Much controversy surrounds peacetime's largest scientific and engineering project, the 69 billion dollar, 470 ton International Space Station that will be launched sometime in 1998. There are two sides to the argument. The supporters, led by NASA, claim that work done aboard ISS will lead to tremendous scientific, technological, and medical gains, and that international cooperation aboard this station will foster peace and cooperation between nations down on the ground, leading mankind, as NASA states, to a better life on the Earth for this and future generations. Others disagree. Critics believe that the 69 billion dollar budget far exceeds the worth of any work done aboard ISS, and that similar, equally effective research could be conducted on the ground much more cheaply. This paper will present both sides of the argument by first describing the events that lead to and refined the International Space Station and what, in NASA's view, the spacecraft will accomplish for science and further space exploration. Criticism for NASA and the ISS project will then follow. Finally, the future of space exploration will be discussed in light of Mir's scientific advancements and the criticism that surrounds the International Space Station. The Pro-Space Station Argument Fundamentally, the pro-space station argument rests on three points. The station will foster international peace and cooperation, it will provide valuable research, and everything will operate very well because designers have considered lessons from Mir. Supporters for space exploration often reflect upon the 1960's space program to demonstrate how far we have come since then. Without question the biggest catalyst in the 1960's for the United States's aggressive space program was competition against Russia. Losing control of the skies to our largest economic and political adversary, it seemed, would have placed Americans at the mercy of Russian satellites like Sputnik that could be used to spy on us or, even worse, to fire nuclear weapons upon us. These fears, coupled with intense nationalism, sent the US into a spending frenzy to achieve space dominance. Fortunately, today things are far different. We no longer live in imminent fear of attack from the sky, and our space developments and research are no longer driven by solely by international competition. Instead, as NASA declares, Space does not belong only to the mightiest, for none can realize its full potential without the cooperation of others. It would have been nearly impossible, supporters continue, for John Glenn or Al Shepard to envision living in space with a Russian astronaut; however, such international collaboration is a reality on the Mir Space Station, which has been operating for eleven years with both Russian and American astronauts aboard. The much improved relationship between Russia and the United States has provided, in NASA's words, an unprecedented opportunity for two nations, once adversaries, to unite their considerable resources for the benefit of all mankind. Through peace is space, the argument goes, peace has been possible on the ground. This change from fierce competition to true collaboration between the United States and Russia, as well as other nations, has been occurring much longer than most of us would expect, NASA supporters argue. Even as far back as 1959, when the Space Race was really getting going, the Soviet Union supported peaceful space cooperation. They presented to the United Nations a bronze statue along with the motto Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares. One doubts, however, whether the USSR was truly searching for international harmony or was just trying to win the UN's support in case the United States gained military space dominance. On January 27, 1967, in the heated race for space progress's biggest prize - first human to set foot on the moon - The Outer Space Treaty was signed, declaring that space exploration should contribute to broad international cooperation...and the development of mutual understanding...between States and peoples. In recent years, patrons are quick to note, Russians and Americans working together aboard Mir have fostered international trust and cooperation not only in space but also in human relations on Earth as well. Furthermore, the International Space Station, whose operation begins in the summer of 1998, has well more than a dozen countries as sponsors, designers, and supporters. Supporter continue their argument by noting that ISS's most significant and rewarding accomplishments, supporters declare, will come from research that can only be conducted in the station's weightless environment. Weightlessness aboard ISS will provide researchers an improved environment for their experiments. Substances behave quite differently without gravity, and researchers aboard ISS will use their weightless environment for studies in chemical, medical, and technological. Protein crystals, for example, grow much more slowly and precisely, and thus will yield more knowledge about the structure and function of proteins. This information is expected to improve drugs and facilitate research about cancer, diabetes, emphysema, and immune system disorders. Technological and engineering studies will be conducted as well. The Space Station will test lower cost heating and cooling systems, advanced air and water purification systems, and innovative recycling techniques. Experiments with metal alloy solidification (which without gravity is much easier and more effective to do) could lead to lighter, stronger superalloys. Combustion occurs quite differently in space because flames and reaction inputs and products are not affected by gravity. With gravity no longer in the way, the true chemical nature of flames can be observed, and this new knowledge about combustion could lead to more efficient energy use on Earth. Benefits from the space program are already in use today, a point that advocates use to further demonstrate that the value of space research and thus all of the entire ISS program. Often, equipment that was originally developed for spacecraft has been valuable on Earth as well. Another example is the `cool suit' that was developed for the Apollo missions 30 years ago. Today, multiple sclerosis patients wear modified versions of these suits for relief from the pain of their disease. Bone loss and bone density must be closely measured in space because bones tend to deteriorate in absence of gravity. To make these regular measurements, a special device was developed that does not pierce the skin; now hospitals also use these devices to monitor bone disease patients. Similarly, a special cell-culturing device that will be used to study tumors aboard ISS has already proven useful to researchers on the ground. This instrument allows brain and ovarian tumors to be studied outside a patient's body. Also, NASA research has led to pacemakers that can be programmed from outside the body (thus eliminating surgery for reprogramming), as well as a special implant for diabetics that releases insulin and thus diabetics do not have to give themselves insulin shots everyday. The pro-ISS argument continues by describing how the lessons from Mir, the international space station that currently has both Russian and American astronauts aboard, will be incorporated in the ISS craft to demonstrate the knowledge and completeness that NASA used to design the station. Buildin on the public's majority approval of Mir, supporter like to describe how ISS will be even better. Two serious accidents aboard Mir have influenced the International Space Station's design. Perhaps Mir's greatest scare - one that almost caused Russia to end the entire Mir program - occurred during a rather routine docking with the unmanned supply ship Progress when it slammed into the station, severely damaging life-support and electrical systems. To reduce the risk of such docking collisions, European members of ISS have developed improved proximity sensors, tools which will better judge object distances, speeds and closure rates. Also, additional exterior lighting will be in place to facilitate docking with other manned crafts such as the shuttle. There is still more evidence about that ISS will be even better than Mir. In 1967 a violent fire blazed through Apollo 9, killing three astronauts. This catastrophe sent engineers scrambling to fire-proof spacecraft. For thirty years, there were no more fires and designers relaxed, believing that fires were a thing of the past. But fires are back. Mir's fire in February 1997 - one that caused extensive damage to the spacecraft - has spurred extensive fire research aboard Mir. But as a result of Mir studies, ISS should be protected from fires. Astronauts like Shannon Miller have studied how flames behave without gravity, hoping to determine combustion's fundamental properties and behavior. This research aboard Mir has led to improved fire-retardant materials as well as new techniques for putting out flames. For example, without gravity combustion products (which stifle flames) surround the flame and have the potential to extinguish the fire themselves. Therefore, fans which were once used to blow the flames out will not be used aboard ISS because they just eradicate the combustion products and supply more oxygen to the fire. Also, computers aboard ISS have been changed so they will be able to more quickly and effectively stop ventilation between sections of the Space Station. Communication will also be improved. In early spacecraft, communication systems between astronauts and among machines have used wires which, without gravity, floated freely and often tangled. As designs and technology improve, wireless communication was developed for space, but it was often unreliable. Mir successful wireless equipment had a strong influence on the design for ISS communications and will save the Space Station project millions of dollars by reducing the need for additional cables. An integral aspect of living in space is working outside the craft, whether repairing satellits or the space station itself. To be most effective, space program supporters note, ISS must have the best in space walk technology. With the help of Mir tests on space walk techniques and equipment ISS will. One of these improvements involves foot restraints. People working outside the spacecraft have always needed some way to secure themselves from floating away. Foot restraints were developed to solve this problem, but they were always secured to the deck and thus severely limited astronauts' ability to move around efficiently. ISS developers designed movable foot restraints and then tested them aboard Mir. The new equipment proved quite effective and will be integral for spacewalks aboard the International Space Station. As NASA declares, One of the most important commodities of space flight is time in orbit. The space program has truly benefited from the tremendous amount of time astronauts have spent aboard Mir. It took Space Shuttle astronauts twelve years and 60 flights before their time aloft totaled one year, and the astronauts never stayed in orbit for more than several days. During their stays that lasted several months stays, Michael Foale and Shannon Lucid were able to see how Mir astronauts worked together, and thus could suggest how life and cooperation could be improved aboard ISS. For the most part, Mir astronauts were highly skilled in a few areas, such as exterior repairs or laboratory experiment techniques. Americans aboard Mir, noticed that if instead of being experts in select fields everyone had a wider range of abilities, ISS astronauts would get worker done faster and more efficiently. This is because working in groups boosts morale, and because teams are often more effective problem solvers than individuals. The Anti-Space Station Argument The scientific returns from more than a decade of experiments in weightless conditions on space shuttle flights, while sometimes intriguing, have not generated fundamental insights. - Tim Beardsley, Scientific American Despite what NASA and its defenders say, ISS may not be that effective after all. Skeptics chide NASA for hoarding so much of our nation's resources for results that will not come close to justifying the costs of the project. ISS was originally championed as a manufacturer of commercial materials that can not be produced on Earth, such as new polymers, thin films, and protein crystals. The costs are just too high and the results are too low. James Ferris of Renaeler Polytechnic Institute believes that, nothing has come out of microgravity research to convince me that a material can be fabricated in orbit that is going to be better than what you can make on Earth." The overwhelming costs of sending anything into orbit, coupled with the small amount of product that would be produced, has discouraged corporations from using ISS as a weightless lab or factory. ISS's staggering costs aggravate me, but most of my doubt for NASA rests on the organizations integrity when dealing with the ISS mission. In several cases, NASA has been deceptive and tricking. During ISS's development, project advocates promoted the station for Earth observation. Because the station's orbit will cover 98% of the Earth's surface, geography, weather, and changes in agriculture such as droughts could be studied more vastly and in greater detail than before. But currently there are no plans for Earth observation. As a result of the crew's movements, the station will be too jittery for precise measurements. Telescopes were also originally proposed for the Space Station, but now the project designers tell us that a cloud of waste gases vented from ISS will follow the station in its orbit and thereby prohibit effective viewing of our universe. On their optimistic, informative, and very polished websites NASA stresses that all major details for the station were worked out well in advance. I am convinced that these problem with Earth and Space viewing were foreseen but were not expressed for fear of losing funding. NASA again tried to trick us in the presentation of the cheaper X-38 Crew Return Vehicle that was built in response to increasing pressure from the public, the media, and the federal government. Here is a summary of the information NASA gives on the CRV web page. The CRV will serve on the International Space Station as a ferry to go pick up cargo and also for returning astronauts to Earth should there be an emergency aboard the station. Originally priced at 2 billion dollars, this Space Station lifeboat is now going to be manufactured for `only' 100 million dollars. These savings result primarily from using previously developed materials and technology. The X- 38's body will use a lifting design which was developed and tested back in the 1970's. Also, many of the parts for the vehicle are already being produced, so NASA can purchase them more cheaply than if NASA had to manufacture them. The main goal of the X-38 is, as Project Manager John Muratore declared, to prove that we can build human spacecraft for an order of magnitude less cost than ever before. Reading about how much money will be saved, I began thinking, NASA has really done great work in producing a cheaper CRV, and all worries about ISS's 69 billion dollar budget just floated away. It took me a few minutes to come back to my senses. As was the case with Mars Pathfinder and Observer, NASA is certainly doing a terrific job spreading the word about how much the CRV will save. Somehow the cheaper CRV is supposed to make us believe that the whole project is efficient and not that expensive after all. But this 1.8 billion dollar reduction, though substantial in sum, is not even 3% of the entire 69 billion dollar budget. NASA is simply spotlighting the goods, but glossing over what it refuses to change: expenses that are truly astronomical. Again NASA appears to be giving us the run-around, tricking us into believing that everything is all right. It is as though they think we are a senseless public who will believe anything they tell us. The Space Stations' Influence on Future Space Travel They may be difficult to spot, but the space stations have done a few good things. Mir and ISS certainly have improved scientific knowledge by giving us information about how humans react to a weightless environment. This information would be critical if people are sent on long voyages to explore Mars and other planets, or even to venture out of our solar system in search of extraterrestrial life. Fundamentally, our bodies fundamental processes operate just fine during brief space visits; our respiratory, digestive cardiovascular, and nervous systems remain ok. Some characteristics of our body, however, have developed with gravity and our atmosphere's protection, and can not function properly in space. As today's astronauts have experienced, muscles and the heart deteriorate quite quickly in the absence of gravity. Muscular and cardiovascular strength would be important on longer voyages if one had to repair the spacecraft, or explore the surfaces of distant planets. When Shannon Lucid returned to Earth from her many months stay aboard Mir, she had to be carried off the Shuttle - her muscles had atrophied so much that she could not even stand up. The heart atrophies in much the same way. Under gravity, the heart works hard to pump blood up to the brain, and to keep blood from pooling in our legs and feet. Our heart quickly adjusts to weightlessness by pumping less hard, since it does not have to fight gravity to get blood to our heads. The problem arises when reentering gravity. Physicians fear that after a very long voyage, the extremely weakened heart would not be able to pump all the necessary blood, resulting in fatigue, fainting, or even death. Before anyone travels to Mars, scientists will have to develop ways to maintain the heart's and other muscles' strength. Certain exercise machines that use air or elastics for resistance could be used, or the spacecraft itself could be designed to rotate and thereby simulate gravity. Members of the Mir mission are aware of the dangers of radiation, and have taken measures to protect themselves from it. On the ground, we do not have to worry about too much about solar radiation because much of it is absorbed or deflected by the sky above us. Astronauts traveling in the vacuum of space, though, are completely exposed. Radiation attacks humans on the cellular level, causing mutations and disruptions in the cells' processes. Future space vehicles must equipped with special hulls that reduce radiation, as well as `lead closets' which astronauts can enter during a solar flare - a time when radiation is at its highest. NASA's work with satellites has been highly justifiable. Telecommunications have improved dramatically as a result of the Space Shuttle's ability to place the necessary satellites in orbit. Similarly, satellites scanning the Earth have warned coastal regions about coming hurricanes, and also have alerted that our industries are depleting the ozone layer. The Hubble Telescope, placed above much of the Earth's atmosphere by the Space Shuttle, has produced fantastic images of the far reaches of our universe, and provided us with information about the formation of galaxies and our own solar system. Any of these systems involving satellites would be useful in studying or even colonizing new planets. No matter how accurate, this new knowledge about prolonged space life may never be put to use, for many people, including myself have grown wary of the space program as a result of its deception and big budget missions. Listening to ISS and NASA spokesmen talk about the quest for the unknown and seeing breath-taking images of the Earth on Mir's polished website, it is easy to be swept away in the glorified craze for the International Space Station. This uncertainty paired with the fact that much of the public's fascination with the glory and adventure of space exploration has worn off, will hinder future missions ability to gain funding. Like it or not ISS will be launched within nine months. Results could be fantastic. Perhaps we will be able to make more improvements in space life. Perhaps Mars Pathfinder will find really intriguing evidence for life on Mars and we will use these improvements to visit the rocky planet. Or maybe SETI will give us a sign that life does in fact exist elsewhere, and we had better go interact with it. But if none of this occurs, one can only remain optimistic that the station will make some progress that justifies at least part, if not all, of the costs. More importantly, one hopes that NASA will deal with future missions in a far more efficient, upfront, and truthful manner, thereby showing us that the program has nothing to hide, and that we really ought to believe in and support future space exploration. http://shuttle-mir.nasa.gov/shuttle-mir/cooperation http://shuttle-mir.nasa.gov/shuttle-mir/cooperation http://station.nasa.gov/reference/factbook/med.html http://station.nasa.gov/reference/factbook/med.html http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/unforgiving.html New York Times, Science Times, October 14, 1997. http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/unforgiving.html http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/unforgiving.html http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/unforgiving.html http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1 http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1 http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/unforgiving.html http://issa-www.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/prgview/sswp2.html http://issa-www.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/prgview/sswp2.html http://issa-www.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/prgview/sswp2.html http://station.nasa.gov/station/elements/x38/ http://station.nasa.gov/news/special/phase1/science.html Stine, Harry G. Handbook for Space Colonies, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1995.