Actual Costs for the Space Station

Cujo writes "This article in space.com discusses what the actual costs of the space station have been since it was first proposed by President Reagan in 1984. Depending on how you account for the cost of shuttle launches, the number is well over $40 billion in the U.S. alone. It begs the question of what else could have been done with the same money and far superior management."

Comments

I'll tells where the money coulda gone

[ubrayj02]

three words:
deep sea exploration.

If the issue is that NASA generates billions of dollars towards research into novel technologies, and supporting scientists, just about any sort of field will do: the study of breakfast cereal, exploration of the insides of trees, dirt moving, anal spelunking.
After years of NASA launching various types of protoplasm into high orbit, I think that the benefits of the practice are yet to be seen. If anything, humans, and other sorts of animals, being shot into space has been proven to be a monumental waste of time, money, and imagination.
Why not focus on sending people to the bottom of the ocean? If anything, this sort of pointless exploration might actually yield some sort of useful benefits to humans traveling in the sea - an act which takes place millions of times daily. Plus, and I think this is the most fundamental reason that sea exploration is better than space exploration:

deep sea pr0n

Well if....

[Ledfoot]

You know, the costs wouldn't have kept creeping up time and time again if it wasn't for Congress constantly requesting a re-design, a re-assessment, change of budgetary funding, etc. How anything ever gets built when it's done by public opinion is beyond me.

Look at the original conceptual designs for Space Station Freedom proposed back during the Reagan Administration... MUCH MUCH smaller design, simpler, only had to support US. Congress balked at the (IIRC $15) price tag of building it ourselves. They insisted we partner with Russia, Japan and the ESA.

The current design is HUGE, relies upon Russia for lifeboat and cargo supply, causes us to spend more time and money doing cross language training, we have to fly people all over the globe for meetings, etc.

Sure, they're sharing the costs and the risks.... RIGHT... How much of the crew's time keeps getting spent fixing equipment that keeps breaking down in the Russian segments? Last I checked, half of the research modules are being supplied by our partners and the most important ones (Kibo and the Centerfuge modules) are both WAY WAY WAY behind schedule and over budget.

I think the space station is a WONDERFUL concept, and I'd rather give my tax money for them to do that than piss it down the hole on some crack-head who doesn't want to quit and is wasting resources... Whatever you do though, don't blame NASA for Congress' F-up! If we had gone it alone back when Freedom was first proposed, we would have had a fully functioning US station 5 years ago for 1/3 the cost...

Far superior management vs the Gov't

[Lord Bitman]

It is very true that if the government were "better managed", we wouldnt have nearly as much debt, and things like space stations wouldnt be in the sorry state they are in today with as much as 40 billion $$ thrown at them.
But "Government" is management. You can't have the government be 'under better management', unless you want to reduce the elected leaders of the U.S. to positions with all the glamor and power that comes with middle management in any business.
And that is done in many places. A 'Puppet government' is set up controlled by some other power, be it a dictator or a nation. And when that happens, often there have been great leaps in developement, things really get going, and they are the envy of the world.
Not that you'd want to live in such a place.
Not that anyone would.
Yes the government would run more efficiently under the rule of some all-powerful dictator. No fucking SHIT.
Of Course if we had some Space-Hitler sending us off we'd be a lot better off in developement of the space program, but I personally prefer things to be shitty vs having Space Hitler around.

Sure, it would be nice for the government to not fuck things up, to sell the majority of its old systems rather than trashing them, to try and get the businesses they hire to do things better, but that is not going to happen.

It is up to Private Businesses and Citizens to make the advances that need to be made. The government is elected by the people, it should be the powerless middle management Of the people For the people.
When citizens, by themselves, accomplish things, the government doesnt waste money to do the same thing anymore.

Go out and DO something! If you want a space station for under 40 billion dollars, go get all of N'Sync together and build yourself a space station for under 40 billion dollars.
The technology to get into space was INCREDIBLE 40 years ago. Right now it's just pretty darn neat. Go make the technology used to get into space be dull boring uninteresting shit.
Then the government will stop spending 40 billion dollars on that, and work on something else that doesnt really matter.