Here is a headline and subhed that hit the target:
- Washington Post – Joel Achenbach: The Skies. The Limits. / The international space station is one of humanity's great engineering triumphs. But what is it for?
This is the latest in Achenbach's irregular series on the American space agency's future (Post on Part 1 here). He has an engaging way of clipping together sentences that move fast and are littered with small a-ha! moments and surprises, most of them scarcely lingered upon. A fine example comes up early. He writes, "In the grand scheme of things, the space station is not very far away." Good, ok, but it is the next sentence that obliquely yet vividly reinforces the thought. "The station has a phone number with a Houston area code." Really?! Didn't know that. I could just give them a call? I expect that that even if I knew the number, a receptionist in Houston, not orbit, would answer with exoatmospheric expectations for a damned good reason to put me through.
One also learns why Russian towels are favored by most astronauts, and we get the link to a blog that explains first-hand what it was like to almost drown during a spacewalk. Plus, nobody knows how plugs of zinc oxide formed inside vital lines. We hear from Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, he of YouTube fame for his cover of David Bowie's "Space Oddity."
We get comments from John Logsdon and Howard McCurdy, sources that almost anybody who has written extensively on NASA will have consulted as well. One learns that while sleeping up there, one's arms and hands extend loosely, eerily like those of movie zombies. It is hard to tell from the trailers we're seeing on TV: one wonders if the new space station nightmare movie, "Gravity," gets that part right.
The graphic that the Post's staff artists assembled to illustrate the station's construction history is terrific, working smoothly to blend images of growth stages with terse captions. It worked smoothly, in any case, on a PC. My iPad struggles to display it.
However, the piece could use more edge. The sad irony that the station, by current schedules, is to be crashed into the Pacific Ocean in around 2020 is handled well. But I am dismayed by this sentence: "…it's not a gateway to anywhere else. It's a laboratory focused on scientific experiments." A more direct description would compare it to a facility for living on the bottom of the sea. Sure, science gets some attention. The main ISS job however, even more than in any sea lab, is simply to keep the handful of people there alive. This is made possible only by an enormously costly and huge army of exceedingly well-trained people operating a vast and distant machinery devoted to providing food, water, air, first aid equipment, and a place occasionally to relax and to get some sleep.
There is little here about what scant science has been achieved, or will eventually transpire. Is there anybody in materials or biological sciences – other than specialists in microgravity human biology – impressed by the station's contributions to scientific literature? Why no mention of a single top-drawer experimental result, or perhaps of Sam Ting's dark matter detector put up there at considerable expense? It is among the few items from which one might expect a fundamental and dramatic discovery.
I'd also have liked more on the anonymity in which today's astronauts labor. While NASA keeps trying to recapture the heady excitement of the early days of people in space, the public back then was utterly transfixed by everything that the men and a few women in space suits did, up there and here on Earth. As Achenbach writes, only a few avidly follow such things now. And they are only a small part of overall space fandom. Solar system robotic explorers tend to have a higher public profile than do the parade of people trekking to the ISS and back. POne expects that Achenbach will be writing more on the place human exploration has in the public's imagination.
Nonetheless Achenbach. even with his economic way with language, had scant room to cover so much ground. Space fans and technology policy people will read this avidly. Many casual readers will find their eyes opened.
As for my opinion, I'd offer to sell the thing to those two competing Asian giants, China and India. It was a space race by the US with the Soviets that, in the main, put the station up there. Now the Russians are our primary partners in running it. Today, the burgeoning power centers in New Delhi and Beijing have another space race going. Maybe Japan could ante up too. If they jointly took major responsibility off US hands we'd not have to junk it. Perhaps we'd see a much-needed new episode of entente. With the money it saves NASA could launch asteroid-hopping explorations, put up a giant automated exoplanet-imaging space telescope, and send a robotic lab to alight on Europa.
Berkan Demir says
This article by Joel Achenbach on NASA’s International Space Station is informative and engaging. Achenbach has a talent for crafting sentences that are both quick-moving and filled with small, surprising details. The article covers a range of topics, including astronaut experiences, the history of the space station’s construction, and the challenges involved in keeping people alive in space. Although the piece could have delved deeper into the scientific discoveries made on the station, overall it provides a great overview of the station’s purpose and limitations. The accompanying graphic, which illustrates the station’s construction history, is particularly effective. I found the article to be a great read for both space fans and casual readers interested in learning more about the station.