Pro/Con Paper

Stephen Robert Jones

sjone199@students.bju.edu
Word Count: Yes - 848, No - 891

February 20, 2016

Sc 201 - Science: Impact on Society
Dr. George Matzko

Has the International Space Station been a good investment for the United States?

The space program has given citizens of the United States of America many
reasons to be grateful for its existence. Because of the scientific discovery and
inventions from NASA, Americans enjoy beds and pillows made from temper foam
(commonly known as memory foam), portable cordless vacuums, and freeze dried
snacks, just to name a few (NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives). Since the 1980s
the International Space Station (ISS) has been the largest program that has received
funding from NASA. As with any significant investment, there are a number of benefits
and drawbacks resulting from the ISS program. Have the benefits of the United States
investment in the International Space Station outweighed the drawbacks?

Section 1: Yes

In his 1984 State of the Union address, President Ronald Regan instructed
NASA to initiate a program to implement a permanent space station. This station was to
be one that could be inhabited by humans for extended periods of time. Reagan
encouraged Americans to support this enormous endeavor by reminding the nation that
the U.S. had always been its greatest when it dared to be great, claiming that this
space station would allow quantum leaps in our research in science (Regan). Regans
prudent words proved to be true. NASA soon began the project that led to the 1998
launch of the most expensive object ever constructed (What Is The Most Expensive

3
Object Ever Built?), the International Space Station. The International Space Station
has been a good investment for the U.S. because it has continued to make the U.S. the
unquestioned leader in space exploration, it has allowed for scientific research to take
place that would be impossible otherwise, and it is primarily funded by the U.S.
First, the International Space Station has allowed the United States of America to
keep hold of its position as the leader in space exploration. Beginning in the 1960s,
space exploration became a means of proving technological, political, and economic
superiority in a competition called the space race. The winner of the space race was
the nation to land humans on the surface of the moon first. The two contenders in this
race were the communist Soviet Union and the democratic United States. While the
Soviets were the first to send a man-made object to the moon, the U.S. won the race in
1969 when Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the lunar surface (History.com Staff). As a
result, the U.S. was the winner of the space race and the worldwide leader in space
exploration. Although this victory boosted American morale and prestige, technology
moved on from moon exploration. A few years after the first moon landing, space
exploration shifted from lunar visits to extended experiments in space. The International
Space Station served as the main center for conducting scientific experiments in outer
space (History and Timeline of the ISS). As the primary nation funding and developing
the International Space Station program, the U.S. continued its dominance in space
exploration.
Second, the International Space Station has allowed for scientific research and
development to take place that could not have happened otherwise. One such benefit
is the development of microencapsulation technology for cancer treatment.

4
Microencapsulation is a process for administering cancer-fighting drugs that has been
shown in laboratory testing to be more effective at killing the tumor while causing less
adverse effects to other systems in the body when compared to chemotherapy
(Ruttley). The research into this potentially life-saving technology was made possible
by the microgravity environment in the research labs of the ISS. Because of testing on
the space station, scientists were able to develop more effective methods for
implementing microencapsulation into practice on earth. Another area of scientific
discovery that has occurred on the space station is flame research. Scientists on the
space station have been able to study the behavior of a type of combustion termed
cool flame. This type of combustion occurs around 600 degrees Celsius, much cooler
than the typical 1,400 degrees Celsius for a similar candle (Rainey). The research in
this field has led scientists to better understand the properties and energy reactions of
combustible fuels, and could lead to more efficient internal combustion engines. Cancer
fighting drug microencapsulation and flame research are only two out of numerous other
experiments that have been conducted in the microgravity science labs on the
International Space Station.
Finally, the International Space Station has been a good investment for the
United States because most of the benefits that have come out of the ISS program
would not have been possible without support from the U.S. While the International
Space Station is a multi-government endeavor, the U.S. government has carried a much
larger share of the financial demand to develop the station than any other government
involved. According to Lafleurs estimations, the total cost for the ISS program from its
conception in 1985 through 2015 is around $150 billion (adjusted for inflation). Among

5
the participating governments that share this price, the United States has invested
$72.4 billion on the station and $54 billion in shuttle flights. Russia, the second biggest
investor, has contributed only $12 billion towards the station (Lafleur). Therefore, even
though the United States is not the only country that has been investing in the ISS
program, it has by far invested the most money in the program, and as a result, allowed
for the most benefit to come out of it.
The International Space Station has been a good investment for the United
States. NASA is still the world-wide leader in space travel, numerous scientific
discoveries have been made at the station, and the U.S. government is largely
responsible for those discoveries. President Reagans wishes for America to dare for
greatness have come true.

Section 2: No

The United States government, through NASA, is widely considered the global
leader in space exploration and travel. For the past 30 years, a significant portion of
NASAs budget has gone towards funding the International Space Station (ISS), an
inhabitable satellite and laboratory. While the space station project has produced many
benefits and allowed for numerous scientific innovations, one must consider the full cost
to determine if funding the station has been beneficial. The International Space Station
has not been a good investment for the United States because the U. S. government
could have put the money from the ISS budget to better use elsewhere, experiments

6
done on the space station are not worth the costs, and other countries could have
funded the space station.
First, the money the United States has spent on the International Space Station
project could have been put to better use elsewhere. According to Lafleurs estimation,
the U.S. government has spent a total of $72.4 billion (adjusted to 2010 money value)
on the space station alone, as well as an additional $54 billion in space shuttle flights to
the station (Lafleur). In combination with the other supporting countries, a total of
around $150 billion has been invested in the ISS, making it the most expensive object
ever constructed (What Is The Most Expensive Object Ever Built?). For comparison,
the Apollo missions cost the U.S. $109 billion (Lafleur). These missions caused the
U.S. to win the space race and establish itself as the worldwide leader in space
exploration, all for less money than the U.S. has spent on the ISS project. The U.S.
government would have benefited more by investing in other projects that hold
international prestige and interest, like the Apollo missions did. One project of this type
is in from the field of particle physics. CERN scientists at the Large Hadron Collider
near Geneva, Switzerland are conducting experiments and research at the cutting edge
of modern science (Chu). The participating countries in CERN are able to conduct this
research at a relatively cheap price of around $9 billion (Minkel). Another project still
related to the field of space exploration that would be a better investment than the
International Space Station is sending man to Mars. Although landing Americans on the
moon was a significant step in the Unites States history of space exploration, stepping
foot on Mars would be an even greater feat. According to one study, the cost of a two
decade program resulting in a manned mission to Mars would be between $80 billion

7
and $100 billion (Kaufman), significantly cheaper than the total cost of the ISS project.
While the International Space Station project has produced results that the U.S. can
claim as significant accomplishments, the U.S. government could have gotten as good
or better return in scientific innovation by investing its money in other projects.
Second, the International Space Station program has not been a good
investment for the U.S. because the scientific discoveries resulting from the program
have not been worth their costs. A number of notable scientific discoveries have been
made in the microgravity laboratory of the ISS. However, many of these experiments
could be replicated at a much cheaper costs on a low gravity aircraft. This type of air
travel, commonly called the vomit comet for its affect on some passengers, simulates
the type of microgravity environment found on the space station by plunging from high
altitudes to lower ones at an acceleration equal to that of gravity. Scientists and
engineers have already been able to do some of the same experiments done on the ISS
in one of these planes. One of the most studies fields on the ISS, flame behavior in
micro gravity, has already been studied on a vomit comet (Pyle). While the setup for
conducting experiments on this type of plane is not ideal, a greater return on investment
is possible through research inside the earths atmosphere due to the much cheaper
cost.
Finally, the International Space Station program has not been a good investment
for the United States because the other participating countries have not supported the
program to the same degree as the U.S. As noted earlier, Lafluer estimates that the
U.S. has spent a total of $72.4 billion on the space station and $54 billion on space
shuttle trips to the station (Lafleur). This combined price of $126.4 billion accounts for

8
around 84% of the total cost of the station. Several other countries, including Russia,
Japan, and European countries, have partnered with the U.S. in supporting the
International Space Station. However, these countries have not contributed to the ISS
project to the same degree as the U.S. by a large degree. For example, the U.S. has
spent $396.36 per capita on the ISS program, while Russia, the second largest
supporter, has spent only $83.62 per capita. If the U.S. reduced its spending on the
International Space Station, other countries with investments in the station would invest
a larger amount in the program.
The International Space Station has been a poor investment for the United
States of America. The enormous costs of the station have overcome the benefits
returned from the investment. The United States would have been better off to have
invested in money in a more worthwhile effort.

9
Bibliography

Catchpole, John E. The International Space Station: Building for the Future.
Chichester, UK: Praxis Ltd, 2008. Print.
Chu, Jennifer. Latest experiment at Large Hadron Collider reports first results.
PHYS.ORG. 14 Oct. 2015. http://phys.org/news/2015-10-latest-large-hadroncollider-results.html (19 Feb 2016)
History and Timeline of the ISS. CASIS
http://www.iss-casis.org/About/ISSTimeline.aspx (18 Feb. 2016)
History.com Staff. The Space Race. History.com. 2010
http://www.history.com/topics/space-race (18 Feb. 2016)
Kaufman, Marc. A Mars Mission for Budget Travelers. National Geographic.
23 April 2014. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-marsmission-manned-cost-science-space (20 Feb 2016)
Lafleur, Claude. Costs of US piloted programs. The Space Review. 8 March 2010.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 (18 Feb 2016)
Minkel, JR. Is the International Space Station Worth $100 Billion? SPACE.com.
1 Nov. 2010. http://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-worth-100billion.html (19 Feb. 2016)
"NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives." NASA
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html (18 Feb. 2016)

10
Pyle, Rod. Student Team Set for Zero-Gravity Fire Experiment on NASA 'Vomit
Comet. SPACE.com. 12 July 2013. http://www.space.com/21954-student-zerogravity-fire-experiment.html (20 Feb 2016)
Rainey, Kristine. Cool flame research aboard space station may lead to a cleaner
environment on Earth. NASA. 19 Nov. 2015. http://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/station/research/benefits/cool_flame_research (18 Feb. 2016)
Reagan, Ronald. "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the
Union. The American Presidency Project. 25 January 1984.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40205. (12 Feb. 2016)
Ruttley, Tara. Cancer Treatment Delivery. NASA. 31 July 2015.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/
cancer_treatment.html (18 Feb. 2016)
"What Is The Most Expensive Object Ever Built?" Zidbits. 6 Nov. 2010.
http://zidbits.com/2010/11/the_most_expensive_object (18 Feb. 2016)