# OK, We've Paid Billions for the ISS: Where's The Payoff? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183 "2004-06-19T07:06:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/41 "2004-06-21T17:53:47Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > . > The Space Shuttle made an important contribution to solar physics by repairing the Solar Maximum satellite. This wasn’t a make-work service mission, but an actual repair of a failed satellite. Okay…But that satellite [apparently cost](http://www.centres.com/nuclear/manip/samsin/solarmax.htm) $77 million. I don’t think that compares very highly to the cost of the shuttles. So, sure, since we were already spending billions of dollars on the shuttles, we were able to save maybe $77 million by repairing rather than just replacing the satellite…But, that doesn’t get very far in actually justifying the cost-effectiveness of having the shuttles at all. [Here](http://www.faqs.org/faqs/space/controversy/), by the way, is info on various ways to look at space shuttle costs (from a 1996 posting): > [@](#): > > People arguing over shuttle costs on the net are usually arguing from different assumptions and do not describe their assumptions clearly, making it impossible to reach agreement. To demonstrate the difficulty, here are a range of flight cost figures differing by a factor of 35 and some of the assumptions behind them (all use 1992 constant dollars). > > ``` > $45 million - marginal cost of adding or removing one flight from the manifest in a given year. > > $414 million - NASA's average cost/flight, assuming planned flight rates are met and using current fiscal year data only. > > $1 billion - operational costs since 1983 spread over the actual number of flights. > > $900 million - $1.35 billion - total (including development) costs since the inception of the shuttle program, assuming 4 or 8 flights/year and operations ending in 2005 or 2010. > > $1.6 billion - total costs through 1992 spread over the actual number of flights through 1992. > > ``` > > For more detailed information, see the Aviation Week Forum article by Roger A. Pielke, Jr.: “Space Shuttle Value Open To Interpretation”, July 26, 1993, pg. 57. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/42 "2004-06-21T18:23:06Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Okay…But that satellite [apparently cost](http://www.centres.com/nuclear/manip/samsin/solarmax.htm) $77 million. I don’t think that compares very highly to the cost of the shuttles. As I said in my first post in this thread, science is only a small part of the payoff of manned spaceflight. You asked what those scientific payoffs are, so I gave a partial answer. But I never claimd these scientific results alone justify the cost. Also, if I may respond to your earlier post: > [@](#): > > I really don’t understand the sort of logic that wants to throw lots of money into getting us onto other planets but decides that doing things to make sure we don’t fuck up the ecology of this planet too much are too expensive. Which people are you talking about here? If you mean Bush’s plan to cut back on NASA’s science projects (including environmental research) to pay for a Mars exploration, I agree completely. But I don’t think there is much support for this outside of the current administration. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/43 "2004-06-21T19:19:39Z")
There will be no American payoff for the billions spent on the ISS. Period. Bush began his administration by gutting the American contributions that would have turned the ISS, finally, into a useful platform for what it was designed to do: Study the long-term effects of low- and micro-gravity environments on the human body. Anything else short-term you heard about what it was supposed to do was, IMO, simply a smoke-screen designed to get it a budget. Let’s look at Mars exploration. Several years ago, due to the nature of the job I had then , I had occasion to attend a demonstration of the upcoming (now almost completed) MER expedition by one of the chief JPL scientists on the project. Was he proud of their accomplishment? Yes. Was he of the opinion that robotic exploration of the Solar System was a worthy pursuit? Of course. What did he spend the first few minutes of his presentation discussing? What a pain in the ass it is to explore something as potentially rich in results as Mars with something as limited as robots. Mars approaches close enough for a least-fuel trajectory roughly every two years. The JPL is determined to have a mission ready to go for every occasion. Let’s say Opportunity gets to that hill it’s been approaching, and finds that its mechanics can not navigate it. The technology for the 2005 mission is already frozen (according to JPL policy, in the name of saying “enough, already” in time to make the next launch window). The freeze date for the 2007 mission is next year, which could easily be too soon to get a promising hill-climbing rover prototype up and running. (As a real world example, the boucing landing, so successful on the Pathfinder mission was not used again until now for similar reasons. That was the test run.) So the earliest you could get a rover (that could climb the hill) to Mars would be the 2009 mission. If you got to the top of the hill and found steep sinkhole with apparently interesting stuff at the bottom, and your rover could not navigate it, the next one will not start up the hill until about 2015. This is the rate at which you are able to build upon past successes with robotic Mars exploration. A well-outfitted human expedition, on the other hand could probably take whatever tools and materials they had at hand and “MacGyver” their way down the hole in one two-year mission. In addition, a successful human expedition could continually provide data until the next launch. (Currently, whenever whatever hemisphere your robotic rover is in enters winter, the sunlight in insufficient to power the lander, and the electronics freeze over.) A trip to Mars currently takes six months if you make the window. By the time you get there, you have another at least another year before the window opens again and you can go back home. Therefore, the humans must survive two six month trips in microgravity (not to mention total isolation) and a year on low-gravity, freezing Mars. What do they need to survive this? We don’t know. No one has ever spent anything like this amount of time outside Earth gravity. Those who have spent extensive time in space have suffered physiological damage that we do not have complete knowledge of how to prevent. A Moon base could help (hell, considering Mars has a thin atmosphere and a 24.5 hour day, it’s arguable that it’s EASIER to colonize than the Moon), but to get that six month MG trip covered, something that could stay within rescuable distance for long periods while still providing microgravity would sure help. Since we’re scrapping the ISS, I’m not exactly sure where that’s going to come from. Meanwhile we’re going to re-invent the wheel by sending more short expeditions to the Moon. America has put Space-Race victory blinders on for the last 35 years. They assume space will be free for the asking until we get around to deciding it’s OK to spend the money to send people there. China has a working manned space program, and the Chinese are just as proud and inspired as we were in the 50s and 60s. They, however, have the advantage of newer technology and a larger, cheaper industrial force. What happens if we drag our heels, and our astronauts are greeted throughout the solar system with “No Vacancy” signs written in Chinese? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/44 "2004-06-21T21:41:53Z")
**jshore** , life “fucks up” planets. Unless we invent some kind of magic wand technology which produces things out of the ether and sends our trash to Nevernever Land we will continue to “fuck up” this planet and every other planet we get our grubby mitts on. This is true of not only our species, but any species anywhere in the universe. Fusion technology will produce wastes, solar power will produce wastes, the only thing which _doesn’t_ produce waste is something that’s _never_ been alive. If we drown in our own sewage (which we surely will if we don’t get off this rock) then whatever species evolves to take our place will do the same. Oh, and not that I expect any of the anti-humans to be bothered to click the link, but [here’s a cite](http://www.nasatech.com/NEWS/Sep03/who_0903.html) showing how research into studying the long term exposures of humans in space pays off on Earth. [Here’s one page by NASA discussing spin-off technology.](http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/spinoffs.html)[And here’s a non-NASA site discussing them.](http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html) ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/45 "2004-06-22T00:21:59Z")
I will back-up what **ralph124c** said Space exploration has obviously helped in the advancement of tecnology, but very little. from [http://www.shockwavewriters.com/Articles/GLK/iwandISSP.htm](http://www.shockwavewriters.com/Articles/GLK/iwandISSP.htm) (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > The military technology-revolution is just beginning. In the United States, **the military no longer drives technology as it once did in the 1930’s through the 1970’s.** > > The primary benefactor of early technology was the federal government, primarily the Department of Defense (DoD). This is logical because in those “early days” of technology, e.g., ENIAC, the DoD was the one with the funds and the biggest need for technology. Don’t forget, that was the time of both the “hot” wars and the Cold War. The secondary benefactor was NASA, e.g., space exploration. > > Between these government agencies, and to a lesser extent others, hardware and software products were developed with a derivative benefit to the private, commercial, business sector. After all, these were expensive developments and who but the federal government could afford to fund such research and development efforts? > > **Today, the federal government has taken a back-seat to the private sector.** As hardware and software became cheaper, it became more cost-effective for private ventures into technology research, development and production. Today, technology is being business-driven. Computers, microprocessors, telecommunications, satellites, faxes, video, software, networks, Internet, multi-media, are just some of the technologies that are driving us in the information period. In the United States, it is said that more than 95% of military communications are over commercial systems! I’d go as far as to say that the space program is a like rat-hole and the government throws money into it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/46 "2004-06-22T01:22:34Z")
To those who say the space program is a complete waste of money: what exactly do you suggest we do with NASA? Do you want to see the entire agency shut down, with all the infrastructure auctioned off and the engineers hired away by other countries and other industries? Or does it simply need a more focused goal and if so, what do you suggest for that goal and how do you suggest we pay for it? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/47 "2004-06-22T01:35:32Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > **jshore** , life “fucks up” planets. Unless we invent some kind of magic wand technology which produces things out of the ether and sends our trash to Nevernever Land we will continue to “fuck up” this planet and every other planet we get our grubby mitts on. This is true of not only our species, but any species anywhere in the universe. Fusion technology will produce wastes, solar power will produce wastes, the only thing which _doesn’t_ produce waste is something that’s _never_ been alive. If we drown in our own sewage (which we surely will if we don’t get off this rock) then whatever species evolves to take our place will do the same. Boy…This is sure a pessimistic view. “We can’t help but fuck up the earth, so we better just live with it and get off the earth so we can escape our mess and go fuck up other places?” Personally, I think that we can do better than that. Through reasonable family planning / anti-poverty programs and factoring environmental costs into the price of goods in our society, I think we could go a long way toward minimizing our detrimental effects on the ecology of the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/48 "2004-06-22T01:51:07Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Boy…This is sure a pessimistic view. “We can’t help but fuck up the earth, so we better just live with it and get off the earth so we can escape our mess and go fuck up other places?” Personally, I think that we can do better than that. Through reasonable family planning / anti-poverty programs and factoring environmental costs into the price of goods in our society, I think we could go a long way toward minimizing our detrimental effects on the ecology of the planet. It doesn’t matter how much we can minimize our impact on the planet, we’re _still_ going to have one, and eventually no matter how good we are at cleaning up after ourselves, it’s still going to ruin the planet. It’s called entropy. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/49 "2004-06-22T02:11:54Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > It’s called entropy. It sounds like it is called something more like “misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” As has been pointed out in numerous threads with creationists, the concept of increasing entropy only applies to closed systems which the earth, alas, is not. There may be sociological or other reasons to be pessimistic about the future of the ecology of the planet, but I don’t think an argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really relevant here. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/50 "2004-06-22T02:14:51Z")
It also sounds to me like the best excuse to be environmentally irresponsible since James Watt invoked the “second coming.” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/51 "2004-06-22T02:18:11Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > It sounds like it is called something more like “misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” As has been pointed out in numerous threads with creationists, the concept of increasing entropy only applies to closed systems which the earth, alas, is not. There may be sociological or other reasons to be pessimistic about the future of the ecology of the planet, but I don’t think an argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really relevant here. The Earth _is_ a closed system, so long as we have waste that we dump on it. Until we begin sending _all_ our waste into space, it’s just a giant garbage heap with more being added to it all the time. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/52 "2004-06-22T02:42:15Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > The Earth _is_ a closed system, so long as we have waste that we dump on it. Until we begin sending _all_ our waste into space, it’s just a giant garbage heap with more being added to it all the time. It’s not a closed system **thermodynamically** which is what it would have to be in order for you to throw around arguments about “entropy” that have any real meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/53 "2004-06-22T02:51:38Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > It’s not a closed system **thermodynamically** which is what it would have to be in order for you to throw around arguments about “entropy” that have any real meaning. [Entropy](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entropy) > [@](#): > > 1.Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. > > 1. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. > > 2. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. > > 3. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. > > 4. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society. I’d say that Earth fits in there. Besides, even if we manage to get to the point where we clean up 99% of our waste (which would be nice), that 1% is still going to build up and accumulate. If civilization takes a step backwards like it did after Rome collapsed, then you can bet that the environment will suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/54 "2004-06-22T03:03:36Z")
I have to agree with **jshore**. Using entropy in this fashion is simply inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/55 "2004-06-22T04:11:55Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I have to agree with **jshore**. Using entropy in this fashion is simply inappropriate. Fine, **Sam** , then how would you put it? We’re using up natural resources at a ferocious rate, many of which can never be replaced. Even recycling only slows the process down. Cutting our use of resources is an important step, but again, if we’re 99% efficient, that 1% is still going to keep adding up. Building fusion powerplants, “sun farms,” reducing consumption of resources, and recycling only slows the process down, it doesn’t halt it, because it _can’t_ be halted. Even before humans evolved, the Earth was subjected to wild climate changes for a variety of reasons, and one day old Sol is going to quit burning. Hell, even the universe is liable to collapse back in upon itself, so what’s the point of doing anything at all? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/56 "2004-06-22T17:23:52Z")
Looking back on yesterday’s post, I realized I didn’t really address some of the specific points in the OP > [@ralph124c](#): > > The ISS has been up and running for quite a while…and we’ve had “Spacelab” and "MIR"before it. The US (and Russian ) taxpayers have been conned out of 100’s of $billions…so where is the much vaunted payoff? Do you have a source for this number? I could see 50 billion over the last 20 years (assuming we are connecting the ISS with the failed Space Station Freedom, which I think is reasonable: big waste there), but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that hundreds of billions have been spent. I don’t even think the total of NASA’s full budgets (a fraction of which have been spent on the Space Station projects) for the last 20 years have amounted to more than about 250 billion. In that space of time, [the federal government has spent almost 30 trillion dollars](http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table5). So, kudos to you for trying to ferret out government waste, but pardon me if I humbly suggest you’re missing the forest for the trees. I look forward to your threads on Health and Human Services and the Military. > [@ralph124c](#): > > We were promised: > (1) all kinds of exotic alloys (of metals that would natuarally separate in the earth’s gravity) > (2) new drug compounds > (3) high-performance semiconductors (faster that our earth-grown silicon chips) > Where is the payoff? I haven’t seen ANYTHING come out of this that justifies the enormous expense…have we been lied to? > Who do I talk to at NASA to express my disapproval? 😕 [This page](http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/experiments/index.html) shows what’s being done on the ISS right now. Perhaps we can discuss specifics about what is failing to measure up to your expectations. Before you answer, remember, the whole point of doing any of the sort of research you mentioned is that the shuttle can only perform experiments that can be completed inside of two weeks. So the stuff on the station is going to last longer than that. There will also be many false starts and failed experiments along the way. [This page](http://scipoc.msfc.nasa.gov/factchron.html#exp2fact) links to fact sheets on the experiments performed since the first live-in human expeditions started going up three years ago. Perhaps you could look them over and offer your opinion on just where the science research on the station has gone wrong, and we could continue the debate from there. In general, there’s a lot of compromise involved in science on the ISS. Any number of professionals have weighed in with their opinion on how microgravity research could have been done a different way. But they station is certainly not lacking for technology research being performed on board. My gripe, as I mentioned before, is that the really important pieces have been gutted. Bush cancelled US funding for the Centrifuge Module, which would have been key for low gravity experiments, fundamental to his “Man on Mars” dream. He also scrapped the Crew Return Vehicle, which would have provided escape options for 7 people, allowing for a larger crew and more efficient use of the Station. Development of the CRV was to have provided the technology direction for the Next Generation Shuttle, so the current fleet could finally be retired. The implications for that little bit of corner-cutting were smeared across Bush’s home state last February. Bush replace Dan Goldin, a visionary wastrel who said “yes” to everybody, with Sean O’Keefe, a “bean counter” who does as much as he can with what little he’s given. He’s put a lot of science on the ISS since 2001, so I don’t think the current problem is at NASA. Bush says he wants to commit to putting a man on Mars. You can’t do that without extensive long-term research into low- and micro-gravity. You can’t do that research without the ISS or a spacelab not very different from it (and Bush is looking to scrap the ISS), and you can’t have a spacelab without a reliable shuttle (for which Bush caused a serious development delay). So if you’re unhappy with the current rate of return on our investment in manned space missions, you now know where to inquire. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/57 "2004-06-29T00:09:29Z")
> [@(quoted by) Dog80](#): > > Today, the federal government has taken a back-seat to the private sector. As hardware and software became cheaper, it became more cost-effective for private ventures into technology research, development and production. Today, technology is being business-driven. Computers, microprocessors, telecommunications, satellites, faxes, video, software, networks, Internet, multi-media, are just some of the technologies that are driving us in the information period. In the United States, it is said that more than 95% of military communications are over commercial systems! These claims are nonsensical where they are not just plain wrong. First, technology encompasses far more than the electronica listed. What about materials, mechanics, combustion and manufacturing? Aerodynamics, atmospheric science, imaging, sensing? Is technology business-driven or is it technology that is driving us? Does the author know the difference or is he just saying whatever trendy bon mots come to mind? Modern electronic computers were developed by governments for code-breaking and other military applications. Microelectronics were developed in response to a need by the Apollo program for miniaturized hardware The basic principles of satellite design and operations were almost totally developed on government contracts. Milsatcom research and development runs about four to five times that of the commercial sector in the U.S. The Internet was developed as a defense research communication network and existed as such until about 1983. Packet switching was invented at the RAND Corporation in the early sixties, again totally funded by the government. Where are the private-sector research programs that can rival these monumental achievements? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/58 "2004-06-29T03:06:33Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > My gripe, as I mentioned before, is that the really important pieces have been gutted. Bush cancelled US funding for the Centrifuge Module, which would have been key for low gravity experiments, fundamental to his “Man on Mars” dream. My mistake. The Centrifuge Accommodation Module has not been scrapped, but its launch has been pushed back to the indefinite future, which may, in the end amount to the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/59 "2004-06-29T03:09:06Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Where are the private-sector research programs that can rival these monumental achievements? Speaking of which during the time frame you cover in your post, the dominant attitude in corporate America was that, once you have a marketable product or two, you cut R&D to the bone. Without government involvement, industry’s motivation to explore untested waters is virtually nil. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183/60 "2004-06-29T03:17:26Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > Without government involvement, industry’s motivation to explore untested waters is virtually nil. But this is only true for the current political climate. When there are more regulations than not, industry will be content to simply tweak current technology. Especially when they can use current regulation to kill the small inovator. > [@](#): > > Where are the private-sector research programs that can rival these monumental achievements? Airplanes, railroads, cars, steam power in general, internal combustion engines, radio, television (although less so), Also, I would point out that it was private interests which made the technologies you mentioned small enough, cheap enough, and more importantly ubiquitous enough to be more than special projects. Sorry for the hijack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-weve-paid-billions-for-the-iss-wheres-the-payoff/251183.md?page=4)