www.ditl.org

I was reading some stuff on the ISS a while ago, and it struck me that we don't seem to actualy be doing anything useful with it. I then began wondering whether any previous stations, such as Mir or Skylab, had any real pay-off for them (other than getting one up during the Space Race).
So, have we actualy figured out anything useful from these stations? Or are they just a colosal waste of money and resources?

Also, would setting up some kind of semi-permanent base on the moon be any use at all? Personaly, I'm leaning towards 'no', but I'd be interested in hearing your opinions.

There are advantages to having manned outposts in space. A lot of experiments can be done that can't be done in a gravitational environment. This has already led to advances in medical sciences among other things. It's just that the news doesn't report on it as much because war, murders, and scandals get higher ratings. The last time they spent more then 5 minutes on a space story was when they restarted the Shuttle program after the Colombia disaster.

There's benefits to be sure. If nothing else it's worth the effort to try and get off Earth in case of an ELE. A fair ways off to get to that stage but we have to start somewhere.

The problem is the lack of interest by governments ala not having a shuttle replacement ready to go before pulling the plug on them

Right now the benifits of having a space station a little and not nearly enough to justify the costs.

But if we treat them as a stepping stone then yes I think it is justifiied.

It's one of those long-term benefit things. We gotta put something into it and have patience, and as Blackstar indicated, we're already getting something out of it.

The problem of lack of return is really one of the geral demand for instant gratification. No widespread tangible results could have been fairly expected from this first gen of manned space stations. But if they are treated as an elementary education - as Teaos said - then they're worth it. Even if the experimental potential hasn't been fully realized, at least we're learning how to learn form these things.

The only purpose beyond science for space stations is millitary power. Orbital Bombardment, observation, etc. The list im sure is well known.

And with the way we're killing our planet with global warming (I have a huge part in that every time I get into my car, hehe) theres the possibility that one day we'll all live in space in one giant interconnecting station above an inferno of a planet! *gasp*

None of you have heard of Helium-3? Seriously?

*google google*

Here you go
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 00630.html

That's a pretty big deal. Don't be shocked if war is space comes sooner than you thought over that stuff. (I don't know about actual war but expect plenty of sabre rattling and craft capable of space combat within our life spans).

We've already got limited space combat technology: anti-satellite missiles.
US version.
Chinese version.

Well I meant more in relation to the moon. But yes many missiles would work reasonably well in space and I suppose they could simply be launched from an existing shuttle.

But I was thinking something more purpose built for Lunar combat.

Either way Helium 3 alone is more than enough justification for a space race. So yes it's all well worth it.

I can't shuttles being used as combat vehicles - they're too expensive. It's more likely that any space-to-space combat will be done remotely, using orbital missile platforms. Send up a satellite with half-a-dozen or so rockets attatched and you'd be able to deny a pretty significant chunk of the sky to your opponents - spaceships aren't exactly manoeuverable, so hitting them shouldn't be too difficult.

Well real world space combat might make a better thread on it's own.

But it think it could be interesting. While rockets are an obvious weapon they are also vulnerable to more countermeasures in space. Specifically lasers and intercepters. The reason they're more vulnerbable is that lasers don't attenuate in space like they do in the atmosphere and missles have a harder time maneuvering in space, they also can't hide near the surface on approach, and if they do get so much as winged by an intercepter they'll tend to miss.

Thanks for the responses, guys. Seems they were more use than I thought, after some other digging around the internet.

With regards to modern space combat, I think the USSR armed some of it's Salyut space stations with machine guns.

Rochey wrote:With regards to modern space combat, I think the USSR armed some of it's Salyut space stations with machine guns.

I haven't heard that. It wouldn't surprise me, but these days it's illegal due to some treaty about not arming artificial satellites(I'm not sure about natural satellites). I'm not sure when that was signed though.

I haven't heard that.

To clarify; it was classified operation called Almaz, or something. They were disguised as Salyut 2, 3 and 4 to conceal their nature. I think number 2 suffered an accident a few days after launch, and was shut down, but the other two continued their operations.
I think there was another station planned, which would use missiles, but it was grounded due to lack of funds.