CNN: Is the Space Station a Money Pit?

[nyarlathotep]

<i>"It wasn't Iridium who did that. The Iridium Constellation of satellites are for communication."</i><br /><br />No, the Iridium satellites are for making money. For the fist four years of operation all they made were broke stockholders, flares and customers angry with billing errors.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>Once again, I am not saying that there isn't material available, I am just saying that the ISS supporters have not done a good job of promoting their cause in the public arena. Developing a definitive list of papers describing research on ISS, and including how frequently those papers were cited by others would be a good start. </i><br /><br />This is a failure of NASA. <br /><br />It is next to impossible for someone without journal access (Not being an aerospace postgrad at my uni I do not have access to most of their work. And I am NOT randomly paying $20 an article) to figure out what their organisation does. The articles they do store on the web are useless. Firstly, the website is unnavigable. This shouldn't ordinarily matter, but most papers are pdfs containing un-OCRed images unindexable by crawlers.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<He obviously has an ax to grind against human spaceflight ><br /><br />if so, then why does he speak favorably about the VSE? I think he's just a harsh critic of the STS and ISS.

 

[frodo1008]

Is the ISS worth its cost?? I have given this particular post time and time again (this time I will save it for future reference), and yet every once in awhile it comes up again!<br /><br />First, the opponents to the ISS keep coming up with this $100 billion cost. This is exactly the same kind of thing that opponents to a whole lot of such program have done to try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to kill such programs in the past! This was done while I worked on the B1-A bomber program back in the 1970’s. What the opponents to that worthy program did was to take ALL the development costs, then add the total procurement costs for 100 planes, and then add the estimated maintenance costs for an additional 30 years. So naturally, we were building this $100 billion dollar bomber, and then the opponents could ask: IS this cost worth it? NOT of course saying that they were talking about some 50 years of costs, for an average of some $2 billion per year! In this case they only temporarily set back the program until the Reagan era.<br /><br />And then the opponents to the ISS are now doing the same thing. They link all the early development costs with all the production procurement costs, and all the shuttle flights to the ISS, and then the maintenance costs all the way up till the ISS programmed total life span. So, naturally with this reasoning the ISS is going to cost at least some $100 billion or more! Of course, as the earliest planning for such a station (space station Alpha to Freedom, all before it even became an international project) started in the 1970’s. So by the current close down date of 2015 (and I fully believe that the ISS like its illustrious predecessor MIR, is going to run far beyond its planned shut down date) the station will have been running some 40 years at least, and quite probably 50 years or more. So once again the average cost will be somewhere in the $2 billion per year cost range. <br /><br />I also love it when people (ev

 

[superluminal]

<font color="yellow">In the future it will be this kind of space research that will make the ISS , more than pay for itself many times over!! <br /><br /><font color="white"> I agree.<br />I know the current shuttles are being phased out. I've accepted that.<br /><br />But realistically here, and I'm simply asking.<br /><br />After ISS is completed, and for future projects, how will we possibly build anything substantial in orbit without such valuable space vehicles similar to the shuttles? <br /><br />As far as ISS being a money pit, <br />When the day arrives soon, that a future Astronaut discovers an exotic Moon, Asteroid, or Mars stone loaded with new elements, or possibly life, then the past monies invested will benefit all of humankind in ways yet imagined.</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you (I was wondering when I would get an answer to my somewhat lengthy post!) for your very good post!<br /><br />Hopefully I can give a reasonable answer to your question:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> After ISS is completed, and for future projects, how will we possibly build anything substantial in orbit without such valuable space vehicles similar to the shuttles? </font><br /><br />While a truly magnificent vehicle, the shuttle does have a basic flaw to it. It was designed to be all things to all users. That is a hauling truck AND a passenger car at the same time<br /><br />This means that the shuttle will have to be replaced by a vehicle similar to the Ares I to take upwards of seven people (just as the shuttle does) up to LEO. Whether or not the replacement vehicle can do this as cheaply as the shuttle depends on a whole lot of factors. The largest to me is the frequency of flight. But, if space tourism does take off, and NASA really is going to both continue to use the ISS (as I believe it will) AND go back to the moon, the number of flights within some ten years of so of now (the time frame for the completion of Ares I), then there are going to be at the very least some twice as many flights as now, and possibly far more. This alone should allow an economy of scale that will bring the costs down dramatically.<br /><br />As for the materials needed, I am even more optimistic as there are two future directions (and at least three if Elon Musk and spacex can really do what he says it can). The one is ALS and the Atlas V Heavies, or the Delta IV Heavies. These rockets are already designed not only to place almost as much in material as the shuttle is, but also at far less cost.<br /><br />For the immediate future (again some ten years) there is also NASA with the Ares V which will rival the original capacity of the Saturn V! Again, hopefully at far less cost.<br /><br />So as you can see there really will be life after the shuttle!<br /><br />

 

[superluminal]

<font color="yellow"><br />So as you can see there really will be life after the shuttle!<br /><br /><font color="white"> <br />Oh yes indeed !<br /> <br />My point I'm trying to make is this.<br /><br />After ISS completion, <br />I foresee a dire necessity, for a fuel depot to be located, within 10 kilometers of I.S.S. . <br />I also see a necessity for three brand new future shuttles to accomplish this worthy task.<br /><br />Also, I see the present shuttle missions, able to accomplish way more than planned, if possibly a different criteria were discussed and approved.<br /><br />And that would be this outside of the box thought..<br /><br />Although the shuttles and Astronauts are always in a volatile ocean, when in orbit the orbiter sails and performs majestically.<br /><br />After one shuttle mission is safely accomplished,<br /> Is it possible, or has it been considered, in launching the next missions cargo via other means and have the present shuttle in orbit, retrieve this cargo and accomplish a second mission toward I.S.S. construction ?<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

What kind of research is supposed to be carried out on the ISS?<br /><br />Nothing dramatic pops into my mind here. Maybe some biology experiments seeing how well fish swim in zero g or something pointless like that. I remember seeing some studies on fires in zero g, again pointless to the average person. Medical reasons, i keep hearing of these but what medical research needs to be done in zero g. Long term exposure to astronauts is medical research I suppose but agian pointless to the average person. Probably helpful if we go to mars.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">but agian pointless to the average person</font>/i><br /><br />The results of most advanced research in the near-term is pointless to the average person. It can often take years or decades before the research results have a direct impact on people's lives.<br /><br />Often how scientific research will impact every day lives is completely unknown while the research is being carried out. For example, the researchers in quantum mechanics in the last century were probably not thinking about how lasers could be used to play music CDs, install software on a computer, or transmit huge volumes of data across an internet.<br /><br />However, having said that, I have read that about half of the US's research racks on ISS have nothing scheduled for them. NASA needs to work harder to find other organizations to fund their own research on ISS.</i>

 

[jschaef5]

What i mean is that it sounds pointless to the average person. When NASA is cutting aeronautics and science funding down here on earth how can you justify the huge expenses for the little research that is done up there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What i mean is that it sounds pointless to the average person.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree that NASA (or someone) needs to do a better job of promoting the benefits of ISS.</i>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What kind of research is supposed to be carried out on the ISS? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />By no means i am a fan of white elephants, but here is something useful:<br />http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=walters+ftsce<br /><br />In short, they flew several types of new solar cells intended for future space vehicle arrays and quantified degradation, power output data and so on. Including a limited set of thin-film substrates ( from companies like Iowa Thin Film, Spectrolab and Emcore for example ) which is a first in history AFAIK.<br /><br />Now, given the rate of advances in solar cell technology, it would probably make more economic sense to launch such experiments on small dedicated free-flying platforms instead ( like LDEF was, which did similar stuff )<br /><br />But here is a useful bit of applied research carried out on ISS, for what its worth.

 

[frodo1008]

The reason there is nothing scheduled at this time is there are not enough people on board the ISS to practically handle what IS scheduled right now.<br /><br />This condition WILL end in 2008 when the full compliment of ISS personnel will be on board. Not only does this free up our own astronauts, but also will allow people from ESA and JAXA that would be the most familiar with their own laboratories to be on board at the same time. <br /><br />If such a condition as under utilization of these labs occurs at that time then we can indeed complain, but not much is going to be accomplished by such complaints in the meantime.<br /><br />As to there not even being enough research to even be done by the ISS, didn't such as jschaef5 even read my post?<br /><br />THE most important research to be done on the ISS will be materials and processes for space application manufacturing. An absolutely vital area that we know next to NOTHING about at this time! An area that with its available power and space the ISS is ideally suited for!!<br /><br />As for the other worthy areas of NASA research, congress (the Democrat lead congress I might add) has increased the latest NASA budget just to see to it that these areas are not shorted. NOW, if we can just get our illustrious president to NOT veto this funding (as he has promised to do), then perhaps such currently vital (to the average person) research will get its due. Unfortunately, this particular president doesn't even seem to listen to congress itself, (on those rare occasions when they are correct) let alone ordinary Americans such as ourselves!<br /><br />You know, I am always amazed when they calmly ask for an increase in the military budget of some 10% or some $55 billion. This is some 4 times the ENTIRE current budget of NASA! Yet when a similar budget increase is being considered for NASA (whose research has given us literally $trillions of dollars worth of new technology over the years!) this is some kind of budget buster!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The reason there is nothing scheduled at this time is there are not enough people on board the ISS to practically handle what IS scheduled right now.</font>/i><br /><br />Actually, the under utilization I was referring to was for after 2010.<br /><br />NASA has been trying to get other agencies or organizations to sponsor research on ISS (part of the "national laboratory" thing); for example, the National Institutes of Health is cited as a potential participant. However, my guess is that NASA doesn't have a lot of deep experience at playing the salesman, so this may be a challenge for them.<br /><br />"<i>Hey, we have a great lab, you just have to pay for your own research, pay for it to be flown up (the shuttle won't be around anymore), and pay for someone to conduct the experiments. And that part about us cutting our own non-exploration research on ISS? Just ignore that; its really a great place to do research.</i>"</i>

 

[frodo1008]

well, 2010 is just a tad down the road. However, I would personally like to see NASA actually hire some kind of management company to run (and therefore advertize) NASA's lab portion of the ISS.<br /><br />I would think that there is so much not known about materials science that all the labs on the ISS could be just taken up with such research alone.<br /><br />Are there not enough universities here on the Earth filled with eager young budding scientists that could use such space for experimentation?<br /><br />Even just I as an old aerospace manufacturing person could think up at least a few manufacturing engineering experiments that would be significant (for instance, the better mixing pf numerous metal alloys in a weightless environment), surely there are many experts in even more areas that can think of even far more experiments than there is room on the ISS?

 

[holmec]

It seems to me that this is a silly journalistic comparison of apples and oranges and criticizing the dish before its served. I bet its politically motivated so some Congressman can debate over NASA budget.<br /><br />The ISS is not a house! Money pit would imply a return on investment was expected.<br /><br />There is no monetary return on investment from anything NASA does. No return on investment with anything the Federal Government does either.<br /><br />So to call the ISS a money pit is cheap, no research required.<br /><br />The truth is that the construction of the ISS itself is research done, living in it is also research done, fixing problems when systems gone astray is reasearch done. And NASA is all about research. Not about making a buck like a casino in Vegas.<br /><br />Mr. Jeff Kluger can go back sipping martinis and playing craps as far as I'm concern. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>> <He obviously has an ax to grind against human spaceflight ><br /> />if so, then why does he speak favorably about the VSE? I think he's just a harsh critic of the STS and ISS.</i><br /><br />I missed that, sorry. That makes his piece even more confusing. ISS technology and knowledge would go into the life support, EVA, structures and materials needed for making VSE happen. Abandoning the ISS is premature, at the least. Finding more efficient ways to utilize it is probably in order, and seems to be happening already. <br /><br />In some ways he is crying over spilt milk - it's almost Core Complete. This is following the exact path that some have predicted, NASA is the trailblazer (w/ Energia) and is moving on to new things. The US Segment will become a National Lab with others attached, the Russian Segment will continue to host cosmonauts and tourists. Eventually it will wear out, just like Salyuts, Skylab and Mir, and modules will be upgraded (w/ new VSE modules or BAs)or deorbited. What's the conflict? <br /><br />Alternately, in some way, he might be right. Is One Space Station a money-pit? probably. Are several dozen Stations throughout the inner Solar System a money-pit? No, they are the next new economy. This is entirely consistent with NASA doing spectacular exploration and R&D while enterprise and academia follow, but is not something that a national space agency could reasonably do alone - it is simply to large a capital project. Building an initial resource-based space economy requires large incentives (ie. money and the potential for more) to make happen. The best model is ground-up - each station-site specializes from the beginning on extracting a local resource, and grows outward from there. Each base would be it's own corporation and later settlement. This would be a viable legacy for all past US and Russian stations. <br /><br />His assertion that there would only be 'the One' focus is short-sighted and ill-researched. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I would personally like to see NASA actually hire some kind of management company to run (and therefore advertize) NASA's lab portion of the ISS.</font>/i><br /><br />That would be interesting.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Are there not enough universities here on the Earth filled with eager young budding scientists that could use such space for experimentation?</font>/i><br /><br />The US does have a problem with not graduating enough scientists and engineers. The bigger problem is who is going to fund the research, launch, etc.?<br /><br />I think it would be really cool for Congress to fund students (probably through NSF) to develop and launch experiments for ISS.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ISS is not a house! Money pit would imply a return on investment was expected.</font>/i><br /><br />When trying to win funding, ISS (and Freedom before that) was heavily promoted as a new hub of economic activity.<br /><br />However, excluding near-term financial results, there are various means to measure return on investment for science and research, and this is a big issue for a lot of scientists. This goes to the heart of the "manned" versus "unmanned" space exploration debate. Has stuff been learned and will more stuff be learned? Sure. But would more stuff have been (and will be) learned if the same dollars were spent in other ways? That is the question.</i>

 

[g113]

I Agree that the ISS is not a money pit, it will pay for itself over and over. And the Space shuttle will be phased out but now we get to go to the moon

 

[kdavis007]

No it isn't...

 

[scottb50]

I agree, but I think it would be wiser to extend the Shuttle and slow the ARES and VSE, especially since they were just window dressing to begin with.<br /><br />The remaining Shuttles haven't come close to their design lives and with upgrades could be kept flying and supporting ISS for quite some time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Is welfare a money pit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

yeah, it many cases it is*; 'have more kids, get more free money.'<br /><br /><br /><br />*its a very popular crutch here in philadelphia <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Is it a waste? Yes, and it has been since day one because both it and the shuttle were based on flawed premises enumerated here many, many times. These flawed premises, combined with no small amount of hubris, have cost lives and caused the manned space program to stagnate in LEO long enough. <br /><br />Major repairs to the ISS are not possible; modules cannot be replaced if they sustain major damage via space debris or just plain failure, with or without the shuttle. One good hit in a key module and it's over kiddies. Not exactly an example of inspired design IMO. <br /><br />The ISS won't be finished until 2010-2011 with the last shuttle missions, presuming another one doesn't go down in flames. The US money runs out in 2015-2016 despite the "National Lab" designation, and if I read right ITAR limits transferring US assets to other nations. No US bucks, no Buck Rogers.<br /><br />This gives ISS a fully crewed (but not fully capable) lifetime of about 8 years and a configured/capable lifetime of only a few years, not to mention that "configured/capable" is now far short of what it was sold to be. Many of the items used to sell the ISS are now canceled, transfered to private hands (TransHab to Bigelow) or capable of being done on Earth (perfect crystal growth).<br /><br />What about the "investments" by other nations? I say pay 'em off, especially given that the total is a pittance compared to what we would spend in the next 8 years trying to "complete" this pig.<br /><br />If keeping the ATK guys busy is so important then accelerate VSE and develop Ares V in parallel, just don't keep spending good money after bad.<br /><br />I'm no big fan of physicist Robert Park's general attitudes towards manned space flight, but he got this one right;<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">NASA must complete the ISS so it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule in finished form.<br />—Robert L. Park</font></b><br /><br />From his site;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">I</font></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>