Actual Costs for the Space Station 780
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."
quick question (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA should benchmark other organizations, (Score:4, Interesting)
If NASA has the attitude that having a space station that was 99% safe, instead of 99.99% safe, and relied on the skill of the residents astronauts to fix any problems, we'd have the dual torus in 2001, instead of a little tin can. Good luck getting that in today's wiffle world.
Any history buff can tell you just how far a few, determined, idealistic men can go in changing history. Someday I may tell you how 13 men took on an Empire, and altared history (for the better), forever, 2000 years ago.
Cost VS Benefit (Score:5, Interesting)
consideration (Score:2, Interesting)
- Scientist have been able to do research otherwise impossible.
- The program has provided jobs to a lot of people on the floor
It is often forgotten science and research are valuable investments. And also on the bright side. This money isn't spent on warfare, defense etc. At least they tried to spend with good intentions
Waste of money? (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel very strongly that we, as a species, need to have a presence in space. Right now, we are one asteroid impact away from extinction. The ISS is a very important step to ensuring that man-kind can survive a disaster like that. We need to get to Mars. We need to leave the solar system. We need to colonize other planets.
The real question is: Is $40 billion too much to spend to start us down the path of being truely, and I mean truely independent?
I'm Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA Accounting (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's hope O'Keefe can put in reliable accounting. Fudged numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. If we can get good accounting data, we can see just what is working and not working in all of NASA's endeavors. Solid accounting might also promote honesty in the field. One frequent complaint about NASA made by former workers is the amount of lies they were told. Add to that abuse and exploitation and you have the formula for driving people from the field.
We've seen too much throwing good money after bad. It's not only wrong to waste the taxpayers' money, it also diverts people from projects that might work. Too many failures also cause people who might enter space work to choose different careers -- ones where they might actually accomplish something. I mentioned to one friend that young people aren't going into aerospace any more. She commented that's because many people -- especially the technically oriented -- view aerospace as a dead end.
In retrospect, it would have been wiser to spend the money on work to lower the cost of getting things into orbit. The United States could have funded multiple, diverse research projects rather than this centralized, mismanaged failure. Lower cost to orbit would have paid off across the board -- for satellites, probes to distant planets, human work in space and much more.
Instead we got a project that put three people into a station that requires at least 2.5 people to just maintain it. And which might be mothballed any day because of problems with Russian participation.
Re:Waste of money QWZX (Score:1, Interesting)
but why not use the resources to find a cure for cancer or aids or do something for the homeless?
1) We already spend an enormous amount of money on cancer. More money does not necessarily mean a faster solution.
2) The homeless are homeless because they choose to be homeless. You can't make people stop spending their welfare checks on drugs and alcohol. The only way to cure homelessness is to forcibly lock them in mental institutions. Which we actually used to do, until the oh-so-compassionate ACLU made the government throw the mentally ill out on the street in the name of "freedom".
Re:quick question (Score:2, Interesting)
This means that $40B would now be worth almost $70B. You ask me, those numbers are already too big to really be able to appreciate the difference between them. When you're standing between two fat women, it's hard to tell which is bigger.
It's all just a bunch of numbers (Score:1, Interesting)
What could we do with $6.00 individually? It depends who you are, and what you need. BUT...
Now think about Bush's "Tax Check Gala" last year. I know this only applies to tax payers, but most people I know got a hefty $300-$600 check. I don't know anyone that is any better for it.
My point (though this is mostly babbling) is that chances are, something better could potentially been done with the Space Station funding. If that something took priority over the space station, fine. But, aren't there many costly things with lesser priority? It seems to me like someone worked out these figures, and then wanted to cry "scandal". That's statistics for ya. Like that $6.00 a year mumbo-jumbo I spouted out at the beginning of this post. But, in any case, mentioning it does bring into light discussions such as these, which can be of merit on their own.
Re:NASA should benchmark other organizations, (Score:5, Interesting)
Any history buff can tell you just how far a few, determined, idealistic men can go in changing history.
This is related to a point that I think is very important when looking at the "failures" of NASA and humanity's space programs in general. It can be summed up quite simply: we are too cowardly.
It sickens me that in the space program (and indeed, in many things) we don't take a chance with human lives anymore. "Oh no! There's a 0.02% chance that someone could get hurt. Even though this could be a huge breakthrough, we can't risk it!" That's not the attitude we had about getting to the moon - we took the gambles, and at times paid for it with human lives. But those people knew the risks, and they knew that the potential gains far outweighed the potential losses. They dove head first into it knowing they very possibly might not survive - but that was a risk they were willing to take, and it paid off.
If we are ever to move beyond this gigantic blue marble of ours, we need to stop being chickens and start taking some risks. I don't mean stupid risks, but calculated ones - the same ones that we took some decades ago that let us set foot on the moon. Without that same attitude, we won't get anywhere. And I bet you that the astronauts of yesteryear, who paved the way for what is now a weakling NASA, would agree with me.
Re:NASA should benchmark other organizations, (Score:2, Interesting)
Gimme a break. One guy called himself God, convinced 12 other guys of that, and told them how to think and act. Once the shit started to hit the fan, they betrayed and denied the guy. Wait, come to think of it, this sounds a lot like some corporations . . .
You know, (Score:4, Interesting)
$40 billion. The space station isn't even done. Humans haven't left Earth's orbit since the '70's. $40 billion. It sickens me.
I suppose the argument goes something like, "Private companies won't fund altruistic space flight, so the gov't has to foot the bill." "Companies are too nearsighted; they wouldn't appreciate the impact of expensive space based R&D."
Well, I could care less about argument #1. If you want a "feel good" space mission, fund it with Space Tourism. I think Lance Bass has some seed money for ya.
As far as agument #2 goes: I read an interesting proposal by Harry Browne (LP candidate for U.S. President in '00): Instead of direcly funding a space agency, the government could hold a "competition". Set aside $X billion, and offer it as a "reward" for the company or companies that meet the stated goal. Hell, this concept should be considered for lots of "expensive" R&D things: Offer a few billion to the first auto company to break our dependancy on oil, for example.
I truly belive that if 50% of that government spending had been set aside as an incentive for the private sector to go to space, we would have seen an appreciable return by now. There has to be people that would love to figure how how to mine asteroids, efficently harness energy from the sun, etc. Instead we can't even launch a Backdoor Boy into space. I mean, aside from the occasional tourist, has there been any appreciable return from that $40 billion yet? Not that I'm, aware of.
So, I'll say it again, and I'll link to it again, and you'll mod me down again: Privatize NASA. [lp.org]
$40B? That's nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
not quite (Score:4, Interesting)
Not for $40 billion: best guesses by the administration put the tab around 200 billion - and do you think the administration is going to over-estimate the cost?
What could be done with $40 billion (Score:1, Interesting)
Then leave it to the Russians (Score:5, Interesting)
As described in LEO on the Cheap [dunnspace.com], the Russians do have a more realistic and economical approach to spaceflight. That is, they build their rockets with shipyard-level technology, not ballistic missile-level technology. Big, heavy, tough and dumb vs light, high-performance and expensive.
On point made in "LEO
And for God's sake, have a plan with a definate goal, not "lets get everybody together and put on a show"!
Re:One such detail... (Score:4, Interesting)
It also provides us with a way of finding out what all needs to be done to keep a human alive out in space for extended periods. Lots of people think that the key to travelling inter-stellar is to have a fast drive. Not true. The key to travelling inter-steller is keeping the passengers alive. The difference bewteen 6 months of travel and a year of travel is irrelevant if you turn into an invalid 1 month into it.
The truth of the matter is that we can't send a manned mission to Mars until we have guarantees that the astronaut will survive the trip. The ISS can potentially make a trip to Mars survivable.
Re:NASA Accounting (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree. ISS is an example where good money was thrown after bad. BUT there have been many many times when the reverse has been the case at NASA. So often they have brought a project to 80% completion, only to cancel it at the last minute. The ones I can think of off the top of my head:
- Triana [nasa.gov] -- all hardware finished, never launched.
- Apollo 18, 19 & 20 [nasa.gov] -- All hardware finished, crews trained, never launched.
- Skylab B [floridatoday.com] -- Entire space station was built, a Saturn V was available, never launched.
And many more [astronautix.com]. I'd rather see NASA throw bad money after good, than keep changing their priorities and leaving so many nearly completed projects hanging.[Posting as a coward because I don't want to undo the mods I made earlier on this story.]
Re:NASA should benchmark other organizations, (Score:1, Interesting)
That being said, any time you wanna talk about the 13 men, I got your back.
Greg
Re:Actual costs are where you find them (Score:4, Interesting)
That hasn't been true for some time. If it ever was. Yes, NASA has some real accomplishments to its credit. Sadly, laying the foundation for the other things you mention isn't really one of them.
Back in the 70s I was inspired by O'Neill's vision. I became an SSI Senior Associate (donated money). Joined the L5 Society -- actually became a bit of a leader in that group. Organized events. Spoke up for NASA research. Wrote letters to Congress. Kept it up well into the 90s. Even though I was starting to notice flaws in the agency.
You point out a major part of the problem. NASA has become entirely too much about full funding for the existing aerospace establishment.
We need better engineering to actually build this new frontier. We're not getting that with NASA now. What we're getting are "spectaculars" that aren't all that spectacular and don't advance humanity's future in space.
Re:NASA has to leave earth orbit! (Score:2, Interesting)
However, NASA has been acting purely as a jobs program for the last 30 years, lacking vision of any but the purely political kind. The great majority of the NASA budget (some $3.4B a year!) is spent on space shuttle operations, not on research or visionary projects. The exploration missions get buried under the political weight of all those operations workers scattered across 50 states when budgets are developed.
Originally, the shuttle was meant to provide a cost effective means to develop vehicles that would launch from high earth orbit to explore and colonize Mars. Somewhere along the way the feeding frenzy began and NASA became just another sad beaurocracy.
I turned away from aerospace in 1994 after I sat with astronaut Guion Albert at an AIAA dinner, where we heard the NASA director of Aeronautics speak on the future of NASA. His name was Wes Harris and his vision consisted entirely of educating the underserved and enhancing their opportunities. This was the last straw for me and many others who looked to NASA to build the future in space.
Perhaps the recent amateur and commercial efforts in space vehicles like Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com] will give us the long awaited vision and excitement about our future in space travel...
NASA Says: Take a Chance (Score:2, Interesting)
Since those times, people have gotten more cautious. People/businesses won't take a chance unless there is almost assured success. Unless you take an educated chance, you won't know whats possible. If a company's R&D won't research a possible solution that has a chance of failing, the scope of solutions is limited.
His final words were something along the lines of "Don't take the safe route everytime, you'll never see anything new". Unfortunately, CEOs and PR people will vehemently object to the possibility of failure, so we won't see that kind of thinking.
Re:you could ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:you could ... (Score:3, Interesting)
But disbanding the army is a canard. Almost no one recommends that.
The point is to illustrate that the military is a vital part of keeping the peace. Too many people just assume that the point of the military is to arbitrarily kill people and break things. There really are bad people in the world.
The issue is how much, of $350 billion+ [satirewire.com] (the link is joking, but the figure is about right) is appropriate, or could be diverted to other projects.
I don't know, and few people really do. All I know is that I would rather err on the side of having too much military than not enough military.
There are many options, I don't think it can be said we have the best ones.
I agree that there are certainly a lot of options, and no one has a crystal ball to know the best ones. But there are those who think that the military option is never the right option, and I vehemently disagree with those people. Sometimes ass needs to be kicked in the short term in order to save a lot of lives in the long term. Imagine if Hitler had been beat down in the 1930s rather than the 1940s.