How much will it cost?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Undecided, Jan 19, 2004.

?

How much will it cost?

  1. $20-50 billion

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. $500-$1 trillion?

    6 vote(s)
    66.7%
  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31954

    Continued from this thread, so how much do you think this moon/mars program will cost?

    Between $20-50 billion? or btwn $500 billion - $1 trillion?

    Cast your votes now, and oh how will the US afford this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A question that remains unanswered from the $20 billion crowd.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Both or each individually?

    Well lets see development of a Reusable Launch Vehicle to replace the space shuttle does not count. Lets say they get $1000 per lb like they want, and 2-3 launches at 50tons each is required for a mission to mars based off a mars direct or semi-direct plan… hum $300,000,000 to launch! Well that does not count development but that final tally would come below 55 billion for a mars semi-direct reference mission as stated by NASA by far as the 55billion stated by mars semi-direct was based off using a shuttle variant and not a much cheaper RLV.

    Now the moon I don't know about but both programs can run of most of the same development.

    I would put them combined at 100Billion. just a very rough guess form a biochem major.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    The US spent $750 billion in one year on education alone last year. How will it afford to that this year or next year?

    And WCF, you're assuming that you don't go to the moon (which, let's not forget, is the aim of this program - the whole mars thing has no firm date, only a stated aspiration) and that you don't mine ilmenite while there and that you don't take the ultra-high-purity iron and other materials you get as a result and use them to fabricate stuff in lunar orbit (about an order of magnitude cheaper than fab'ing in LEO with material launched from here).

    And $100-125 billion is how much the entire Apollo space programme cost in today's dollars...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Did I mention the cheapness of a RLV? oh yes I did. Did I mention I was only focused on Mars because I had the research on it? yes indeed I did. Did I say I was basing it of Bush's plan, no I did not. Once I shove something up your butt (like how you fucked up with boron) it does come out easy doesn't it (you should not be piss off and such in your pride and admit that boron is cheaper)? No it does not (your piss off and a stubborn fuck)!
     
  8. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Yes, and an SSTO RLV would be a great asset and I strongly believe that funds need to be committed to developing one - and more on the lines of the DC-X project than the X-33/X-34 projects (why the hell they beat DC-X in the funding game I'll never understand). But the facts are that launching from the lunar surface will always be cheaper than launching from the earths surface, as a matter of physics. The lunar gravity well is one-sixth that of earth's, and the lunar atmosphere is non-existant in all practical terms, allowing different launching methods like electromagnetic launchers.

    Okay,
    1. Dial it back WCF, no agression was required whatsoever
    2. You may want to go reread that thread to see what I actually posted. And then you may want to reread this thread for the same purpose.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I have reread it and the results are teh same.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Then you're reading more into what I wrote than I put into it...
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    aaaaaah, I think saying the opposite would be in your favor. If I read into what you wrote then that would prove that you write like you have a grudge against me, but if I read what you put into it then that would mean I was trying to read your mind and what you wrote has no proof in it that you’re a jackass.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  12. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Hmmm. Perhaps you could edit that a bit WCF? I haven't a clue what your were trying to say.
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    "Keep on honking, I’m reloading my gun!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Interesting... not really. See what I find particularly funny is that supposedly I am on ignore, right Sparks? So I will not even bother to answer the pussy's replies. Let's be a little realistic here shall we? Let's say that the US program does cost a mere $100 billion,ok? The US has a $550 billion deficit, and this will not go away for at least 2008+. The program could cost up to $50 billion a year, if not even more a year when the project reaches a certain level of sophistication. That $1 trillion mark is not (I repeat) not out of the ballpark at all, rather it is much more realistic then $50 billion and less. The US mission may be very ambitious, and it may want a permanent base on the moon, even a launch area on the moon. Per capita the average American should share the burden of this program. But of course they won't the majority of money will come from the middle class, who needs education and healthcare (in educations case it has gone down in terms of GDP consumption).

    What I find funny about Sparks for instance, is that he obviously has little or no economic knowledge. I do not doubt he knows his tech. and its abilities. But his obvious ignorance on the most basic of economic principles is so sad, that it's a disgrace he's even posting, on the same thread he should be ignoring.
     
  15. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
  16. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    NASA has come up with 25 to 30 different possibilities for the mission in recent months and some look better than others, O'Keefe said. Though he declined to offer a cost estimate, he said figures of $500 billion or $1 trillion were "preposterous."
     
  17. Fukushi -meta consciousness- Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,231
    If it's becoming a problem, they'll surely draw from the DoD buget,...don't you think so?

    It should be. So I don't really see any problem here,...really.
     

Share This Page