Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I hear they are coming out with a new flavor .. of tang.
That has to be worth something.
I'm assuming that various technologies and engineering solutions were developed in order to build the station and get it assembled in orbit, so even if no science is done on the station from this day forward, much knowledge was undoubtedly gained already. Knowledge that would probably not have come about from non-space-station-related projects. 100 Billion dollars is a lot of money, but humanity has blown significantly larger sums of money on way less useful stuff on many occasions.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
"I think those who are naysayers haven't given us a chance -- haven't given us enough time to show what we can do."
Wasn't the ISS built with an expiration date approaching ... about now?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
The potential value to science can be found where else?
If we are comparing similar projects the price tag becomes a useful thing. Unique projects are harder to judge. Is it worth more than a fraction of the gulf war(s)?
It's not worth more than the cost of cleaning up government but then I don't thing that's on the table.
Scientific research is just gravy. The biggest benefit of the ISS is it teaches us how to operate indefinitely in space. All the little unexpected things that went wrong and had to be solved, was an important lesson learned. They all might seem trivial, but if we ever want to do more than hang around in low-earth orbit, these are all important lessons to learn. And they can only be learned through experience.
When you're half way to mars, a malfunctioning toilet would be a shitty way to die.
It's easy to see it's not a tough decision, since we have both!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Put it on eBay and find out what it's worth,
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So we can build more things in space. What would happen if we were to build a foundry in space? Could we build new metals? Would they be stronger? Would they be applicable to more uses? What about making CPUs in space? Could we build a system that would align the materials better in space?
Yes I am dreaming here. If we could safely work with liquid materials (metals, silicon, etc.) in space, we might be able to build better things.
Strange how much human accomplishment and progress comes from contemplation of the irrelevant. - Scott Kim
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I thought people fly in rockets and visit space stations and the moon because it's cool. I don't care if no scientific progress comes out of it - I like space travel because it's awesome. Similarily, I'm not attracted to science, mathematics or technology for their practical uses, but because it's fun understanding how the world works, being able to calculate things and think up and admire cool (preferably huge) machines.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Semper Non-sequitor!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Here. Let me translate:
"They've paid 100 Billion. Think how much more they would have gotten if they'd granted that to my field."
I'm sure it is everywhere, but I've seen this personally in biochemistry, solid state physics, and particle physics.
My original advisor in grad school was literally jumping for joy when the SSC was cancelled. He didn't like it when I pointed out that none of that money would be going to grants he was involved in and would in large part go back to the general US budget.
Divide it by the US's population, that's a bit more than $300 for each person... you can eat a nice meal with that but it's not a lot.
In that case, I'd choose science.
If you dont think we should research, then please go back to using fire.
You dont get to moan and complain and benefit from it at the same time.
The alternative is not 100 billion dollars for a war. The alternative could have been 100 billion dollars on general science spending. That's 11 LHCs of science or 10,000 individual X prices of engineering. I'm not in a position to evaluate that against the current space program, but that's a lot of pay off to compete with.
It's a station. In space. Right now, we have humans off-world. Think about that for a moment. Surely these are important fields to develop if we want to survive as a species long-term.
It may not be "a lot" to you, but that equals out to be about $600 per couple, enough to cover a month's rent in many cases. Enough to buy a few months of groceries.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Also, the money that "they earn" is never their own.
People don't earn money on their own. They earn it with cooperation of government that designed a system to enable a person to earn that bit of money in the first place.
The money that "they earn" is just one step of a much larger system where the public is expected to pay back into the system that allowed them to earn money in the first place.
Remember, without a proper system of government that is designed to encourage spending, you would not be able to earn money in the first place.
I remember when they shut down the Apollo program to do this thing it was suppose to be a permanent hopping off point in space to get us out to the other planets and beyond. They never told us it was just going to go around circles just outside the atmosphere and let astronauts perform little science fair experiments and do little else. Basically, I believe now the space station and the space shuttle were just welfare programs for aerospace companies. Now NASA wants to crash it back to earth and loose everything. I don't blame Russia and the other countries wanting to detach their modules and taking them to play elsewhere. If NASA really wants to salvage the space station project, they need to push it to a higher, more useful orbit, and start building some real interplanetary manned (and unmanned) spaceships out there.
Same goes for so many things. Part of the taxes I pay go to child support for dysfunctional families with a father in prison and so on.
Most of those children will vote for people and have ideas that I don't like, yet still my money goes there...
Where's my return of investment here?
Privacy is terrorism.
I would say the biggest thing we should take from the ISS is that it got several countries to work together toward a common goal. Certainly there were disagreements along the way, and that is to be expected. The main countries involved had plans for their individual space stations though none could afford them. Let's be honest, it is likely that will be the only way we get to Mars and beyond, several countries working together to get there.
You wouldn't be typing your message out and transmitting it if the US Government hadn't underwritten much of the key R&D that went into it, not to mention the infrastructure.
Or, to put it another way, you're an ignorant hypocrite.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are you using a wifi network right now or in the last 6 months?
If so bugger off. Australian taxes paid for the CSIRO to do their excellent work. Not even your own tax money.
Your moaning, yet you still benefit.
we could have sent up thirty Hubble telescopes ($5B).
Just sayin'.
The ISS, or the LHC, or any other major research project wasn't built with competition in mind.
Competition is a bad thing, not a good thing. It results in monopolies, since the whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors.
Why would you want monopolies?
Actually it is not even like that. $100 billion is over an estimated 30 years for ISS, while just the war in Iraq costs over $100 billion per year, ON TOP of the $600+ billion per year for the base US army budget. The ISS and everything that has been spent in space exploration over the last 2-3 decades is peanuts compared to military spending.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
But there wasn't anything special about governments that made it possible. It was simply that in the late 60s no one but the US government had enough computers and the like to make it be possible.
If the internet had not been born from the government, I have little doubt I'd still be typing this message on it, it simply would have been born from a corporation, perhaps with better features and the like.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Advanced research is and always has been funded by governments.
Right now, the average corporation is barely looking past next quarters returns. Anything that can't turn a profit this fiscal year is not done by average corporations.
Even long term investments expect a return within 5 to 10 years at the most. If it wont produce profit in that timeframe, it won't be done.
Government needs to finance theoretical and advanced research, otherwise new opportunities for applied research that private orgs are willing to invest in will rapidly dry up.
There is nothing about research that makes me pay for a non-existent product.
Most basic research takes decades to turn into a marketable product. To take my favorite example, X-ray crystallography, it took 25 years from the first experiments with protein crystals to actually determine a structure, then another 25 years for the method to mature enough for pharmaceutical companies to use it. Simultaneously, it also took 25 years for a particular type of particle accelerator to be recognized as useful for crystallography. There is simply no profit to be had in a reasonable amount of time from this kind of fundamental groundwork. The particle accelerators in particular cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Only a handful of companies in the world have enough money to spend on blind research like this. Even some of those would probably be at risk of shareholder lawsuits if they were devoting hundreds of millions on research of questionable use.
I won't get into the issue of morality, because it's simply impossible to argue with someone who claims that "taxation is theft." Strictly from a free market standpoint, there is no financial incentive to invest in basic research without any hint of a future product. I personally think that the ISS has been a waste of time and money that has detracted from more promising space exploration projects, but none of this would happen if left to companies like, say, GE. (Private charities? I wish - only a handful of those can afford mega-projects, and they risk alienating major donors if something turns out to be a blind alley.)
But realistically, if $300 will make a huge difference in your life, chances are they only took about a buck fifty from you, and about $1800 from people with more income....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Both are true. Socialism is good. Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad. Capitalism is bad. We don't necessarily need more of one or the other. but better of each.
I think those who are naysayers haven't given us a chance — haven't given us enough time to show what we can do.
I'm 100% sure that in another 10 years, when we still haven't seen anything of value come from the ISS, they'll say the same thing. It's a convincing argument, until someone realizes that it follows horrible logic. Basically they want us to fund them until they find something, then fund them some more. There's nothing that says anything interesting will ever come out of it. I'm not saying they shouldn't do research, I'm just saying I don't want that much money coming out of my (taxpayer) pocket.
No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
Ask the military for a refund then. Their budget is excess of $5000 billion for same time period. That's a *only* $16.5k per every individual, or if you want, per individual taxpayer (about 130m in the US), you are looking at only $38,500 refund....
I'd rather spend money on R&D rather than destruction.
Sure, back when the space agency was pushing the cutting edge it resulted in the development of a large amount of new technology. But is that really true today, now that we are just applying tried and true principles? I haven't heard of a single invention that came out of the ISS which has made it's way into the civilian marketplace.
Furthermore, if building anything high tech will result in new tech, then doesn't it make sense to choose goals that are useful and worthwhile by themselves, over something that is a waste of money - we are getting the same indirect return either way.
America put a man on the moon, Canada got universal healthcare. If you wonder who got the better deal: when was the last time you looked at a microchip and said "that Apollo program was money well spent."
Another way to look at it is 'opportunity cost'. What if we'd thrown the $100B into wind technology research? Solar Cells*? Cellulostic Ethanol? Battery tech? Cancer prevention? A replacement for the shuttle? Thorium nuclear power?
Personally, I think the ISS is what happens when you go at something but don't go in ENOUGH. We'd have had a lot more actual research for the buck if we'd payed the extra money to get the thing assembled and working on schedule, rather than have modules go end of life without real use because you didn't have the full crew up there, because you don't have the necessary equipment up there to do research, because of delay, delay, delay.
*I'm sure at least some of that $100B ended up towards solar research, but eh...
I don't read AC A human right
Google's what $150 billion, Facebook $10 billion , ISS is a steal at $100 billion and will in history be far more relevant than most other things from today.
I'd keep the roommate who steals $2.50 out of my wallet every month for loopy dreams of space travel, and ditch the roommate who steals $100 out of my wallet every month to buy bullets and bombs with which he rains terror from the skies on some of our neighbors.
I said that exact thing the last time I fled from the United States to Canada to get my health care.
"His name was James Damore."
The Internet is a spin-off. It was originally a Defense met (DARPA), then opened up to academia and then, through some twists and turns, by the late 1980s you had some individuals getting on board via facilities like UUCP (that's how I got my first mail and news feed around 1993).
It's hard to see how private industry in and of itself would have the where with all to develop it. I know there were other forms of internal networking, but DARPA had fairly specific needs for a routed packet switching network, and not in the sort of fixed networks that corporations were using.
But the fact, at the end of the day is that directly the US taxpayer funded the development of the Internet and its basic protocols, directly funded many of the early users (US military, defense contractors and academics) and directly and indirectly funded a helluva lot of the copper that ended up being used for ARPANET as it grew.
However much the US government ending up spending on ARPANET, I'll wager the US economy has made it back many times over, and indeed it literally has created whole new marketplaces. So that initial investment has paid off hugely.
That's the problem with Libertarians. They're like religious fanatics, and like all fanatics, they have tunnel vision.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The product of mental labor — science — always stands far below its value, because the labor-time necessary to reproduce it has no relation at all to the labor-time required for its original production." - Karl Marx
This is the wrong question that keeps getting asked again and again. It's the "NASA shouldn't send men into outer space" meme that closely accompanies the "NASA should only use robotic spacecraft" meme.
This is blue-sky (well, since it's space, its probably black) research. This is the last vestige of this type of research that the United States has any investment in. the Reagan Administration axed all federal funding for this kind of ongoing research at Universities and think tanks long ago. But, since NASA had landed on the Moon, the Reagan Administration didn't want to cut this for fear they'd be hounded out of office.
But CNN correspondents breathlessly ask Astronaut after Astronaut in "exclusive" interviews, taking up precious air time, "Considering the dangers, should we really keep putting men up into outer space?"
Call me an Old Fossil, but I was there. Not once did Walter Cronkite ask the Apollo Astronauts this question. Everyone knew the answer. "Of course!" Even after the near-disaster that was Apollo 13, everyone was still just fine with the idea of going to the Moon. And we did it four more times, putting eight more men on the Moon. And we completely revolutionized our understanding of the Earth-Moon system and its origins.
When NASA pulls its head out and gets the right teams together, they can do anything. And that includes helping pull Chilean miners out of the ground. (Oh, maybe there are some scientists at NASA who know a thing or two because of all this money being thrown at these "blue sky" projects!) The only limitation is funding, and NASA's funds have been cut, sliced, diced and reduced to the point where they cannot get off the ground any more. NASA is on life support, dependent utterly on 1960s-era technology supplied by Russia. When NASA was flying things with the Shuttle, people my size could go into outer space (I stand 6'5"). Now that we're all "back to the future" with Russian space capsules, It has increased to 6'3" because Russia generously redesigned their capsules, which were limited to 5'11". Russian capsules are what our Astronauts called "Spam in the can."
Everyone here on Slashdot uses a computer for something. And I'll bet over 90% of slashdotters are using microcomputers to get on line. Microcomputers were developed based on needs by NASA to have computers that were light enough to be on a spacecraft because you couldn't fit a room-sized mainframe on an Apollo spacecraft or on the Lunar Excursion Module. So, let's see. We have this little space race thing that ends in the 1970s with NASA pouring money into little teeny solid state computing devices and you get the Apple ][ computer in 1977. And the IBM PC four years later. The last Apollo spacecraft was designed around 1967 more or less so I have to ask the naysayers what they're expecting to see in about ten years now that the ISS is complete. because everybody knows NASA science doesn't contribute to anything down here on earth.
I get absolutely disgusted and horrified when I hear and read this line of reasoning. Here we have this community on slashdot that is the beneficiary of the technology that NASA's scientists had a major hand in developing and you're discussing piddling nonsense.
Blue sky research generally takes about ten to fifteen, sometimes 20 years to result in something you hold in your hand. That's why it's called blue sky research, because it seems like you're funding a bunch of people looking up at the sky and asking why it is blue. But it always results in benefits to humanity that are incalculable. The United States is the only remaining superpower in the world. Rather than developing and maintaining stuff to kill people, we should be throwing big budgets at NASA and at other blue sky research. But, ever since Reagan took away the funding in our Universities (saying the Government is the problem), we have had none at Universities and a dwindling amount at NASA.
Slashdotters should be ashamed these questions are being asked.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
what. the. fuck. does. that. mean...?
$100 billion for space-based research or $100 billion for Welfare and War. Not really a touch decision.
Which type of welfare? Corporate welfare? Welfare spent on people who are abusing the system? Or just all welfare?
While it's easy to find plenty of examples of where welfare was wasteful, there's plenty of good that comes out of it. Meanwhile, as the summary mentions, it's hard to find tangible benefits of the ISS. Welfare or the ISS may not be a tough decision if you think that all welfare is wasted money*, but it would be a tough decision for some of us.
(* we'd be wasting our time to discuss it if so)
Something I found extremely disturbing when comparing proposed space travel budgets as opposed to government overspending: The (extremely bloated) nasa mars mission plan in the early 90's, which called for orbital fuel depots, a quadrupling of the size of the ISS, lunar bases and ship yards plus a whole host of other stuff cost 450B$, or a fraction of the combined recent government bailouts of big business. Mars direct, zubrin's plan, called for something like 55B$, including mars habitation units left behind and fuel refineries.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
The cost of the space station is a pittance to what we already spend on welfare concerns, which is a pittance to what we spend on killing the unborn, sick and dying off on the other side of the world.
Beside that, it is beyond foolish to assume that this meager "viable ecosystem" we happen to live on will last forever. Right now we have only one basket, and nearly 7 billion eggs. Seems like a bad plan. The trifle we put into space travel is, in fact, much less than a sane person should consider worthwhile.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
ISS equals processed dirt. Program costs equal processed money. Dirt goes to space. Money stays on earth. How difficult was that? We all need to see that space is the very best kind of welfare. Before you can collect it, you have to get off your butt, maybe even educate yourself and then 'oh my God', do something useful.
This is true, but it doesn't help us decide the question at hand, which is whether the ISS was a good use of funds. I'm always suspicious of any project when the best defense is "Hey, so and so wasted more money!"
Step back a bit and look what you just wrote. You just compared developing a new model of passenger aircraft to a multipurpose space station in orbit. How do you feel about what you wrote now that you are sober?
If it was deliberate, shame on you. Pretending to compare apples and aardvarks is a nastly little trick in arguments that should have been beaten out everyone in the playground before they became adults. I know that the slimiest folk in politics and media do so, but I doubt you are an ex-DJ with his brain damaged by cocaine so you do not have that excuse.
Especially on any kind of absolute scale, when the amounts get so large. It's easier if you consider it in relation to other large governmental expenditures. Fox News (which tends to under-estimate war cost, IMO) has estimated the cost of the Iraq war at >$700B. How does the ISS stack up to that in terms of value to the world? Is it worth about 1/7 of that? More? Less? I'm not sure it stacks up as well against every other possible use of $100B, but I'd personally much rather have another 6 space stations than what we've gotten in exchange for our other $600B spent on war.
.sig: file not found
Only a complete moron measures something important as the conquest of space solely in terms of money...
We must learn to live and travel through space, period. This small planet where we live on does not have infinite space, nor will sustain us forever.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Honestly, I think the entire ISS/Space Shuttle platform should be revamped. I think that the shuttle has a good niche, but I don't see a reason as to why the shuttle shouldn't stay in space, while allowing the crew to return in a capsule-based vehicle.
.... -_-
The shuttle is good at reaching things and plucking them out of the sky, and the robotic arm is really nice. I don't see why they don't leave the robotic arm in space, or in a shuttle like vehicle. I like the idea of a shuttle-like vehicle that stays docked with the ISS with the arm attached so that it can go out, do things, and come back to the ISS to refuel, while the astronauts return home in a capsule.
Using the current Space Shuttle to deliver parts for the ISS is so awful. The modified Saturn V that delivered SkyLab, which was 60% the size of the ISS, was launched in ONE FLIGHT. Now that I think about it, I really think that I am talking about Constellation
Sig: I stole this sig.