Why did the ISS cost so much money?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathJakob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iss Money
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the high costs associated with the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) compared to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Participants explore various factors contributing to the ISS's expense, including transportation costs, historical budget considerations, and the complexities of space construction versus terrestrial projects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the accuracy of the cost comparisons between the ISS and the LHC, suggesting that one figure may be overstated and the other understated.
  • Transportation costs are proposed as a significant factor in the high expenses of the ISS.
  • One participant highlights the historical context of the ISS's budget, noting that costs have accumulated since the late 1980s due to ongoing design changes.
  • Comparisons are made between the ISS and the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), emphasizing differences in infrastructure and funding that affected overall costs.
  • There is a sentiment expressed that more funding should be directed towards scientific research rather than other government expenditures.
  • A participant reflects positively on the value of the ISS, suggesting that its benefits justify the costs.
  • Another participant notes the geopolitical implications of the ISS, arguing that it was essential for the US to participate in space research to maintain its leadership status.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the cost figures and the factors influencing the ISS's expenses. There is no consensus on the reasons for the high costs or the accuracy of the comparisons made.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on potentially inaccurate cost estimates and assumptions about the nature of the projects being compared. The discussion includes historical budget considerations that may not be fully detailed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the economics of large scientific projects, the complexities of space exploration, and the historical context of funding in scientific 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K