What about the ISS costs 3 billion annually?

[maccollo]

So looking at Nasa's budget projected over the next 5 years, the share that's taken up by the ISS is 3 billion for FY 2014, and it will grow each year to 3.5 billion in 2018.

The budget request for the ISS in 2009 was 2.7 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. That was the peak of the ISS construction, with 3 shuttle launches and the station mostly complete.

How can it be this expensive for NASA now when it's not launching or developing any major payloads?

Where is all this money going?

[Kinglet]

So looking at Nasa's budget projected over the next 5 years, the share that's taken up by the ISS is 3 billion for FY 2014, and it will grow each year to 3.5 billion in 2018.

The budget request for the ISS in 2009 was 2.7 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. That was the peak of the ISS construction, with 3 shuttle launches and the station mostly complete.

How can it be this expensive for NASA now when it's not launching or developing any major payloads?

Where is all this money going?

Astronauts also eat. And rockets are expensive.

[Themohawkninja]

Astronauts also eat. And rockets are expensive.

Still, resupply missions are less than once a year (17 months between launches), so for FY 2014, that means only one launch for resupplying, and I doubt that the launch costs are near $2.7 billion ($0.3 billion is the cost of the ATV spacecraft). There isn't any power costs that I can think of, since it's all photovoltaic. So unless their wages (to cover costs back on Earth, like mortgages and such) makes up the rest, this is a good question.

[Kryten]

Depending on exactly what budget breakdown you're looking at, there's a good chance that's an 'ISS operations' item and doesn't actually include the construction activities. If it is, it makes perfect sense; they simply had less to run back then.

EDIT:

Still, resupply missions are less than once a year (17 months between launches), so for FY 2014, that means only one launch for resupplying, and I doubt that the launch costs are near $2.7 billion ($0.3 billion is the cost of the ATV spacecraft). There isn't any power costs that I can think of, since it's all photovoltaic. So unless their wages (to cover costs back on Earth, like mortgages and such) makes up the rest, this is a good question.

The US pays for a good portion of the progress and soyuz flights, simply because they use a large proportion of the payload capacity/seats. Don't forget to factor in stuff like astronaut training, and the cost of keeping trouble-shooting teams on standby pretty much permanently.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Kryten

[maccollo]

Astronauts also eat. And rockets are expensive.

They do need to eat. However in 1.6 billion contract with NASA spaceX only receives 133 billion per flight to the ISS. Orbital Sciences got a 1.9 billion dollar deal, so a total of 3.5 billion dollars.

This will really take off next year when spaceX will launch 4 resupply missions. Assuming Orbital Sciences will launch a few that should come out to about 1 billion dollars in 2014, and then a little more than that each year until 2016.

There's gonna be 4 Americans flying to the ISS in 2014. At 70 million dollars per seat that adds up to another 280 million dollars. So that takes care of 1.3 billion, so

there's 1.7 billion dollars left that's going to something else. This is just slightly less than the total cost for all of the SLS development in 2014, and NASA is not launching or

developing any major payloads for the ISS. Nauka is developed, funded and launched by the Russian Space Agency. The only thing launched by NASA will be the inflatable habitat,

and the contract for the development of that is only 18 million dollars.

Edited January 1, 2014 by maccollo

[Kryten]

Again, NASA has to pay Russia for cargo on progress and seats on Soyuz. It isn't like the situation with Japan or ESA, Russia legally owns it's half of the station and has no obligation to give the US anything for free.

[Themohawkninja]

Depending on exactly what budget breakdown you're looking at, there's a good chance that's an 'ISS operations' item and doesn't actually include the construction activities. If it is, it makes perfect sense; they simply had less to run back then.

EDIT:

The US pays for a good portion of the progress and soyuz flights, simply because they use a large proportion of the payload capacity/seats. Don't forget to factor in stuff like astronaut training, and the cost of keeping trouble-shooting teams on standby pretty much permanently.

I thought Russia paid in full for their spacecraft. Does Russia pay for our ATVs then?

[BlazingAngel665]

I thought Russia paid in full for their spacecraft. Does Russia pay for our ATVs then?

Russia doesn't buy space on our supply missions because it is far more economical for them to launch the stuff on their own rockets. They also don't pay for seats, as they own their own rocket. Roscosmos has an approx. budget of 54 billion USD (not sure where I heard that, if it's incorrect don't shoot me)

[NovaSilisko]

approx. budget of 54 billion USD

Definitely not that much... maybe 54 billion rubles, although that's honestly too low (~1.65 bil. USD)

Don't forget to factor in stuff like astronaut training, and the cost of keeping trouble-shooting teams on standby pretty much permanently.

Very much this... a massive chunk of the cost is stuff on the ground. Training, mission controllers, management...

Edited January 1, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[maccollo]

Again, NASA has to pay Russia for cargo on progress and seats on Soyuz. It isn't like the situation with Japan or ESA, Russia legally owns it's half of the station and has no obligation to give the US anything for free.

I understand that NASA pays the Russians to send astronauts and cargo to the ISS. The question would be how much of the annual budged allocated to ISS operations go to the Russians?

[jwenting]

90% of the cost of running any NASA program is the cost of the lawyers, managers, and other bureaucrats. The actual running of the mission hardware and technicians is peanuts in comparison.

Plus every program gets loaded with pork, just like anything else coming out of congress. So of the $3B $1B might actually go to subsidising solar powered lawnmowers for the parks department of the home town of some congresscritter.

[koshelenkovv]

Russia doesn't buy space on our supply missions because it is far more economical for them to launch the stuff on their own rockets. They also don't pay for seats, as they own their own rocket. Roscosmos has an approx. budget of 54 billion USD (not sure where I heard that, if it's incorrect don't shoot me)

133 billion rubles (~ 4.2 bil. USD) in 2013

In total, 170 billion rubles (~ 5.5 bil. USD) in 2013 on all space activities, development and ground construction, incl. Vostochny Cosmodrome.

(ALL Federal budget of Russia in 2013 amounts to 13387,3 billion rubles (or 418.5 billion USD))

Edited January 1, 2014 by koshelenkovv

[Seret]

90% of the cost of running any NASA program is the cost of the lawyers, managers, and other bureaucrats. The actual running of the mission hardware and technicians is peanuts in comparison.

Plus every program gets loaded with pork, just like anything else coming out of congress. So of the $3B $1B might actually go to subsidising solar powered lawnmowers for the parks department of the home town of some congresscritter.

Do you ever have anything useful to contribute?

[jwenting]

Do you ever have anything useful to contribute?

reality hurts, doesn't it?

[ZetaX]

Then you can obviously give us some data and sources for that.

[Nibb31]

90% of the cost of running any NASA program is the cost of the lawyers, managers, and other bureaucrats. The actual running of the mission hardware and technicians is peanuts in comparison.

86.73% of statistics are pulled out of someone's ass.

[PakledHostage]

About jwenting:

Do you ever have anything useful to contribute?

Keeping things positive, I like jwenting's avatar. It is visually appealing. The loon has a certain je ne sais quoi...

[sal_vager]

About 33% of the posts in this thread could have been better :/

Try not to devolve the thread guys.

[Piwa]

space station intended as an interim period in which we learn about better stay human in space, and further long-term manned missions to Mars, the Moon and other stations, but I think we're stuck forever at these stations. :\

[AngelLestat]

Why you dont ask where all the military budget is going and for what?

Is ok that everyone is concern how they Tax are spending. But really bothers me that everyone just look in how much money goes to science proyects instead look the real problems.

Just to said that only 1 year of military budget is higher than these last 50 years of nasa (this include all the space race!).

"It costs $1 billion more than NASA's budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Here is the entire US budget, is harded find NASA budget than wally.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/16/wait-how-big-is-nasas-budget-again/#.UsVMDfQW3wA

And this is the whole nasa budget, then you need to keep your eyes in just the US part from the space station.

[Aghanim]

Why you dont ask where all the military budget is going and for what?

Is ok that everyone is concern how they Tax are spending. But really bothers me that everyone just look in how much money goes to science proyects instead look the real problems.

Just to said that only 1 year of military budget is higher than these last 50 years of nasa (this include all the space race!).

"It costs $1 billion more than NASA's budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Here is the entire US budget, is harded find NASA budget than wally.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/16/wait-how-big-is-nasas-budget-again/#.UsVMDfQW3wA

And this is the whole nasa budget, then you need to keep your eyes in just the US part from the space station.

Iraq War Days. I remember someone from Slashdot explaining NASA spending in IWD, which is a repost from his Google+:

Donald King

Shared publicly - Aug 9, 2012

From today forward, all federal government expenditures will be priced in "Iraq War Days" (IWD) or "Iraq War Years" (IWY). For quick reference:

- MSL mission w/ Curiosity rover: 3.5 IWD

- Cost of giving $10 to all 312M US citizens: 4.33 IWD

- 2012 "General Science, Space and Technology" budget: 43.04 IWD

- Cost of giving $100 to all 312M US citizens: 43.3 IWD

- 2012 Welfare budget: 210.3 IWD (0.6 IWY)

- Computed as 26% of the 2012 "Income Security" budget

- Includes TANF (22%) welfare, SNAP (70%) and WIC (8%) food stamps

- All ratios from 3rd party analysis of 2010 data; see http://goo.gl/ImbKc

- 2012 "Medicare" budget: 672.9 IWD (1.8 IWY)

- Cost of giving $2250 to all 312M US citizens: 975 IWD (2.7 IWY)

- 2012 "National Defense" budget: 994.9 IWD (2.7 IWY)

- 2012 "Social Security" budget: 1081 IWD (3.0 IWY)

- 2012 Total budget: 4986 IWD (13 IWY)

Source: "United States Federal budget, 2012" and "Mars Science Laboratory" pages on Wikipedia for budgets, google.com/publicdata for US population, National Priorities Project via "Cost of War" Wikipedia page for IWD exchange rate.

[maccollo]

Why you dont ask where all the military budget is going and for what?

Is ok that everyone is concern how they Tax are spending. But really bothers me that everyone just look in how much money goes to science proyects instead look the real problems.

Just to said that only 1 year of military budget is higher than these last 50 years of nasa (this include all the space race!).

I'm of the opinion that the NASA budget should be increased relative to the federal budget and that that amount of money could easily be saved from cutting some tiny aspect of milletary spending.

However I don't like to make a fuss about this, because I'm not American, so it's not my tax dollar, and it would be hypocritical, because the ESA only gets 0,035% of EU GDP, so I have no right to complain about NASA getting 0.1% of USA GDP, 3 times more.

ANYWAY

I didn't start this topic for political ramblings.

I wanted to know where the 3 billion dollars end up, and I wanted to know it a bit more precisely than "dude, the Russians"

How much goes to the Russians?

How much goes to resupply missions from American contractors? (Already got this for the most part)

How much goes to astronaut training and ground infrastructure?

Now it appears that at least half the cost goes to actually paying for launches to the ISS, which is good... So why is it becoming more and more expensive each year? Shouldn't it become cheaper (for the US) if it relies less on the expensive Russians and more on cheap SpaceX?

Edited January 2, 2014 by maccollo

[K^2]

I'm pretty sure resupply missions are far more frequent. Besides getting food, water, oxygen, and CO2 scrubbers up there, ISS needs quite a bit of fuel to maintain its orbit. A lot of these missions are unmanned Progress launches. Looking at the list of unmanned flights to ISS, I'm counting 8 missions in 2013. Four of these are Progress missions. Seeing how these are launched with Soyuz rockets, and rides on Soyuz manned vehicles cost NASA $60M/seat, and taking into account the fact that Soyuz still carries cargo, we are talking about hundreds of millions per Progress launch. Even if NASA only fronts half for Russian launches, and with other vehicles being cheaper, this can still easily add up to something in the $1b neighborhood just for the unmanned resupply launches. And then there are manned launches, equipment and experiments that need construction/preparation on the ground, all of the personnel that has to do with tracking and planning of missions. $3b/year is actually starting to look quite cheap.

As for it getting more expensive, Dragon is just entering the stage. NASA has been relying almost exclusively on Russians to deliver cargo in bulk. Given general inflation, economic situation in Russia, and Russian political climate, these costs are bound to keep climbing until NASA can switch most of its cargo to Space X or other contractors. That will happen, and cost of maintaining ISS operations will probably go down. That's big part of the reason why these programs are being financed. But we're not there yet.

Edited January 2, 2014 by K^2

[Skyler4856]

reality hurts, doesn't it?

Can you not be the main driving force behind this thread being locked?

[maccollo]

Found what I was looking for.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740512main_FY2014%20CJ%20for%20Online.pdf Page SO-5

My guess for transportation cost estimate of 1.3 billion wasn't to far off. The actual cost for cargo and crew transport in 2014 is about 1.5 billion dollars. Research is a puny 220 million.

The other big chunk is "ISS Systems Operations and Maintenance" at 1.3 billion. I presume that has to includes alot of the infrastructure costs of Johnson space center. No matter how you slice it, 1.3 billion is a lot of money to maintain a station of 6 when you've already subtracted the cost of cargo and crew launches. It's actually the same as the development costs for SLS that same year.

As for it getting more expensive, Dragon is just entering the stage. NASA has been relying almost exclusively on Russians to deliver cargo in bulk. Given general inflation, economic situation in Russia, and Russian political climate, these costs are bound to keep climbing until NASA can switch most of its cargo to Space X or other contractors. That will happen, and cost of maintaining ISS operations will probably go down. That's big part of the reason why these programs are being financed. But we're not there yet.

That would make sense if the transport and cargo expenditure increase slowed down during 2014 and forward when SpaceX really takes off, with more missions on it's manifest for this year than all previous years combined.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740427main_NASAFY2014SummaryBriefFinal.pdf Page 12 shows what launches are planned up until 2020.

In 2017 the firsts commercial crew launch to the ISS is supposed to take place, and then 2 for each year that follows. So in 2018 we should really see a drop in transportation cost, but instead the projected cost just keeps going up.

Edited January 3, 2014 by maccollo