I'd say yes - so long as astronauts were to go up there from time to time, most of the experiments could probably be run remotely from the ground. Apart from experiments in effects of zero gravity on humans - but for those also - if that was your main aim you wouldn't design the ISS as it is. So its design I think is based mainly on political and human factors rather than science led, though it does do good science.
In more detail:
I think if you were designing a zero gravity lab in orbit to study non human lifeforms - animals, plants, and microbial life - you wouldn't design the ISS.
First, the astronauts wouldn't need to be there all the time - the ISS is designed so it has to be manned. But if you had a space station that can be run from the ground, then the astronauts would only need to visit there occasionally, or at least, could go up there, say for two or three weeks a year, and then the remaining time, operate it from the ground. You could operate many experiments remotely - and also could operate the whole thing telerobotically - with not much time lag since it is in LEO - and in the process also advance the field of telerobotics. If we were using robonaut for instance telerobotically from the ground for the ISS most of the time, I expect it would be far more advanced than it is now.
Okay - you don't have the flexibility you have with humans on board quite - but they would be there for a few weeks a year so could still do a lot - and the rest of the time a lot of the experiments could just be left running. And less time needs to be spent keeping the humans themselves alive in space, and far less cost, for sending humans and their supplies to orbit.
Then - if you were designing a space station as a preliminary for deep space manned missions, again you wouldn't design the ISS. First, you'd want to investigate closed system habitats. So for instance, surely by now someone would have tried algae farms in the ISS - which Russia showed works on the ground, but never been tested in space. The thing is ,that just a few square meters of algae, which you could easily fit inside the ISS might be able to supply all the oxygen needed for the astronauts.
Similarly if their main aim was to study possible designs for human habitats in space - they would be testing many different innovative technologies - to see in practice - which ones work well for closed system habitats and which ones don't. But - it is not really run like that as a test bed for new technologies for keeping astronauts alive and well in space.
Rather - if they have something that works well enough - with enough redundancy - in the ISS with continual resupply from the Earth every few months - they don't look any further, everything is simply motivated by its capability for keeping the ISS running "as is".
And they do small scale experiments with plants - but never try anything large scale and radical. There is nothing there approaching what you'd need for a deep space human mission.
So - it is really just testing the technology needed to keep humans alive in low orbit with easy access for resupply from the Earth surface, along with a few experiments that might, or might not, help with deep space missions some time down the line.
Also - if they were serious about it as a manned spaceflight research center - then surely they would have done experiments in artificial gravity by now - proper ones, with large scale centrifuges, as well as tether arrangements, in space. But nobody has done that.
So - I think it is not really a zero gravity lab. And not really a human factors research station. But rather - politically motivated with the aim to fly as many astronauts, from as many different countries, as possible, to LEO. And in the process - to do as much good science as they can.
That's a bit like Apollo. It was not science lead. But rather the science was an "add on" with the political goal to send humans to the Moon.
I'm sure if it was science led, it would cost a fraction of what it currently costs, and would do more innovative science.
For instance, here it says, that NASA's ISS costs amount to $3 billion annually - that's just part of the ongoing costs of the station
Budget Pressures Prompt ISS Partners To Justify Costs
Compared with that, then the Rosetta mission cost $1.13 billion. ExoMars is projected to cost a similar amount. The New Horizons mission to Pluto cost $700 million so far. So you could do all three of those with the budget for a single year of ISS for NASA alone. Curiosity cost $2.5 billion - less than another year of ISS operation for NASA.
Not saying of course that they should shelve ISS and only do missions like that. But if you are looking at science return - not sure that the ISS produces as much science value per dollar as missions like those. I just don't think a zero gravity lab in orbit operated mainly from the ground would cost so many billions of dollars a year to operate it for the same or similar amount of science.
Can't really compare it with other human flight research dedicated spaceflight missions as we don't have any. But Joe Carroll's idea for a tether spin on the way to the ISS to test artificial gravity effects on humans would cost hardly anything, and they are not interested in doing this - I think that would be top on the agenda - along with likes of the Russian algae experiments in orbit, and other attempts at innovative life support methods - if your priority was human spaceflight research.
However - that doesn't mean I think it was a mistake to do the ISS in its present form. Who can know what effect it has had on humanity to have had so many people fly into space and experience life in zero g on board the ISS for instance? I don't think spaceflight is just about science.
And I've no idea about politics also, and who knows how much it has contributed, for instance towards peace and co-operation in space. Which probably wouldn't have happened in the same way if we hadn't had a continuous presence of humans in orbit. For instance during the recent tensions with Russia over the Ukraine - who knows what the effect is on international relations and dialogue to have this highly visible co-operation of US and Russian astronauts in space. I'm glad I don't have to make decisions like that!
And I do think that it does undoubtedly do good science.
Still - I do think from science point of view - that it's a shame that so much is spent on the ISS which is producing good science, yes, but not I think in proportion to the amount spent on them, because of the overhead that they have to have a continuous human presence there all the time, 24/7. While many experiments and missions that could be done for much less cost get forgotten. That's both for unmanned exploration and discovery and for human spaceflight developments.
In more detail:
I think if you were designing a zero gravity lab in orbit to study non human lifeforms - animals, plants, and microbial life - you wouldn't design the ISS.
First, the astronauts wouldn't need to be there all the time - the ISS is designed so it has to be manned. But if you had a space station that can be run from the ground, then the astronauts would only need to visit there occasionally, or at least, could go up there, say for two or three weeks a year, and then the remaining time, operate it from the ground. You could operate many experiments remotely - and also could operate the whole thing telerobotically - with not much time lag since it is in LEO - and in the process also advance the field of telerobotics. If we were using robonaut for instance telerobotically from the ground for the ISS most of the time, I expect it would be far more advanced than it is now.
Okay - you don't have the flexibility you have with humans on board quite - but they would be there for a few weeks a year so could still do a lot - and the rest of the time a lot of the experiments could just be left running. And less time needs to be spent keeping the humans themselves alive in space, and far less cost, for sending humans and their supplies to orbit.
Then - if you were designing a space station as a preliminary for deep space manned missions, again you wouldn't design the ISS. First, you'd want to investigate closed system habitats. So for instance, surely by now someone would have tried algae farms in the ISS - which Russia showed works on the ground, but never been tested in space. The thing is ,that just a few square meters of algae, which you could easily fit inside the ISS might be able to supply all the oxygen needed for the astronauts.
Similarly if their main aim was to study possible designs for human habitats in space - they would be testing many different innovative technologies - to see in practice - which ones work well for closed system habitats and which ones don't. But - it is not really run like that as a test bed for new technologies for keeping astronauts alive and well in space.
Rather - if they have something that works well enough - with enough redundancy - in the ISS with continual resupply from the Earth every few months - they don't look any further, everything is simply motivated by its capability for keeping the ISS running "as is".
And they do small scale experiments with plants - but never try anything large scale and radical. There is nothing there approaching what you'd need for a deep space human mission.
So - it is really just testing the technology needed to keep humans alive in low orbit with easy access for resupply from the Earth surface, along with a few experiments that might, or might not, help with deep space missions some time down the line.
Also - if they were serious about it as a manned spaceflight research center - then surely they would have done experiments in artificial gravity by now - proper ones, with large scale centrifuges, as well as tether arrangements, in space. But nobody has done that.
So - I think it is not really a zero gravity lab. And not really a human factors research station. But rather - politically motivated with the aim to fly as many astronauts, from as many different countries, as possible, to LEO. And in the process - to do as much good science as they can.
That's a bit like Apollo. It was not science lead. But rather the science was an "add on" with the political goal to send humans to the Moon.
I'm sure if it was science led, it would cost a fraction of what it currently costs, and would do more innovative science.
For instance, here it says, that NASA's ISS costs amount to $3 billion annually - that's just part of the ongoing costs of the station
Budget Pressures Prompt ISS Partners To Justify Costs
Compared with that, then the Rosetta mission cost $1.13 billion. ExoMars is projected to cost a similar amount. The New Horizons mission to Pluto cost $700 million so far. So you could do all three of those with the budget for a single year of ISS for NASA alone. Curiosity cost $2.5 billion - less than another year of ISS operation for NASA.
Not saying of course that they should shelve ISS and only do missions like that. But if you are looking at science return - not sure that the ISS produces as much science value per dollar as missions like those. I just don't think a zero gravity lab in orbit operated mainly from the ground would cost so many billions of dollars a year to operate it for the same or similar amount of science.
Can't really compare it with other human flight research dedicated spaceflight missions as we don't have any. But Joe Carroll's idea for a tether spin on the way to the ISS to test artificial gravity effects on humans would cost hardly anything, and they are not interested in doing this - I think that would be top on the agenda - along with likes of the Russian algae experiments in orbit, and other attempts at innovative life support methods - if your priority was human spaceflight research.
However - that doesn't mean I think it was a mistake to do the ISS in its present form. Who can know what effect it has had on humanity to have had so many people fly into space and experience life in zero g on board the ISS for instance? I don't think spaceflight is just about science.
And I've no idea about politics also, and who knows how much it has contributed, for instance towards peace and co-operation in space. Which probably wouldn't have happened in the same way if we hadn't had a continuous presence of humans in orbit. For instance during the recent tensions with Russia over the Ukraine - who knows what the effect is on international relations and dialogue to have this highly visible co-operation of US and Russian astronauts in space. I'm glad I don't have to make decisions like that!
And I do think that it does undoubtedly do good science.
Still - I do think from science point of view - that it's a shame that so much is spent on the ISS which is producing good science, yes, but not I think in proportion to the amount spent on them, because of the overhead that they have to have a continuous human presence there all the time, 24/7. While many experiments and missions that could be done for much less cost get forgotten. That's both for unmanned exploration and discovery and for human spaceflight developments.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0