Staying Still, But Stepping Towards Mars
With the Space Shuttle fleet grounded indefinitely, the partner nations involved in the International Space Station are trying to decide the near-term future of ISS. While all are currently committed to keeping the Station manned continously, fulfilling one of its primary functions, the question remains how best to go about it.

The three men scheduled to serve as the next crew, Expedition 7, have been specially trained for the installation of new Station parts which will be brought by the Shuttle, and which are thus currently also grounded. It is vital the Expedition 7 crew be there when those parts arrive, so it makes sense not to send them to the station until the Shuttles are flying again. So, what to do in the meantime?

One option being seriously considered is to send up a caretaker crew of two people, one American and one Russian, to relieve the current Expedition 6 crew, and man the Station, essentially serving as house-sitters in space. Another possibility would be just leaving Expedition 6 up there. The Exp. 6 crewmembers have said that they would be willing to stay on Station for up to a year. One argument for the caretaker crew is that two people would require fewer resources than the current three-man crew, but that could be resolved by one of the Exp. 6 members returning home, leaving the other two on Station.

So, here's the catch. It's been discovered that radiation exposure on ISS is worse than anticipated, which is part of why crew durations are limited to a maximum of a little over six months. There are also other health concerns involved in long-term spaceflight. While a year on Station would be far from a certain death sentence, it would definitely carry additional risks, particularly for Cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin, who has already served a 7-month stint on Mir (I don't know what the record is, but 19 months would almost certainly have to make him a contender for the all-time space duration record).

These problems are one of the biggest reasons we're not going to Mars right now--we're not going to send people there until we're sure we can bring them back, and right now, no human being has spent as long continously in space as it would take with current technology to go to Mars and come back. That's one of the goals of ISS--to find answers to these concerns. If the Exp. 6 crew were to stay on Station for a year, it would let us learn a lot more about long-term microgravity exposure, but with the potential of long-term health risks for the crew.

Here's the flip side, though: Realistically, these risks are probably no greater than the risks millions accept everyday by smoking. Now, I, for one, would far rather live a year on the Space Station than smoke, and would probably be willing to take the chance, particularly if it meant opening new doors for spaceflight. Plus, as we were all so recently reminded, there are no safety guarantees in spaceflight anyway. I say, if they want to stay, let them stay. But it will be interesting to see what happens.

:: :: 09:44 :: David :: [permalink] ::