13 ms·

Don't forget 700,000 dollars per year for maintenance. Pure insanity.

• maaku 12y ago
  Well I wouldn't get upset about that. Now that it's built, $700k/yr is an insanely cheap price to maintain such a strcture. Now e.g. SpaceX can use their Space Act agreement with NASA to use the facility at cost for testing their own engines. $700k/yr of taxpayer money to enable SpaceX et al to build better rockets is a good ongoing investment imho. The article is a bit hyperbolic in that regard. The facility isn't closed down, it's just locked up because a locked door is cheaper than a security guard. No one is using it at the moment, but that doesn't mean it is not open for use. Doesn't detract from the insanity of building the thing in the first place though.
  • p_eter_p 12y ago
    The article actually says it's not ready for use, has no instruments and has not been tested under vacuum. It's a big steel shell.
    • tempestn 12y ago
      True, but it could be made ready for use in a couple of years, or less with outside investment. While it certainly appears that spending four years finishing it was a waste of money, I tend to agree with the parent comment that $700k/year isn't much compared to NASA's $17B annual budget, and that it will likely be used for something eventually that will make that upkeep (if not the original building costs) worthwhile.