NASA Owns the Two MOST EXPENSIVE Things Ever Made 🌙 #ISS #HST #waste #X #tiktok

Please Support The Channel
50% of all channel support (after fees & tax) will go to a private Moon mission

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=37594401
Buy Me A Coffee?: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/whats.next
Donate With Cash App: https://cash.app/$YTpayments

The International Space Station (ISS) has been criticized as an obscene waste of money for several reasons:

High Cost: The ISS has been a massive financial undertaking, with estimates suggesting that it has cost over $180 billion since its inception. Critics argue that this money could have been better spent on other scientific endeavors or societal needs on Earth.

Limited Scientific Returns: Some critics claim that the scientific returns from the ISS do not justify its high cost. While research conducted on the ISS has yielded valuable insights into various fields such as biology, physics, and materials science, detractors argue that the cost per scientific discovery is too high compared to other research initiatives.

Technological Obsolescence: The ISS is now over two decades old, and some of its technology is becoming outdated. Maintaining and upgrading the station require significant resources, leading some to question whether it is worth investing further in a platform that may soon be surpassed by newer space technologies.

Political Symbolism Over Practicality: The decision to build and maintain the ISS was influenced by political considerations, including fostering international cooperation in space exploration. Critics argue that these symbolic goals have overshadowed practical considerations of cost-effectiveness and scientific productivity.

Opportunity Cost: The substantial financial investment in the ISS has meant that funds were diverted from other potential space missions or scientific projects that could have had a greater impact or provided more significant returns on investment.

Limited Accessibility: The ISS is accessible only to a select group of astronauts and researchers, limiting the number of individuals who can benefit directly from its presence in orbit. Critics argue that this exclusivity reduces the overall impact of the station on advancing scientific knowledge.

In conclusion, while the International Space Station has undoubtedly contributed valuable scientific insights and served as a symbol of international cooperation in space exploration, critics argue that its high cost, limited scientific returns, technological obsolescence, political motivations, opportunity costs, and limited accessibility make it an extravagant use of resources.