Why do we fund the International Space Station?

(I always used to hate when people did this for class debates...)

Can someone tell me why we SHOULDN'T fund the ISS? (I'm on the
pro-funding side, and i want to knwo what good and valid arguments I'm
going to be up against. I also like the strange and amusing arguments,
they're fun to read.)

-Derik

wrote:
(I always used to hate when people did this for class debates...)

Can someone tell me why we SHOULDN'T fund the ISS?

Um ... because it's there?

http://www.lifeform.org
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
http://www.lifeform.org/rocket.htm

wrote:

(I always used to hate when people did this for class debates...)

Can someone tell me why we SHOULDN'T fund the ISS? (I'm on the
pro-funding side, and i want to knwo what good and valid arguments I'm
going to be up against. I also like the strange and amusing arguments,
they're fun to read.)

-Derik

The main arguements against the station fall into two main areas.

There's the socialist reasons like the money would be better spent on
helping X, Y, Z cause. The counter to that is that NASA doesn't really
get that much money anyway. They get around 15 billion a year. This
works out at around $50 per citizen per year. You could also compare
it to other agencies that use tax money. The NASA budget is dwarfed by
social security budgets etc. If people are worried about tax misuse,
then other areas should be dealt with first.

The second reason is that it is not an efficient use of the space
budget funds. Some argue that its just a drain without any benefits.
This is mainly due to the fact that there is not a full crew on board,
due to shuttle difficulties. They are basically keeping it flying
while doing less research than planned (if any). The main research
that could be done on the ISS that can't be done on the group is to
test the effects of weightlessness, but that requires more people on
the station. Another arguement is that it would have been cheaper in
the long run to just build an American station. The current station
was just a way to keep Russian rocket scientists employed. Other
arguements are that the funding would be better spent on getting lower
cost space launch capability.

My 2 cents would be that it actually hurts American prestige to
continue funding the ISS. I always here the argument that pulling out
would anger our partners in the ISS, but the maintenance of a station
that we can't complete, can't fully man, and can't run many experiments
on makes us seem dependant on the goodwill of Russia, because we are.
To have the only superpower left dependant on a country whose economy
is still (arguably) in shambles is not a good thing. Sure, abandoning
it may give us a black eye in the short run, but in the long run having
a crippled station for the next 10 years will cost more in prestige.

Chance wrote:

My 2 cents would be that it actually hurts American prestige to
continue funding the ISS. I always here the argument that pulling out
would anger our partners in the ISS, but the maintenance of a station
that we can't complete, can't fully man, and can't run many experiments
on makes us seem dependant on the goodwill of Russia, because we are.

We can't do that only because of VSE and ESAS.

To have the only superpower left dependant on a country whose economy
is still (arguably) in shambles is not a good thing.

You mean the US right? Russia has both an ISS and plenty of gas.

Sure, abandoning
it may give us a black eye in the short run, but in the long run having
a crippled station for the next 10 years will cost more in prestige.

I know, I feel your pain. Everyone has a space station except US.

US - Unsustainable System
VSE - Visiting Space Expensively
ESAS - Exploring Space as Stupidly as Possible

ISS - Good will among nations.

http://www.lifeform.org
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
http://www.lifeform.org/rocket.htm

"I know, I feel your pain. Everyone has a space station except US"

Well, in a few years everyone just might if Mr. Bigelow has his way.
While you may argue that this is not likely, the possibility that it
may occer should give ISS supporters pause.

wrote:

I always used to hate when people did this for class debates...)
:
: Can someone tell me why we SHOULDN'T fund the ISS? (I'm on the
ro-funding side, and i want to knwo what good and valid arguments I'm
:going to be up against. I also like the strange and amusing arguments,
:they're fun to read.)

What's the return on the investment in resources? What else could we
do with those same resources?

You don't fund things based on 'why not'. You fund things based on
'why' and make decisions based on what you give up doing if you fund
them.

So, why should we fund ISS?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

wrote in message
oups.com...
Can someone tell me why we SHOULDN'T fund the ISS? (I'm on the
pro-funding side, and i want to knwo what good and valid arguments I'm
going to be up against. I also like the strange and amusing arguments,
they're fun to read.)

because there is no *new* science that can be achieved with the ISS. while
the masses believe that the ISS is for science, it really is just a easy
excuse for congressional districts to get funding for projects

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
So, why should we fund ISS?

Most fundamentally: because you promised a dozen other nations that you
would, and some of them made quite sizable investments (by their
standards) on that basis. Can the US be relied on to keep its promises,
or not?
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:45:18 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
So, why should we fund ISS?

Most fundamentally: because you promised a dozen other nations that you
would, and some of them made quite sizable investments (by their
standards) on that basis. Can the US be relied on to keep its promises,
or not?

When it comes to space promises, the answer would seem to be "not."
The Euros et al are like Charlie Brown coming up to kick Lucy's
football.