Is the ISS Really Worth $100 Billion?

Ponca City writes "JR Minkel writes on Space.com that as NASA celebrates the 10th anniversary of astronauts living on the space station — and with construction essentially complete — the question remains: will the International Space Station ever really pay off scientifically? The space agency contends that the weightless environment provided by the station offers a unique way of unmasking processes of cell growth and chemistry that are hidden on Earth, but some critics don't see a zero gravity laboratory as filling a crucial scientific need. Gregory Petsko, a biochemist at Brandeis University, says the only basic science justification he has ever heard for the station is that protein molecules form superior crystals in the microgravity of space than they do on Earth and a best-case scenario, in terms of return on investment, would be if a space-grown crystal were used to design a blockbuster pharmaceutical drug that worked by precisely targeting one of those proteins. Naturally NASA sees things differently. 'I think those who are naysayers haven't given us a chance — haven't given us enough time to show what we can do. We're just now turning the path to be able to go full force on our science. In the past we had to fit it in around assembly, we didn't have the facilities available, and the crew was always busy.'"

Comments

Look at it this way

[schnikies79]

$100 billion for space-based research or $100 billion for Welfare and War.

Not really a touch decision.

Re:Look at it this way

[Darkness404]

How about 100 billion that could still be in the pocketbooks of millions?

There is a third choice, letting the people keep the money they earn.

Re:Look at it this way

[Darkness404]

There is a huge difference between research and wealth distribution.

There is nothing about research that makes me pay for a non-existent product. If GE wants to research a new refrigeration technology, it doesn't take money out of my paycheck, rather it can use surpluses given to it in a competitive (and the word competitive is important) market to go towards R&D. When I buy a GE fridge, I want a fridge that does what its supposed to do. What GE does with that money is up to them. However, with the government there is no say in it. There is no competitive market and there can not legally be one.

Research can be done ethically, not by stealing my money.

Re:Important engineering lessons

[jpmorgan]

Ugh, were important lessons learned.

Re:Let's NEVER go in that direction

[Anonymous Coward]

France has a massive government and has been in a state of mass riots for over a week.

Remember, DON'T BE LIKE FRANCE.

Re:And look at it another way

[mozumder]

Remember, a person that only makes $15,000 a year uses less government than a person that makes $300,000 a year.

Government is a tool for wealth. People that make more money, use more government. That is what all those millions of laws are for, for rich people.

You know that Arizona immigration law? It was written by millionaires that own prison businesses: http://topics.npr.org/article/0eWt7HBbjtbJX?q=NPR

If you make a million dollars from government, you should pay government a million dollars.

Hypocrisy.

[Gerafix]

Hypocrisy is rampant upon the people complaining in here. Especially if they're Americans. Really $100 billion over ten years? That comes out to about what $35 bucks a YEAR for each American? Most Americans spend more on McDonald's each WEEK feeding their rotund meatbags. What's with all the anti-science hate in America? Oh that's right... America is the most religious (read: ignorant) country in the world. Well, besides Turkey.

Libertarian mods need to get over themselves.

[mozumder]

Unfortunately, libertarians are the real-life trolls.

Nobody accepts their viewpoints, as they largely represents people that are widely ridiculed, such as the tea-partiers.