrate the engineering, and demonstrate it in the real space environment, before you're going to put long-duration habitats on the moon, or Mars, or move on into the asteroid belts. It is a necessary precursor. Think of it as the engineering testbed.
And if we can't even keep up the willpower to stick to a relatively simple mission-- testing out our technologies on a space station in low Earth orbit-- what in the world would make anybody believe that we'd have the resolution to accomplish a really long-term exploration project? Even in the vastly unlikely case that the money saved from the Space Station would then be used for the Moon and Mars, why do you think that that project wouldn't then be cancelled in a few years?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"engineering is sound to built a habitat in space"
The Russians already proved that for a LOT less money with Mir.
If the pinnacle of achievement of the ISS is a study on bacteria in zero G we pretty much squandered $150 billion dollars on nothing. Though hey... we squander that much in Iraq in a couple months so many its all relative. Still NASA should have been put that money to a lot better use building launch capability that doesn't suck, more robotic, science and observatories or getting to Mars. Instead they pretty much did a high tech jobs program for a couple decades
@de_machina
Absolutely. The most important thing we've learned from the ISS is how to build a complex habitation in space and operate it autonomously. If you're going to Mars or anywhere else more than a few days from earth, even simple things like a toilet failing could have dire consequences (hygiene problems, running out of water without recycling, etc...) if you're halfway to Mars. If your oxygen generator has an unexpected and unplanned failure mode, it's much better to learn about that in orbit of earth than it is halfway to mars.
"engineering is sound to built a habitat in space"
The Russians already proved that for a LOT less money with Mir.
If a baby learns to take one step, do you think there's no point in its taking a two steps; it can just go right on from there to climb Mount Everest?
Mir was a step. 350 m2, 120 tons.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It's particularly worth noting that what's been done so far science-wise is only the beginning of science results from the ISS, as most of the effort so far has been in construction. The crew size was also just doubled this year, allowing for even more time to be spent devoted to science:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6628585.html
After 15 years of construction, narrow congressional votes, delays and, yes, cost overruns, the $100 billion international space station finally appears ready for prime time. ... In May the space station doubled its crew from three to six astronauts, and this summer two space shuttle missions delivered a new laboratory and critical scientific equipment. ...
Then, earlier this month, a panel appointed by President Barack Obama to study the future of human spaceflight gave the station high marks, recommending its life be extended until at least 2020 and full funding to reach its potential.
The station is now beginning to do just that, as astronauts use the ISS for its intended purpose as an outpost for scientific research in a weightless environment, and learning to live for long periods in space.
Until now, crew efforts have focused on assembling disparate modules built by Russia, the United States, Japan and Europe into a cohesive whole. Since habitation began in 2000, therefore, astronauts have devoted only about 12,000 hours to scientific research.
Now with the crew expansion, and likely completion of the station by early 2011 allowing astronauts to swap their hard hats for test tubes, NASA estimates that total to increase by a factor of eight by 2015, to about 90,000 hours.
"We're just beginning to scratch the surface," said Julie Robinson, who oversees the ISS science program.
The ISS has cost well north of $100 billion so far. It hasn't come close to producing $100 billion worth of research. Or even $1 billion worth.
Imagine if we'd taken the $100 billion wasted on the ISS and spent it developing carbon nanotubes, or spent it on high-speed rail networks, or spent it researching wind or solar power. Or, for that matter, spent it on interplanetary probes. $100 billion would pay for a lot of Europa orbiters, landers and even a probe that could melt thru the surface and explore Europa's vast ocean.