[chungleong]

I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?

[Robotbeat]

I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules.

But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.