Why did the ISS cost so much money?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathJakob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iss Money
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the significant cost disparity between the International Space Station (ISS) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), with the ISS costing approximately $150 billion compared to the LHC's $2.6 billion. Key factors contributing to the ISS's high expense include the complexities of space transportation, with 36 shuttle flights costing around $1.5 billion each, and the long history of budget accumulation since the late 1980s, which involved extensive design changes. Additionally, the LHC benefited from existing infrastructure at CERN, while the Superconducting Super Collider faced higher costs due to starting from scratch in Texas. The conversation also touches on broader themes of government spending priorities, suggesting that scientific research funding is often overshadowed by military and political expenditures. The ISS is viewed as a vital investment in maintaining the U.S.'s leadership in space research.
MathJakob
Messages
161
Reaction score
5
Why did the ISS cost just over 57 times as much as the LHC? What was it about the ISS that made it so expensive to build? $150billion is crazy! The LHC costs just $2.6billion
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MathJakob said:
What was it about the ISS that made it so expensive to build?

I expect transportation costs had something to do with it. :wink:
 
You are dealing with two bad numbers there. One is overstated by a factor of 1.5 to 2, the other vastly understated by a factor of about 5. Guess which is which.

You are also comparing apples to oranges. Digging a tunnel is a whole lot cheaper than is putting something into space.
 
36 shuttle flights at about $1.5 billion a pop.

Plus, this thing has been lurking in various budgets since the late 1980's, being designed and re-designed to make it cheaper, all the while sunk costs were accumulating.

About $2 billion was spent on the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas before the project was cancelled. Unlike the LHC, which had the facilities at CERN to use for some of its functions, the SSC was built in Texas starting from scratch with no nearby particle research infrastructure to absorb some of the cost or to provide some of the needed facilities.

In the quaint old days of the 1980s and 1990s, cost saving and cost cutting was the rage. Now, a trillion dollars can disappear almost overnight in some government rathole, stimulus plan, bailout, or green boondoggle and nobody blinks an eye.
 
SteamKing said:
36 shuttle flights at about $1.5 billion a pop.

Plus, this thing has been lurking in various budgets since the late 1980's, being designed and re-designed to make it cheaper, all the while sunk costs were accumulating.

About $2 billion was spent on the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas before the project was cancelled. Unlike the LHC, which had the facilities at CERN to use for some of its functions, the SSC was built in Texas starting from scratch with no nearby particle research infrastructure to absorb some of the cost or to provide some of the needed facilities.

In the quaint old days of the 1980s and 1990s, cost saving and cost cutting was the rage. Now, a trillion dollars can disappear almost overnight in some government rathole, stimulus plan, bailout, or green boondoggle and nobody blinks an eye.

lol yeh, if only the world poured as much money into scientific research as they do in fighting each other...
 
Just watched it fly over.

It was worth it.

:smile:
 
As the preeminent leader in space research, the ISS was a deal the US could hardly refuse. We would have been viewed with great suspicion otherwise.
 
Back
Top