If it were, oh, 1980, and it were me deciding what to build in space, i might call for a space station in Low Earth Orbit. First, the mission goals:

I would say it’s a stepping stone to longer space missions. Asteroids (Minor Planets), the moon, the colony at L5 (or L4), or Mars.

So, it would support solving some of those problems. Forget microgravity. That’s cool for selling space hotels or space brothels, but that’s not what the public should spend it’s money on. I’d make the thing spin for artificial gravity. You picture a huge wheel in space, but that would be expensive. I’d have the living volume on one end of a tether, and the other end would have a small module with thrusters, and seme counterwieght. Expense is something that needs solving. So, instead of tin cans, experiment with inflatable living space. Another problem is radiation shielding. ISS does nothing to solve this problem. On the ISS, if you want to detect cosmic rays, just close your eyes. Some will tickle your retina by chance. Half of those will get there through the back of your head. So, use a big water shield, or other materials. Experiment with electrostatic shielding. Experiment with magnetic shielding. You’re not going to get to Mars without it. Cost is an issue. I’d have bought an Energy launch, or five, and be done with it. The Saturn V would also be cheaper than the Shuttle.

What does the ISS do? IMO, nothing worth remotely $100,000,000,000.

Feel better?

The SSC, sorry ’bout that. Dreams of a final theory had to remain dreams a while longer!

The values in the scientific community are not always just the same as in that big, real world! Which side is ‘correct’? Maybe both sides “deserve equal respect as” something from humans, “but they are NOT the same” (extra credit for knowing the source).

For the space station, science should count what blessings it can while it can. E.g., the shuttle fixed the Hubble how many times so far? And another fix is now due? And the space station is one reason for the shuttle, or the shuttle is one reason for the space station.

The Hubble can keep up interest in WMAP, some triangle two miles on a side with a mirror one mile in diameter at each vertex and located at some Lagrangian point, etc.

For the big, real world, here are some of the reasons behind the space station: [A] By working WITH the Russians, etc., each of the participating countries saves money and none gets ahead in some ’space race international competition’. [B] ‘Mankind’ gets ‘a giant leap’ in pushing toward ‘the final frontier’ or some such. It got good ratings on TV and still can. [C] It’s fun; it really is. In entertainment value in cost per person, it’s a bargain. [D] Lots of people like to hear about cosmology, what’s out there, the big bang, black holes, spinning galaxies, dark matter, dark energy, cosmic rays, all the weird critters in the big astrophysical zoo.

These reasons can play fairly well in the big, real world out there — you know, the one with all that extra money you want. Details of the Higgs field, super symmetry, and strings are also of interest but are harder to sell. That the ‘hard science’ taken narrowly can be done more effectively with carefully designed boxes full of wires and gizmos is not the only criterion, at least not with the people with all that money!

“It’s not really blowing (your) skirt up?”
I’ve never heard a physicist, or anyone else, say that.:-)

They say that a lot in the Highlands. It can be quite windy up there.

Some people was against continuing funding for the SSC then, like Phil Anderson. Maybe we should ask them what good the station has been all these years. And believe it or not, some of the faculty at “my” university really seemed to believe at the time the story of colonization of outer space.

The station is to the US what the pyramids were to ancient Egypt: a useless symbol of power and grandiosity, whose only purpose is to say “we can afford it”.

http://www.agiweb.org/legis105/spacstat.html

and

http://www.house.gov/science/park_4-9.html

It’s a good question. Most of the justification that I’ve read centres around the ISS as an intermediary stage between low-earth orbit missions and long-term manned exporation of the Moon and Mars. I agree with you that if this is the case, NASA could do a better job of publicising what actually happens day-to-day on ISS, instead of just feeding us media soundbites.

The real problem for a long time is that very little research has happened on ISS because budgetary constraints have allowed only for a 2-man crew. It’s a full-time job for 2 people just to keep the place maintained and running, leaving little time for experiments. They’re back up to 3 now, so perhaps we’ll hear more about the science.

If you want to get really cynical - I read a book called “Dragonfly” a few years ago, about the Mir space station. The author suggested that the ISS is a political compromise - rather than allow Russia to sell rocket engines to Pakistan, the US suggested a joint space station enterprise instead. So some would say that in reality, there’s no scientific point to the ISS.