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

I hear they are coming out with a new flavor ..

[fkx]

I hear they are coming out with a new flavor .. of tang.

That has to be worth something.

Making things is just as good as using things

[cowscows]

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.

Re:Making things is just as good as using things

[Darkness404]

Um, you mean the technologies that were basically all figured out with MIR?

Re:Making things is just as good as using things

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a middle school student outside on a clear evening that will have the ISS fly over during the hour after sunset. Point out the bright light crossing the sky to him or her and explain what that bright moving light actually is.

I do this on a regular basis, and every time I have done it, the result has been a youngster that is motivated to learn math and science so he or she can have a possible future in space-related work.

Human beings need aspirations. We need something to lift our thoughts above the hum-drum of everyday life. In the lack of a space program that is moving beyond low earth orbit, the ISS is all that we have to serve that role. It is keeping the spark of the future alive.

Re:Making things is just as good as using things

[jmcharry]

I wonder how much more might have been gained from that amount of targeted R&D.

Re:Making things is just as good as using things

[Poorcku]

100 billion = 1/7 of the economic rescue package for ze Banks...

Re:Making things is just as good as using things

[fermion]

I hear the Hobbit is going to cost at least $500 million to produce. Add the advertising and distribution costs and you have billion dollar film. Clearly this is an positive economic decision because even if the near term gross is only 1.25 billion, someone stands to make a lot of money.

But what does the Hobbit give to Humanity long term. What does the billion buy us. Do we get experience building a reliable structure in a hostile, novel environment? Do we get to do science in an environment not available on earth? Do we get new technology?

Ok, on such film we do get new technology. But when we do science, especially big science, it is not on the same basis as a production job. In science we throw money at problems, sometimes it shows results, sometimes it doesn't, but when it does the economy is transformed and the value cannot be calculated.

I mean what is the value of radio? What is the value of tv? What is the value of being able to travel quickly from the US to New Zealand? What is the value of being to transmit data quickly form US to New Zealand? ATT certainly is not profiting off The Hobbits digital cameras, does that mean the CCD was a waste of money?

Part of the problem with the space station is it took money from a relatively small pile of money that can be used for big science, which means that other project leaders are pissed that they cannot do their big science. But the bigger problem is that the common person sees the billion dollars and thinks that it is a lot of money. But do you think all the money that was spent on basic research leading up to the creation of the NAND chip hasn't been paid over many times in the transformative technology of the solid state drive? Do we seriously think that space is not going to transform and improve our society?

Important engineering lessons

[jpmorgan]

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.

Re:Important engineering lessons

[PCM2]

When you're half way to mars, a malfunctioning toilet would be a shitty way to die.

I see what you did there.

Re:Important engineering lessons

[GreatAntibob]

Not to rain on this parade, but Russia figured most of these lessons out a long time ago with the Mir/Soyuz. Even now, the person who spent the longest continuous period in space did it on Mir, not the ISS. And even the US figured out a good number of these lessons with Spacelab. The ISS doesn't provide any really new experience in long term space survival, though it does provide some engineering challenges that Mir did not. And besides, neither the Mir nor ISS are close to operating indefinitely. Both needed regular resupply from Earth (the ISS, in particular). And for all the patriotic rhetoric in the US, the USSR had arguably the better and more successful space program and did it at lower cost per mission (and probably lower regard for human life). Didn't get to the moon, of course, but much more successful at space stations and getting to LEO.

Re:Look at it this way

[treeves]

It's easy to see it's not a tough decision, since we have both!

Ebay

[sycodon]

Put it on eBay and find out what it's worth,

Re:Ebay

[mnmn]

People in the ISS staring back at Earth while a huge asteroid wipes off the planet killing off all mammals would probably say "yup... that's some nice ROI.. good investing".

we need bigger space stations

[BlackSnake112]

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.

Re:we need bigger space stations

[fpgaprogrammer]

contrary to the AC response, there are a lot of metal alloys that cannot be made on earth because gravity causes the mixture of liquid metals to form separate layers (like mixing oil and water) especially during the cooling process for making the allow. another possibility is the creation of metallic foams which cannot be made the same way on earth because gravity separates the liquid metal from the air bubbles.

Re:we need bigger space stations

[khallow]

contrary to the AC response, there are a lot of metal alloys that cannot be made on earth because gravity causes the mixture of liquid metals to form separate layers

Unless you mix them and/or pour them from a sufficient height (to get a few seconds of microgravity, enough for quick hardening alloys). It's tiresome to hear of all the things you can do only in microgravity, only to find that you can them good enough on Earth with some cleverness. What's the point of growing large perfect crystals of protein in space, when you can grow large enough protein crystals on Earth? Or specialized alloys that can be trumped by a cheaper alternative on Earth? It's not enough to do something unique in space, it's got to be valuable enough to beat cheap.

I'm not a metallurgist or pharmaceuticals research, and I sure don't have a lock on what technologies are going to work in space. But a lot of this is hard even by the standards of today's science. You not just trying to find novel things never discovered before, here, you're also trying to find really valuable things that require some aspect of space such as the microgravity environment or the ready access to vacuum. To be blunt, that effort has been going on for decades by a lot of smart people with a lot of money and they still haven't found the magic discovery that will justify space industry.

Salient quote

[dazedNconfuzed]

Strange how much human accomplishment and progress comes from contemplation of the irrelevant. - Scott Kim

It's fun!

[Bromskloss]

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.

Same old:

[Hartree]

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.

The alternative

[NoSig]

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 space station

[Mantrid42]

It's a space station. We're not getting enough science out of our space station?!

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.

Child support?

[Fuzzums]

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?

Working together

[Sean_Inconsequential]

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.

For the cost of one ISS ($100B)

[Snufu]

we could have sent up thirty Hubble telescopes ($5B).

Just sayin'.

Re:Look at it this way

[Ecuador]

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.

Re:Look at it this way

[dgatwood]

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....

Re:Let's NEVER go in that direction

[Nadaka]

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.

Circle of Grant Money

[Anomalyx]

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.

Re:Look at it this way

[ghjm]

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.

Re:Look at it this way

[MightyMartian]

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.

Depends on who you ask

[toppavak]

"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

Wrong Question

[mhollis]

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.

Re:Wrong Question

[KZigurs]

United States are a superpower? Ghmm, somebody please tell China that the fatties are getting all worked up and ambitious again...

Re:"Competitive"?

[mozumder]

No. Competition is what MAKES monopolies.

The lack of competition IS a monopoly.

Government is a monopoly.

Fortunately, government's interest is the public's interest.

Meanwhile, a private company doesn't have a public interest. They should not be allowed to have monopolies through competition.

Re:Look at it this way

[biryokumaru]

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.

Re:The ISS is a dead-end

[dbIII]

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.