4 ms·
Why is that a counter-example? The ISS is incredibly more expensive, complicated, and accomplishes less science because it's "international."
by danielweber 12y ago
Why is that a counter-example? The ISS is incredibly more expensive, complicated, and accomplishes less science because it's "international."
- ZenoArrow 12y ago"The ISS is incredibly more expensive, complicated, and accomplishes less science because it's "international."" Accomplishes less compared to what? Skylab? Mir? The ISS is designed to host up to 7 crew members. For purposes of comparison, Mir could host 3. What makes you suspect 7 astronauts can do less scientific work than 3?
- danielweber 12y agoSkylab construction cost: 10 billion in modern dollars ISS construction cost: 150 billion ISS science projects keep on getting cancelled for budget reasons. I think spending $150,000,000,000.00 building it has something to do with that.
- teamonkey 12y agoSkylab was cheap(er) because it was launched in one single stage (IIRC it literally was a Saturn V cargo bay). The ISS was designed to be built up over several years, over several launches, with each launch costing much less than Skylab but obviously more overall. It was a design decision that favoured amortizing costs for an age that couldn't afford another Skylab.
- teamonkey 12y agoDo you have any evidence to support that claim? I doubt that a space lab as functional as the ISS could exist without international funding.