Here's where your $30 billion in tax dollars went...

DanS · October 22, 2003, 22:59

To a space station that is not yet fully built and already has so many malfunctioning yet unfixed parts that the doctors recommend against occupying it.

I want my money back!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct22.html

Oerdin · October 22, 2003, 23:16

This is just par for the course on government work.

St Leo · October 22, 2003, 23:27

/me supports the space station

Kuciwalker · October 22, 2003, 23:39

/me agrees with Oerdin

/me actually thinks that, for government work, it is going quite well

Jack_www · October 22, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is just par for the course on government work.

You also have to remember that the Russians are involved in building the space station too. I would not trust the Russian stuff all that much. It is mainly because of them the space station is not yet finished.

Giant_Squid · October 22, 2003, 23:55

I support the space station in general, but NASA sending people up despite warnings of safety problems even AFTER what happened earlier this year makes me think something is seriously wrong with them.

MichaeltheGreat · October 22, 2003, 23:56

It's also because we wouldn't commit the resources, and now things are halfassed and bandaided along since we no longer have any delivery capability to get up there.

Getting something that big and getting it up into orbit and running it as much as it has ain't cheap, and it's a major technological milestone for future exploration.

There's really two choices, because no private venture will ever put up that kind of money - belly up to the bar and commit to it fully, or give up.

Considering we're pissing away far more than that in Iraq for mixed results and muddled reasons, I don't thing 30 billion over several years on the ISS is that out of line.

DanS · October 23, 2003, 00:02

You guys are way too charitable. The space station is a fiscal black hole that has reduced NASA's flexibility to do other cool stuff.

A new space shuttle design and fleet would have cost half as much, for instance. But if we were to want to do that now, we would have to fully maintain two reusable launch vehicle programs for a couple of years because we couldn't have any time gap between the two.

MichaeltheGreat · October 23, 2003, 00:05

A lot of money has already been pissed away on space planes and next generation shuttles, with no workable design emerging. So why would scrapping the ISS have resulted in a workable design?

Besides, there's a half trillion deficit already, why can't we throw a little more pork in NASA, and Lockheed Martin's direction?

DanS · October 23, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

A lot of money has already been pissed away on space planes and next generation shuttles, with no workable design emerging.

While a lot of money, you're talking a couple of billion dollars of waste rather than $30 billion of waste.

Quote:

Besides, there's a half trillion deficit already, why can't we throw a little more pork in NASA, and Lockheed Martin's direction?

Both NASA and LM need fed, but I would rather have them doing more worthwhile work while being fed.

Dauphin · October 23, 2003, 00:25

I get the impression that NASA should be run on a more cost benefit basis. Choose projects, sub-projects or even the very basic things like equipment that will use the money most efficiently. They appear to worry about budgets (i.e not overspending) rather than about bang for bucks. Stitch in time, and all that.

yavoon · October 23, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
You guys are way too charitable. The space station is a fiscal black hole that has reduced NASA's flexibility to do other cool stuff.

A new space shuttle design and fleet would have cost half as much, for instance. But if we were to want to do that now, we would have to fully maintain two reusable launch vehicle programs for a couple of years because we couldn't have any time gap between the two.

NASA couldn't convert 1:1 funding from space station into other programs. the space station infact is probably still a good money getter for them.

tho scrapping the shuttle is long overdue.

Berzerker · October 23, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

There's really two choices, because no private venture will ever put up that kind of money

Umm...that's the point

monkspider · October 23, 2003, 01:01

You know where our tax dollars are really going? That damn new $20 dollar bill commercial.
It's time we put the capitalist's heads on pikes.

Berzerker · October 23, 2003, 01:18

Hmm...that would be the government advertising the new $20 bill...

Nubclear · October 23, 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
You know where our tax dollars are really going? That damn new $20 dollar bill commercial.
It's time we put the capitalist's heads on pikes.

And its not even a very good commercial. Too vulgar. Too American.

DinoDoc · October 23, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Too American.

Heaven forbid.

MichaeltheGreat · October 23, 2003, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Umm...that's the point

To you.

Nubclear · October 23, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Heaven forbid.

Ha! Most (intelligent) Americans admit that American propaganda is sub-par.

Dis · October 23, 2003, 02:57

space sux!

DanS · October 23, 2003, 10:40

Quote:

NASA couldn't convert 1:1 funding from space station into other programs. the space station infact is probably still a good money getter for them.

That would be a very good point, if true. The program with top PR value right now is the Hubble space telescope. Our Mars program does pretty good too.

The space station doesn't get much good PR. You could argue that just because it requires a lot of money, it's a good money maker, which is true in the short run, but is very wrong in the long run.

DanS · October 23, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

I get the impression that NASA should be run on a more cost benefit basis. Choose projects, sub-projects or even the very basic things like equipment that will use the money most efficiently. They appear to worry about budgets (i.e not overspending) rather than about bang for bucks. Stitch in time, and all that.

I think it would be tough to justify our entire manned program on a cost benefit basis. But even if you could justify increases in the annual space station budget, you couldn't get it through congress. The last time we allowed large increases was for the Apollo program. Apparently, the sums involved scared the bejeezus out of the check writers (about 1% of our economy for a couple of years).

Now we try to even out the expenditures. A steady $2 billion a year for the station plus the shuttle at $4 billion a year (the only mission for the Shuttle right now is the space station).

Over it's lifetime, the space station itself will be $95 billion, not including launch costs on the shuttle.

The Mad Monk · October 23, 2003, 11:51

DanS, the station was originally meant to hold at least six astronauts, but because of cutbacks to "save money", it can only support three.

You need three astronauts to just keep it running -- that's how it was designed. The other three were supposed to do the valuble research that would justify the expense.

Of course, it can't support six anymore.

Arrian · October 23, 2003, 11:52

While I think it is obvious NASA needs better management, the reason the ISS is having trouble is mainly that we half-assed it. We (both us and the Russians) made promises we can't really keep. We thought we could, but **** happens (like shuttles exploding during re-entry). Building a space station isn't exactly easy, and I think too many people expected everything to go according to plan. Now that it hasn't, we're hard-pressed to keep things going up there.

If we intend to keep the manned space program, I think we need:

1) a new launch vehicle
2) some grand goal (Mars), even if it's far-off
3) the will to get it done, even in the face of adversity (see: Apollo Program)

I don't think we have #3. Our attention is on other things - War on Terror/Afganistan/Iraq, recession, etc. There is no "us vs. the Soviets" competition to spur us on, either. China just reached the 1960s, so they will have to keep at it for a while before they are pushing us (though I kinda hope they do).

-Arrian

The Mad Monk · October 23, 2003, 11:54

It's kinda like sending up a new space telescope, but leaving out the main mirror because, you know, mirrors of that size and quality are real expensive.

chequita guevara · October 23, 2003, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's also because we wouldn't commit the resources, and now things are halfassed and bandaided along since we no longer have any delivery capability to get up there.

This is the most important reason why U.S. government programs fail. One party mandates that the government do something, the other party kills the funding. So we get a half-assed program that pisses everyone off, and then the party that killed the funding goes, "See, see, the government can't do anything right, we never swhould have spent money on this in the first place."

Main_Brain · October 23, 2003, 12:05

when did the ESS got renamed anyway? *curious&nonkidding*

DanS · October 23, 2003, 12:07

Re #3, I think we have the will. No problem. The thing to remember is that Apollo required a great deal more will than does Mars, because the funding was concentrated into a 7-year program. Since time and cost are most often at loggerheads, we made things much more expensive.

Re #2, I agree that a long-term goal would be useful. More than 1/3rd of our entire space program is adrift without a raison d'etre.

Re #1, a small manned ferry would be good. The space plane is a good concept.

The irony of all of this is that by its launch vehicle choices, the Russians are in a better position to exploit a space advantage than we are. It's amazing that the chaos of the last 12 years hasn't minimized the wisdom of their choices.