Huge ISS Science Report Released 87
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."
Growing food in space (Score:5, Insightful)
Size means little if the nutritional value is low (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who says science is underfunded? (Score:1, Insightful)
Main point of ISS is showing we can inhabit space (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [seedmagazine.com] will be cool.)
Not worth it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who says science is underfunded? (Score:5, Insightful)
As we all know, there is no spinoffs. Ever, all data is useless. How ignorant.
Re:Main point of ISS is showing we can inhabit spa (Score:3, Insightful)
"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
Re:Main point of ISS is showing we can inhabit spa (Score:2, Insightful)
BZZZT. Wrong. Or at least, not yet correct. The Russians started out and created a lot of groundwork (ignore the pun). We still are not at the stage at which fixing things in orbit is 'routine'. Every EVA, every repair, takes months of planning and practice. We need to do much better before we get our asses out of LEO. And the only way to do it is practice, practice, practice. Which means the ISS or something like it.
Re:Main point of ISS is showing we can inhabit spa (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very interesting science (Score:3, Insightful)
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.