Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/19/2005 12:43:19 PM EDT
Seems kind of expensive. I don't know if we should be spending money on this.

-----------------------
By MARCIA DUNN
AP Aerospace Writer


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.


NASA estimated Monday it will cost $104 billion to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 in a new rocket that combines the space shuttle with the capsule of an earlier NASA era.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, in unveiling the new lunar exploration plan announced by President Bush last year, said he is not seeking extra money and stressed that the space agency will live within its future budgets to achieve this goal.

He dismissed suggestions that reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina might derail the program first outlined by President Bush in 2004.

"We're talking about returning to the moon in 2018. There will be a lot more hurricanes and a lot more other natural disasters to befall the United States and the world in that time, I hope none worse than Katrina," Griffin said at a news conference.

"But the space program is a long-term investment in our future. We must deal with our short-term problems while not sacrificing our long- term investments in our future. When we have a hurricane, we don't cancel the Air Force. We don't cancel the Navy. And we're not going to cancel NASA."

The $104 billion price tag, spread over 13 years, represents 55 percent of what the Apollo moon-landing program cost measured in constant dollars, Griffin said. Apollo spanned eight years. The objective is to pay as you go and what you can afford, he noted.

The new space vehicle design uses shuttlelike rocket parts, an Apollo- style capsule and lander capable of carrying four people to the surface. The rockets _ there would be two, a small version for people and a bigger one for cargo _ would come close in height to the 363- foot Saturn 5 moon rocket. They would be built from shuttle booster rockets, fuel tanks and main engines, as well as moon rocket engines. The so-called crew exploration vehicle perched on top would look very much like an Apollo capsule, albeit larger.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," Griffin said.

The crew exploration vehicle would replace the space shuttle, due to be retired in 2010, but not before 2012 and possibly as late as 2014 depending on the money available, Griffin said. It could carry as many as six astronauts to the international space station.

If all goes well, the first crew would set off for the moon by 2018 _ or 2020 at the latest, the president's target year.

Unlike Apollo, the new lunar lander would carry double the number of people to the surface of the moon _ four _ and allow them to stay up to a week, or twice as long. It also would haul considerably more cargo, much of which would be left on the moon for future crews.

The Earth-returning capsule would be able to parachute down on either land or water, although land is preferable, most likely at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

Griffin said NASA did not set out to mimic Apollo with the new spacecraft and that many options were considered over the summer.

"It's a significant advancement over Apollo. Much of it looks the same, but that's because the physics of atmospheric entry haven't changed recently," he said. "...We really proved once again how much of it all the Apollo guys got right."

The space agency's ultimate goal is to continue on to Mars with the same type of craft, but Griffin said there is no current timetable for Mars expeditions.

NASA believes the crew exploration vehicle would be far safer than the space shuttle, largely because of an old-style escape tower that could jettison the capsule away from the rocket in the event of an explosion or fire.

Two shuttles and 14 astronauts have been lost over 114 flights, Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. Nonetheless, NASA puts the existing failure rate for the shuttles at 1-in-220. The failure rate for the crew exploration vehicle is put at 1-in-2,000.


link
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 12:44:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 12:49:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 12:50:09 PM EDT by thelastgunslinger]
Do you know how many blowjobs I could buy for $104,000,000,000?

­

<­BR>

A lot!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 12:50:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 12:50:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
dupe.

www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=391303



Didn't see the cost in there.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 12:52:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
what would the 2005 cost of a saturn 5 rocket with apollo lander cost?




represents 55 percent of what the Apollo moon-landing program cost


Around twice as much? Although we wouldn't be able to rebuild one to the old specs, try getting a new computer just like the origional.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:01:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:08:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
Seems kind of expensive. I don't know if we should be spending money on this.



would you rather have a moon rocket or FEMA cards for the masses?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:11:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
Seems kind of expensive. I don't know if we should be spending money on this.



would you rather have a moon rocket or FEMA cards for the masses?



Well, if it's an either/or I'd definitely take the moon rocket.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:12:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
Do you know how many blowjobs I could buy for $104,000,000,000?



87!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:12:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
actually with the advances in production and composits a clone saturn 5 would probably be much cheaper than the original to build. computers are also MUCH cheaper than they were in the 60's and actually useable. i could almost install a mainframe in the capsule for the cost of the old computers on those ships.



But for all our advances in production, we have taken steps backwards in how they're engineered. Now we spend an order of magnatude more time and money designing, programing, testing, redesigning, retesting, starting over because the requirements change, and so on.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:12:47 PM EDT
I'd rather spend the $$$ towards another hubble type telescope that's can see about 10 times better. Honestly, what good is a trip to the moon?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:18:42 PM EDT
This program is already being set up to fail.

What we should be doing is simply offer 100B dollars to the first company that can send 4 men to the Moon and back twice 60 days apart and complete both missionsby Dec 31 2020.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:22:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
I'd rather spend the $$$ towards another hubble type telescope that's can see about 10 times better. Honestly, what good is a trip to the moon?



What good is a huge honkin telescope?

To tell us that there are planets out there that we can never go to? Wheee...


The moon can be a good resource if we can go and work there, rather than just poke around for a day or two.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 1:29:04 PM EDT
Top Top