ISS Construction Resumes

avtchillsboro writes "The NY Times has an article detailing new construction on the International Space Station (ISS) and the additions via coming Space Shuttle missions through 2010. From the article: 'For more than three years, the International Space Station has floated half-built above the Earth. Maintained by a skeleton crew, the station — an assemblage of modules and girders — has not come close to its stated goal of becoming a world-class research outpost. But now construction, which has hung in limbo since NASA's space shuttle fleet was grounded after the 2003 Columbia disaster, is scheduled to resume. The shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to lift off next Sunday carrying a bus-size segment of the station's backbone that includes a new set of solar-power arrays.'"

Comments

Cost Versus Utility

[eldavojohn]

The International Space Station is a novel idea and I've always supported countries working together. After reading the Wikipedia entry on its costs, I have to question its utility versus the cost. The European Space Agency estimates it to be around 100 billion Euros which isn't cheap.

According the Wikipedia entry, NASA spends $5 billion annually on the ISS. I guess I hope to hear more news of discoveries from ISS and scientific advancements once it nears completion but I have not seen much in the news as of late. In fact, Hubble seems to be the best investment we've made next to the ISS. Is this just a proof of concept that we can work together with other nations on space exploration? What do we envision for the ISS in our future?

I know that this is an easy thing to complain about and I'm not the first to ask if it's really worth it. But can anyone tell me what $5 billion of our tax payer dollars has done for us? And why is it that construction grinds to a halt when only one of the member nations involved grounds its shuttles? Is this really an "international" space station? Also, doesn't this leave the United States eternally committed to developing this project? Will we ever be able to opt out of this even after its completion?

With the current administration in the United States, spending doesn't seem to worry them at all. And with the National Debt Clock ticking at around $8.5 trillion these days, I guess I should expect nothing more. Why is it that "small government conservatives" have the knack to make that clock jump by large percentages?

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[Wizarth]

There are some things that just should be done, and damn the cost. That is what a government is for, to do the things that are not profitable, that are not returning on investment, to get the ball rolling to get the basics in place, until it does become reasonable to make a profit, for a company to step up and say, yes, we'll foot the initial outlay because NASA has done the boring, unprofitable grunt work, they have tried the thousand ways to do it wrong, and now we know which way will work.

It is the government's job to finance the future potentially useful tasks. To drag out a tired example, it's a modern Columbus. It is a cost that is most likely going to return nothing, but if it does, the potential rewards will make it all worth it.

That really ran on.

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[StikyPad]

First of all, Wikipedia says:

the Space Shuttle program, which as of 2006 nearly costs $5 billion annually, is normally not considered part of the ISS budget

As for the ISS expenditures:

NASA's 2007 budget request [12] lists costs for the ISS (without Shuttle costs) as $25.6 billion for the years 1994 to 2005. For each of 2005 and 2006 about $1.7 to 1.8 billion are allocated to the ISS - this sum will be rising until 2010 when it is calculated to reach 2.3 billion and then should stay at the same level, however inflation-adjusted, until 2016, the defined end of the program.

Nontrivial, but less than half of the $5B you incorrectly reported.

And while the utility is certainly important, it's not the only measure of value. The experience itself is a value, in that the people involved are gaining experience with constructing things in orbit, and having a continuous human presence in orbit furthers our knowledge of the physiological effects of living in space.

The ISS may be a small step, but it's a step, and that's ultimately how humanity progresses for the most part -- in steps, not in leaps and bounds. The ISS may only be an incremental progression, but it's progress nonetheless.

That's not to say the ISS hasn't been somewhat disappointing, but that's at least in part due to several modules being cancelled due to complaints about cost. It's the typical bureaucratic Catch-22: People want to see results before upping the ante. Unfortunately, it's not rarely possible to work like that. If you fund everything except the wheels of a car, all you've got is a nice air-conditioned box.

And even if you consider the ISS a failure, it's important to remember that science is progressed by failure just as much as success -- at the very least we should have ideas on what to do, or not to do, the next time.

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[korbin_dallas]

OK self-correcting my comment.

Heres a nice table of vehicles:
http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/online/thema_lanc eur.html
STS is the heavy lifter currently to LEO.

What I cannot find is size and weight tables of each part of ISS. Not that it matters, the whole ISS plan is DESIGNED around the STS. If it were instead designed around the Proton D1...or Energia.

Anyway STS is not the only game in town.

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[WalksOnDirt]

Maybe, but a number of scientific projects have been canceled after a lot of money was invested. The superconducting super collider was canceled after it was partially built, and at least one NASA mission that was nearly ready to fly just recently got killed to cover the cost overruns in the manned space program.

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[niktemadur]

There are some things that just should be done, and damn the cost.

In proyects such as the ISS, there are always inventions and advances that are not cost effective in the foreseeable future, but that benefit mankind tremendously in future generations.

To drag out a tired example, it's a modern Columbus.

FWIW, the King of Portugal invested in one fruitless expedition after another to circumnavigate Africa, but sailor's superstitions got in the way every time. I believe it was in the fourteenth attempt that the crew was caught up in a nasty storm and, after it had abated, discovered to their surprise that they were way south of Cape Bojador, according to legend, ends of the Earth. This was the turning point. Every single expedition after that progressed fearlessly further and further, bringing back paydirt each time. In the early XV Century, the King of Portugal set the stage for Columbus.

Here's another example: In medieval times, the alchemical process of creating lenses, perfecting the techniques of polishing them so that they would be as near perfect as possible. Meanwhile, all around, plagues and misery bedeviled society, which made lenses a pointless and costly exercise in trivial matters, according to the pundits of the age.
Little did the pundits know that from this work, among other things, the microscope would come to being, the discovery of the source of diseases was only a matter of time.

For the majority, things always make much more sense in retrospect. For now, in the matter of the ISS, we need faith in the future fruits of peaceful labor on an epic scale.
Yes, bureaucracy inflates expenses so that these things seem like pork barrel proyects. However, isn't the cost still a fraction of the money that goes down the black hole known as the Military Industry, which needs to invent wars in order to dispose of aging weaponry and keep the money-go-round in motion? For the time being, this is what we need to question, instead of peaceful endeavours of knowledge.

Re:Cost Versus Utility

[zippthorne]

A good example, but still flawed. It's one thing for a few eccentrics (or even a few dozen dozen eccentrics) to play with optics on their own dime. It's quite another to be involved in a massively expensive boondoggle of a concentrated space-lab whose main goal seems to be to be done jointly by several nations rather than to actually advance mankind's knowledge by any amount. All of the experiments proposed for ISS could be done far more cheaply (at least an order of magnitude) separatly on automated mostly independant launches. Eliminating the need for rendezvous would cut that much from the cost by itself.

Someone once said that building things like the supercollider have nothing to do with the defense of the nation, except to make it worth defending. This may be true, but we must not send good money after bad. The superconducting supercollider project was cancelled. If even one superconductiong supercollider project, or space telescope, or very large array of telescopes, or interplanetary space probe at the edge of the solar system is cancelled to provide funding for an excercise in political futility, well that's just sad.

Someone fill me in...

[Digitus1337]

If the station "has not come close to its stated goal of becoming a world-class research outpost," then what is in said world-class?

Exotic Projects Capturing the Public's Imagination

[reporter]

My perception of NASA (and other space agences like JAXA) is that it focuses solely on run-of-the-mill projects seeking incremental but significant advances in technology. That sort of research is useful but does not capture the imagination of young adults contemplating a career in science and engineering.

When President Kennedy pledged that Washington would put an American on the moon, the pledge captured our imagination. We Americans would do something that had never been done in the past. Further, putting an American on the moon was not an incremental advance in technology but was a huge leap that faced a high risk of failure.

NASA should go back to its adventurous roots by devoting 25% of its budget to exotic, high-risk projects. The remaining 75% would go to run-of-the-mill projects.

NASA, not the American military, should be splurging money on building a prototype of a hyperdrive, enabling faster-than-light travel. Even if the prototype does not work, it would significantly facilitate the breakthroughs that will be necessary for a successful hyperdrive,.

Snakes in the ISS

[CrazyJim1]

In space, no one can hear the rattlesnake.

Sorry - I had to....

[EchoBinary]

"..through 2010.." I hope HAL keeps the pod bay door open.

Re:but...

[Decaff]

How's about the rest of the world waste some of their cash to build rockets to pick up the slack?

They have been. Since the Columbia disaster the station has been largely serviced by Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

intangibles

[Quadraginta]

But can anyone tell me what $5 billion of our taxpayer dollars has done for us?

Maybe it's a subtle thing. But there is a practical difference between a crabbed, pessimistic, Can't-Do defeatist culture and a culture full of ambition and daring that does impractical but spectactular things with a spare 0.1% of its GNP: one produces living descendants a thousand years later, and the other merely produces elegant, sardonic essays written in a dead language that are closely studied by scholars of the future.

Man does not live on bread alone, to paraphrase Moses, but perhaps also on dreams that inspire his best efforts and give him a sense of wonder and hope for the future. I mean, if you don't think this way -- if you're not much interested in things unless there's something in it for Number One -- then you don't have children and your genes get edited out of the species. This is perhaps why clever cynicism is more noteable among societies (and individuals) in decline than in ascendacy.

Think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Unite d_States:

The military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 is:
Total Funding $441.6 Billion
Operations and maintenance $124.3 Bil.
Military Personnel $108.8 Bil.
Procurement $79.1 Bil.
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $69.5 Bil.
Military Construction $12.2 Bil.
Department of Energy Defense Activities $17.0 Bil.

ISS doesn't sound very expensive to me. If you want to stop wasting money, stop spending it on lining the pockets of your defense contractors and causing untold grief in the middle east.

And to those who say 'Why are we doing it all? Why aren't there any other countries contributing $$$, vehicles etc?' Think about this:

1. Russia put up the first module.
2. Many countries are constructing ISS modules.
3. The shuttle was designated to transport said modules to ISS. Modules were designed specifically for transportation to ISS -BY_ the shuttle.
4. Many countries supply tech/hardware/people etc. .robot

Re:Think about it.

[theantix]

That's a logically incoherent answer. If you're caught robbing a store, saying "but I just stole the candy bars, jimbo stole the safe" -- yeah well you still stole the frigging candy bars now didn't you?

Just because the USA spends a lot on military doesn't mean that the unrelated expenditure of the ISS isn't excessive compared to any other uses of the money. What you are REALLY saying is just that from your political perspective, those military expenditures are ones you don't respect and would prefer to see them cut first. That's a red herring from the issue of how much is the correct amount of money to spend on orbiting space station research.

If you cut the spending on the ISS, the gov't could spend that very significant amount money in any number of places or simply return it to the citizens via debt repayments or even tax cuts. Not _just_ the agencies you love to hate. If those agencies are overfunded their budgets ought to be cut, but again this has nothing to do with the funding of the ISS -- once those would be cut the question of how much to fund the ISS still remains.

Fact is, I agree with your implied position that the amount of money the US spends on defense is truly insane, while the amount of money to support the ISS is justified. But the argument you used to support that is total bull.

Love the post, but ...

[WindBourne]

it is not totally practical.
First off, W. is running up a defict like there is no tomorrow. This will force us to cut back at some point.
Second, at this time, we have to rebuild our launch capacity. That means that we need to be able to launch what we had back in the 60s. Nixon killed that capability. W. is restoring it. While I know that many folks hate the CEV (and some hate even the launchers), we will have the same launch capacity that Kennedy got us 40 years ago.

Once we have Oriion, I agree with you that it will be time for NASA to return to the interesting ideas that a commercial company can not and will not do. Of course, I have said for a decade the right thing to be doing is a one-way trip to Mars for colonizing. And the only thing that comes back are goods ; Now, Musk is pushing that concept. That is where the real money will be.

Columbus was financed for conquest

[SuperBanana]

There are some things that just should be done, and damn the cost.

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. It's little better than "the end justifies the means", and it is very cliche; all the time, the answer to "why are we doing this" is "because it's there!" That's great if you're spending your own bucks to go climb Everest- I wish you the best of luck. But if you're going to spend trillions of dollars, I need something much more concrete. Go google "waggonauts" some time, and read for an INSIDER's view of how stupid human space exploration is. Seriously- it was written by NASA people...

You need to stop and realize that most space exploration hasn't been for research or the betterment of mankind. It's all a bragging rights/land grab game between nations, while lining the pockets of defense contractors. Why do you think Kennedy put people on the moon? Because the Russians were the first to put people in space- dozens of them- before the US put Glen up. The race to put a man in space also helped quite a bit with refining nuclear missile technology. Why do you think Bush got interested in the Moon and Mars? Only because China got interested in the moon, and "the world's greatest superpower" can't be outdone...

Did you ever notice that countries that were not involved in the space and weapons races have remarkably better socities and infrastructure, because they devoted resources to taking care of their people?

To drag out a tired example, it's a modern Columbus. It is a cost that is most likely going to return nothing, but if it does, the potential rewards will make it all worth it.

Spain financed Columbus because he was in search of conquest; gold, shorter trade routes, etc. It was a bit of a crapshoot, but they figured that if he came back at all, they stood a great chance of making a killing, and they were right. The difference here is that we have nothing to gain from exploration of Mars or the Moon; it's a childish pipe-dream to think we'll find anything practical in terms of natural resources on either planets. Putting a couple hundred people on 3 ships for a few months PALES in comparison to the challenges involved in a manned trip to Mars. There is no giant cache of gold on the moon or mars, and even if there was- the economics just don't add up, and they don't get better as you throw more money at the problem. People with a space exploration fetish concoct the most amazing chains of "if we..." arguments to justify exploration...

It's also a common fallacy that space exploration brought us wonders like zero-g pens, velcro, orange tang, and remote medical monitoring. All existed before the manned space program. I know slashdot readers hate to think it, but we've gotten very little out of space "exploration", especially the manned kind.