150 Million Dollar Space Station Urine to Water converter isn't working.. Could we have better invested money?

they shoulda brought "Joe The Plumber" along~!!!

No. Three-quarters of the NASA budget is R&D. This produces economic stimulus that pays for the space program several times over.

Economic studies in the late 1970's found similar results for the European Space Agency and NASA. The new technology developed led to product improvements and increased productivity.

Yes. That is an absolutely ridiculous amount of money to pay for a device like that.

We thought it was bad when we were hearing about $800 hammers and $400 toilet seats.

Some people are so naive they think that if the money is spent on something that has to do with space, then that money is somehow well spent.

That is ridiculous.

yea pay 10 million to an entrepreneur to get the same product and save 140 million

To answer your question;

Yes a Kentucky moonshiner can build a better converter with NASA scraps that works for $149.95 million less.

It depends how you want to look at it.

If you believe in the future, then we NEED to get the bugs out of space travel if we are to get to Mars or even if we are to make any real use of the moon.

Do you realize that much of modern consumer technology has roots in military, space, and scientific research?

Investment is good whether it success or not. Failure is a success story by itself. It provides knowledge of what not to do.

Thats some piss poor technology there..