>>Worse yet, since ISS is really SkyLab II, we're doing nothing new.<<

How many times have I read this comment from you? What you're saying is, in effect, all micro-g science - no, wait - ALL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE PERFORMED IN SPACE was exhausted by the Skylab folks. Do you really believe this? Do you honestly believe that the nature of the field has not expanded since 1973? Do you believe that ALL answers to ALL questions about living in space were answered by the Skylab data? Could it be that some new questions have arisen, perhaps *because* of the Skylab data?

*** We learned enough with SkyLab to not need to spend the better part of $100B to do it again "a bit better and longer." Too much $ for an incremental return.

>>So there is no sense of adventure or exploration.<<

Well, gosh, I'm so sorry. Science can be boring. If you want excitement, rent a sci-fi movie or watch WWF and NASCAR. Do you think the research at Merck is boring? Yeah, you bet it is - to the outsider. But the end results are of immediate benefit to you and me, in terms of better quality of life. It's possible, just possible, that something that improves the quality of our lives will be found during ISS research. I'd like to give the project a chance to do that.

I believe science done on ISS can do much, much more to enhance my quality of life here on Earth than people getting their boots dirty on Mars can.

*** I support NASA's astronomy & physics missions. They're exciting. And they do real science. You of all people know full well that many informed scientists opposed ISS plans (the full-up ones with 7 people) because no real science of consequence would result. ISS is not an effective scientific research platform.

>>If we believe NASA PR that it takes 3 people full time to "run" this flying turkey, how come SkyLab didn't have this "requirement'?<<

C'mon Phil, I know you're not that stupid. Comparing ISS to Skylab is like comparing a DC-3 to a 777. ISS is so much more advanced and complex than Skylab that *of course* it's going to take more effort to maintain. And that complexity is there for a reason - to expand its capability in supporting scientific investigation. That's why the baseline design calls for a crew of six people - so a lot of science will get done.

>>We have 30 freakin' years of automated computer control advancement since SkyLab and it takes 3 people full time to ride this thing in a fixed orbit?<<

You've done one of two things - either over-estimated our ability to automate things, or underestimated just how complex ISS is, even at this stage of its construction.

On second thought, maybe you did both.

***Baloney. NASA has not set goals to utilize automated flight control technologies effectively. The Ruskies took a different approach to jet fighter design than we did. Although we produced superior jets, ours were finicky, high maintenance jobs. The Russian approach of simple, easy to maintain and repair is probably better for long spaceflight vs finicky thoroughbreads.

Since you say that this ludicrous requirement of 3 persons 24/7 to just maintain ISS is real and not NASA PR, ISS is even more of a flying turkey than I'd thought.

>>As an alternative, humans exploring the lunar poles for ice or exploring a readily accessable NEO would be an adventurous and more scientifically rewarding goal.<<

To me, that would be a waste of our limited space spending. I believe we should make those dollars count toward improving life HERE, and I think orbital research can do that. Sure, it'd be nice to see people spreading out into the Solar System. But I'd prefer to enjoy a better life here on Earth, than to watch somebody digging holes on the Moon while suffering through some form of cancer.

*** You cannot be serious. There are many far more effective ways to spend science reasearch $ to improve life here than spencing tens of billions on ISS. You're deep in the forest with trees around.

The space program is not in existence for excitement - never was; that was a *by-product* of the early days. Right now, shuttle launches draw about ten minutes of coverage on CNN. Eventually, there won't be any coverage. Why? Because access to space will be so routine it won't be considered newsworthy unless something goes wrong. Imagine what news coverage would've been like if Shuttle really had hit the early program goals of 52 flights per year - it would be nonexistent.

The space program is about science, not entertainment. And I want that science to benefit me - and you - since we're paying for it.

*** Science - astronomy, physics & robotic planet missions, great. ISS is not a science project. Never was.
Agreed that it's a matter of cultural taste but there are many folks that would perceive crewed missions outside of LEO to be adventurous. And they could certainly deliver more science than SkyLab II enhanced mission draining NASA's manned spaceflight budget.
I do agree that the majority of the public would soon be boored with most anything space, unless there was a shower cam & an all lesbian supermodel crew.

-philw (now that's a program Clinton woulda funded!)