No More Science on the ISS Until Further Notice

Dyna-Soar writes "Discovery Channel News is reporting that NASA is canceling scientific research projects on the International Space Station until construction is complete. This may not happen before 2010 or 2012." From the article: "In addition to beginning development of a new manned launch system, expenses to return the shuttle fleet to flight following the 2003 Columbia disaster and delays completing the International Space Station have left NASA with a projected shortfall of up to $5 billion over the next five years"

Re:Probably still not enough of a wake up call

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Congress wasn't composed of a massive inefficient bureaucracy...

Where's the science?

[chazR]

A quick search on arxiv.org for 'International Space Station' yields four papers. [arxiv.org]

For comparison, a search for 'Hubble Space Telescope' gives over 200 papers [arxiv.org].

Not a definitive result, but it seems to indicate that there's not much science being done anyway.

Re:Its Actually a Good Move

[Anonymous Coward]

For short microgravity experiments, you'd be using a sounding rocket. For longer term non-human tended experiments, you'd probably be better off building something like a corona capsule and firing it off on a Falcon I.

Re:Its Actually a Good Move

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

When it comes to crew safety Soyuz is a lot better than the NASA shuttle anyway.
Not really. Soyuz record in 'fatal accidents per flight' is slightly worse. Both systems have had 2 fatal incidents, but soyuz has flown less flights. Total fatalities Soyuz is a lot less, but so is crew carried per flight.

From a statistical point of view, its pretty much a wash. On could argue that soyuz fatalities happened early in the program, so it is more mature now, but OTOH, Soyuz has also had a lot of close calls, including ones that resulting in mission failure and serious injury to the crew. On the most recent landing they had an unplanned loss of cabin pressure. Many of the other recent flights have also had significant issues.

Re:Experiments as NASA Fundraiser?

[1u3hr]

NASA could always charge for experiments to be conducted. Plenty of R&D groups would pay up

Who, why? There hasn't been any commercial research done in the ISS at all. Mostly astronomy, using the ISS as a platform, and life sciences, which is really only of interest if you're flying astronauts. None of the "zero-G crystals" and such ever amounted to anything that couldn't be done much cheaper down here.

Re:Experiments as NASA Fundraiser?

[mrfrostee]

There hasn't been any commercial research done in the ISS at all.

Mostly true, but most fundamental science research on the ground is not commercial either. There is a big difference between basic research and technology development.

Mostly astronomy, using the ISS as a platform, and life sciences, which is really only of interest if you're flying astronauts.

Not true. ISS is a terrible platform for astronomy. What astronomy was done there?

The 4 major research areas on ISS were fluid physics, combustion physics, materials science, and life science.

None of the "zero-G crystals" and such ever amounted to anything that couldn't be done much cheaper down here.

Not true. All approved ISS research was stuff that could not be done at all on the ground. If microgravity was not a requirement, it didn't fly.

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

Mod parent Insighful (Sad but True), not Funny.