Dan Spires wrote:
Should any listing of achievements attributed to ISS be restricted to the ISS in orbit, or can they also be attributed to the ISS under construction, and all ancillary items associated with the ISS, even if the two never meet?

Alex writes:
If it's not clear to everyone by now, I'll admit I'm no ISS fan. That said, in my previous posts in this thread I was specifically referring to direct science results/benefits from ISS, and not "spinoffs" from the engineering/construction phase. Forgive me for saying this, but in my opinion nly the die hard true believers in the Station believe that the effort is science driven. True, as I noted before, alcaray is correct in asserting that science is taking place on ISS at the moment. However, "science," to some degree, is undertaken on almost every manned space mission. Perhaps one day in the future (if and when the configuration expands beyond core-complete with the addition of more crewmembers, the centrifuge module, etc.) will the Station be considered a true science platform. I'm sorry if this offends some people, but a "glove box" experiment or two or three is not very impressive for the investment to date, IMO. Color me skeptical, but I want to see results from ISS research published in peer-reviewed journals, discussed at science conferences, etc., before I start lauding all of the "science" currently taking place on the Station.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii