As we take a look at the NASA probe and compare it with other space age missions, we now know that other options of space travel are exercised. This mission was one of the factors that contributed to Americas efforts of having a space station be a more reliable option. When you have people constantly working in space and doing research, its much easier to access the information as well as obtain it. Sending probes is not only costly, but it is a gamble. Its not guaranteed that information you may receive from the probe will be worth the amount of money that was spent on it.
Its difficult to judge in my perspective whether or not people will agree with having less probes and more money spent on the space station. One hand, something could go drastically wrong in one of the space station that could not only cost money, but more importantly the lives of our scientists. We need to be able to take this into serious consideration before we invest more money into the space age program. What is truly more important to us, information or safety?
|
Sunlight glints off the International Space Station with the
blue limb of Earth providing a dramatic backdrop in this photo taken by
an astronaut on the shuttle Endeavour just before it docked after
midnight on Feb. 10, 2010 during the STS-130 mission.
CREDIT: NASA
|
Asking
the International Space Station to justify its existence is a tall
order. NASA estimates the station has cost U.S. taxpayers $50 billion
since 1994 — and overall, its price tag has been pegged at $100 billion
by all member nations.
To
put that in perspective, the Large Hadron Collider — the world's
largest particle accelerator, near Geneva — was a relative bargain at a
total of $9 billion, and even its contributions are likely to be too
abstract to hold most people's attention.
Yet
at least its research goals — it is aiming to discover new fundamental
particles that will revolutionize our understanding of the nature of
matter and the universe — are ones most scientists can get behind.
Now, as NASA celebrates the 10th anniversary of astronauts living on the space station —
and with construction essentially complete, the question remains — will
the International Space Station ever really pay off scientifically? [Graphic: The International Space Station Inside and Out]
"I
think it's time to start showing what station can really do," David
Leckrone, a former senior project scientist for the Hubble Space
Telescope, told SPACE.com.
While
the space station has taught NASA and its partners much about the
science and engineering of keeping people alive in space, critics charge
that the outpost hasn't led to enough advancements in basic science —
including biology, chemistry and physics — that could affect life back
on the ground.
Return on investment
NASA
has proven that space can be fertile ground for research. Hubble
revolutionized astronomy by peering farther into space than any
instrument before it.
But
the payoff that would come from building the telescope was clear from
the beginning — free a telescope from the distorting effects of Earth's
atmosphere, and sharper images will necessarily result.
The
space agency contends that the weightless environment provided by the
station offers a unique way of unmasking processes of cell growth and
chemistry that are hidden on Earth. But some critics don't see a zero
gravity laboratory as filling a crucial scientific need.
Gregory
Petsko, a biochemist at Brandeis University, said the only basic
science justification he has ever heard for the station is that protein
molecules form superior crystals in the microgravity of space than they
do on Earth. Researchers crystallize proteins in order to determine
their precise three-dimensional structures, which help biologists
understand the functions of those proteins.
The
best-case scenario, in terms of return on investment, would be if a
space-grown crystal were used to design a blockbuster pharmaceutical
drug that worked by precisely targeting one of those proteins, he said.
"I
haven't seen any really important structures yet that absolutely
required the space station for crystal growth, and there are a heck of a
lot of structures out there," Petsko told SPACE.com.
Even
if the station did lead to important new crystal structures, the cost
per structure would be astronomical, Petkso said. "If we assume that two
percent of the cost of the space station has gone into this kind of
science, that's a billion dollars with little or nothing to show for it
so far."
For that amount of money, he said, NASA could have funded the work of 1,000 scientists on Earth for five years.
"Do
you honestly think that this would have produced fewer important
scientific findings than have come out of the space station?" Petsko
said.
Time will tell
Naturally,
Tara Ruttley, NASA's associate program scientist for the International
Space Station, said she sees things differently. "I think those who are
naysayers haven't given us a chance — haven't given us enough time to
show what we can do," she said.
Standing in the way of getting much science done has been the task of assembling the station.
In
February 2010, the shuttle Endeavor delivered the final two major rooms
of the station, essentially completing the assembly process. A crew of
six has been in place on the station since March 2009, up from two or
three crew members at a time before.
"We're
just now turning the path to be able to go full force on our science,"
Ruttley said. "In the past we had to fit it in around assembly. We
didn't have the facilities available, and the crew was always busy."
Even
so, Ruttley points to some successes, such as an ongoing project in
which disease-causing bacteria are flown to the station so their
behavior can be observed in microgravity.
In 2008, NASA scientists reported that salmonella bacteria grew more infectious in space. A company called Astrogenetix is developing a salmonella vaccine based on the finding.
Although
the bacteria were grown on board the shuttle, not the space station,
Ruttley said previous stages of the project did require the station.
Other
recent projects are focused on the efficiency of heat transfer in
zero-g, which Ruttley said could help in designing cooling systems for
future space missions.
In
total, more than 400 scientific experiments in fields such as biology,
human physiology, physical and materials science, and Earth and space
science have been conducted on the space station over the last decade.
Overcoming obstacles
Significant obstacles may stand in the way of fully utilizing the station for science.
A
2009 Government Accountability Office report noted that the retirement
of the shuttles, planned for 2011, will limit launch capabilities,
raising the cost of station research.
Then there's the fact that science equipment does not always behave in space as it did on the ground.
"The
science racks and all the science equipment is certainly prone to
breakdown or startup anomalies," said Daniel Tani, an astronaut who was
part of the Expedition 16 crew on the space station between 2007 and
2008.
"We
do maintenance on the science apparatus probably as much as we do on
the space station itself," he said. "Unfortunately, that does eat into
the time allotted on the science."
Of
course, station astronauts are research apparatuses in themselves.
Having crews living long-term on the ISS allows unprecedented research
into the effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body, which
would be of paramount concern should NASA or another space agency ever
mount a mission to Mars.
One
of the major effects of prolonged weightlessness is a loss of bone
density. Studying this effect could have repercussions not just for
astronauts, but for osteoporosis treatments on Earth, scientists say.
In
May, NASA researchers reported that astronauts who ate the most fish
retained the most bone mass, suggesting that the omega-3 fatty acids
found in fish might help stave off bone loss
in space or on Earth. Similarly, NASA is testing the effects of drugs
called bisphosphonates, which help prevent the body from absorbing bone,
to see whether they might benefit astronauts.
Switching focus
After
the Columbia accident in 2003, NASA switched to a more
exploration-oriented focus for its endeavors. The following year, the
agency adopted President George W. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration,
which aimed to return humans to the moon and Mars.
As
part of this mission, the space shuttle would be phased out by 2010,
although NASA has pushed that date back to 2011. The International Space
Station was to be allowed to re-enter Earth's atmosphere in 2016.
"I
think NASA lost its vision in terms of use of the space station
following the Columbia accident when the shuttle program was cast into
doubt," said Leckrone, the former Hubble lead scientist. "I thought it
was criminal to let it just die."
Luckily for station fans, a bill recently signed into law
by President Obama has extended the life of the ISS to 2020, and
cancelled the Vision for Space Exploration's moon mission, aiming
instead for a trip to an asteroid by 2025.
Research
on the station got a boost in 2005, when Congress designated the
outpost a U.S. National Laboratory, opening its U.S. science facilities
up for use by non-NASA researchers.
To
help guide research on the station moving forward, Leckrone advocates
forming a semi-autonomous organization within NASA that would be
responsible for soliciting and choosing science proposals, as the agency
did with Hubble. "The station I think is potentially very
scientifically valuable," he said. "It just hasn't proven its chops as
yet."
Tani
said one option might be to use the station for a simulated Mars
mission. "We're really trying to figure out how best to use this
laboratory in space, and there are some very, very interesting ideas,"
he said.
Leckrone has his own dream project.
He'd like to put a new telescope in orbit near the space station, in a similarly high-inclination orbit, that would be
suitable for searching out habitable exoplanets yet also be in a
position to receive continual upgrades and maintenance by astronauts
from the station.
In effect, station crew would serve as garage mechanics for such a telescope.
"If people start thinking creatively," Leckrone said, "you can think of a lot of things to be done on station."
