|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
$150 billion to date. Has it been worth it?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
On Jul 16, 4:46*am, Rich wrote:
$150 billion to date. *Has it been worth it? yawn I'll see your $150 billion and raise you US taxpayer's expenditure on weapons and international aggression, bribery and coercion over any random period of your own choosing. Try defending this utter waste of resources: http://costofwar.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
"Rich" wrote in message ...
$150 billion to date. Has it been worth it? Nope. -- Rick Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 05' Lat +42° 11' |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
"Chris.Bee" wrote in message ...
On Jul 16, 4:46 am, Rich wrote: $150 billion to date. Has it been worth it? yawn I'll see your $150 billion and raise you US taxpayer's expenditure ...gibber.. Try defending this utter waste of resources: http://costofwar.com/ Two stupids don't make a smart. -- Rick Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 05' Lat +42° 11' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
On Jul 15, 10:46*pm, Rich wrote:
$150 billion to date. *Has it been worth it? Rich, where do you get that number from? I had a difficult time finding a good answer as to the actual costs of the ISS and the STS, and had to do a bit of research to find decent numbers. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that since 1985 Congress has funded around $35 billion to build the ISS (http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d04201t.pdf). The GAO bumps that number to $100 billion since 1985 when the cost ""to develop, assemble and operate" the station are also considered (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ ns98212t.pdf). Big numbers, to be sure. But, as your estimate is 50% higher than the largest numbers I've ever heard I am curious as to its source. Did the GAO "skip" great big chunks of the cost? Thanks! ~Michael (Full disclosure - for the past 5 years I have had a minor association with the Jet Propulsion Lab, which while "owned" by CalTech, works under contract for NASA.) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
And the best guesstimates of the costs of the other two programs
mentioned in the Subject header for this thread: Skylab ~$10 billion in 2009 dollars Mir ~$5 billion in 2009 dollars Assuming that your $150 billion ISS cost is correct, the ISS is 30x more expensive than Mir, and 15x more expensive than Skylab. (If ISS costs are indeed closer to $100 billion, then Mir would be 20x and Skylab 10x more affordable). But, is the comparison to the older stations valid? The ISS is so much larger and more capable, so that comparing the cost if the ISS to the cost of Skylab is like comparing the cost of my van to the cost of a bus. An interesting benchmark, perhaps, but not telling in and of itself. ~Michael |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
On Jul 16, 2:26*pm, SkyGuide wrote:
And the best guesstimates of the costs of the other two programs mentioned in the Subject header for this thread: Skylab ~$10 billion in 2009 dollars Mir ~$5 billion in 2009 dollars Assuming that your $150 billion ISS cost is correct, the ISS is 30x more expensive than Mir, and 15x more expensive than Skylab. *(If ISS costs are indeed closer to $100 billion, then Mir would be 20x and Skylab 10x more affordable). But, is the comparison to the older stations valid? *The ISS is so much larger and more capable Of what? Acting as a more comfortable hotel in space for billionaires and astronauts with nothing to do? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
On Jul 16, 2:09*pm, SkyGuide wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:46*pm, Rich wrote: $150 billion to date. *Has it been worth it? Rich, where do you get that number from? I had a difficult time finding a good answer as to the actual costs of the ISS and the STS, and had to do a bit of research to find decent numbers. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that since 1985 Congress has funded around $35 billion to build the ISS (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04201t.pdf). *The GAO bumps that number to $100 billion since 1985 when the cost ""to develop, assemble and operate" the station are also considered (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ ns98212t.pdf). That is the "official" cost which is predicated on the initial projected cost having been correct. When has this ever happened? The true figure is at least $150B. Which places it about $50B beyond what Apollo cost in current dollars. For what? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
On 2009-07-16, SkyGuide wrote:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that since 1985 Congress has funded around $35 billion to build the ISS (http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d04201t.pdf). The GAO bumps that number to $100 billion since 1985 when the cost ""to develop, assemble and operate" the station are also considered (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ ns98212t.pdf). Big numbers, to be sure. But, as your estimate is 50% higher than the largest numbers I've ever heard I am curious as to its source. Did the GAO "skip" great big chunks of the cost? Hint: What does the "I" in ISS stand for? Why are you looking solely at US funding for the project? -- Andrew Smallshaw |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ISS cost 34 TIMES what MIR cost, 40 times what Skylab cost.
...The true figure is at least $150B. *
and... Of what? Acting as a more comfortable hotel in space for billionaires and astronauts with nothing to do? Rich, I'd love to have a real discussion about the ISS. I really would. I have my questions, and yes, I have some doubts. But it's hard to have a serious discussion when numbers are floated without any source, and the hard work of good people is denigrated. (You obviously have doubts about the work being done by the ISS, and many good points that deserve examination, but please don't try to persuade me that the astronauts have nothing to do. That disingenuous.) We (you and I) once had a very interesting exchange in this group on Mars exploration - something I know a bit more about compared to human spaceflight. Even though other folks posted that I was wasting my time answering you, I chose to continue, 'cause you were playing straight with me, and I greatly enjoyed our conversation. Can we do that here? I'd like to be better able to defend my position when I do have the rare occasion to chat (face-to-face) with folks who are in a decision-making capacity at NASA. Or, we can just throw out extreme talking points, lacking any merit, and just chalk this up to a rant. I know that formula works on cable news, and it's easier to rant than to carefully examine the facts, but I'd love something better (if we can pull it off). Thanks! ~Michael |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much does it cost.... | diy-newby | Space Shuttle | 48 | February 23rd 07 06:02 AM |
EVA cost per hour | Matt | Policy | 11 | May 9th 06 04:47 PM |
Lens cost? | Farr1220 | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | June 11th 04 07:46 PM |
For the cost of I.S.S. so far.... | Richard | Amateur Astronomy | 108 | May 6th 04 02:03 AM |
ISS cost | Richard | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 12th 04 08:21 AM |