Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Moon NASA Space Technology

NASA Estimates It Will Need $20 Billion To $30 Billion For Moon Landing (cnn.com) 241

NASA has touted its bold plan to return American astronauts to the moon by 2024 for months. Now we're starting to get an idea of how much it will cost. From a report: The space agency will need an estimated $20 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for its moon project, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine told CNN Business on Thursday. That would mean adding another $4 billion to $6 billion per year, on average, to the agency's budget, which is already expected to be about $20 billion annually. Bridenstine's remarks are the first time that NASA has shared a total cost estimate for its moon program, which is called Artemis (after the Greek goddess of the moon) and could send people to the lunar surface for the first time in half a century. NASA wants that mission to include two astronauts: A man and the first-ever woman to walk on the moon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Estimates It Will Need $20 Billion To $30 Billion For Moon Landing

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 14, 2019 @01:16PM (#58762484)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      Yeah, it's not so bad, but I'm not sure I believe it. The SLS has been such a ridiculous boondoggle, and I'm not sure why anyone would expect it to suddenly produce a working rocket after so many years and billions of failing to do so. When congress picked the SLS over commercial launch (don't think that was NASA's decision), they were clearly focused on launching taxpayer dollars into their districts, not men to the moon.

      Still, maybe there's hope for the rest of the components. NASA has always been bett

    • It is cheap. The Apollo program cost around 25 bil.

      The rumor was that Armstrong got about 18 dollars for travel expenses.

      • by ebacon ( 16101 )

        That was the estimated cost in 1974. Adjusted for inflation, its closer to 100B. So yeah, cheap.

    • Hell with that -- I say we send more rovers. Best post-warranty longevity I've seen in a while.

    • Why would it be good for the sciences? Men went to the moon a bunch of times already. What is there left to learn from doing it again? Mars, sure.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's an opportunity to develop the technology to get to Mars, and space technology in general.

      • Going to unusual places and/or doing unusual things means that you have different problems to solve than anyone else and so you may come up with new and better ways of doing things. The last time we went to the moon was the 1970's. Technology has come a long way since then and trying the same challenge again may produce new technologies that either help with going further e.g. Mars or help us travel closer to home...or help us in some entirely different way.
      • Why would it be good for the sciences? Men went to the moon a bunch of times already. What is there left to learn from doing it again? Mars, sure.

        The Vikings discovered the new world and didn't go back. They were basically forgotten. Reduced to old stories that even their descendants doubted were true.

        Columbus went to the new world, there were followup voyages, followed by even more explorers from Spain, France, Britain and the Dutch. New lands, new resources, new foods, new medicines ... admittedly poorly managed at times, especially the new peoples, but we can learn from these mistakes and seek progress in a better way.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by drnb ( 2434720 )
            Actually it is a good example, you simply missed the point. Two groups found something of immense value to both of their cultures. One group did not follow up, the other did. The former stagnated and failed, the latter reaped great benefits.
        • You're talking about Leif Erikson? He did go home. He just didn't find tons of gold and slaves so his stories weren't that exciting.
          • by drnb ( 2434720 )

            You're talking about Leif Erikson? He did go home. He just didn't find tons of gold and slaves so his stories weren't that exciting.

            They found the sort of farmland they wanted, the sort of land they invaded and settled in part of England over. What they found was of immense value to their culture but it was a lost opportunity because they did not follow up.

            • In Greenland they tried to settle. But conditions changed to harsher weather.
              In Vineland/America they plundered the indian settlements, and you can not plunder against a few thousand inhabitants with three boats over a longer period of time. Unlike later, when Christians arrived in the americas, at that time america was densly settled with dozens of millions inhabitants.

      • There's lots that can be learned. For one is the effects on materials after of 50 years of exposure to the lunar surface. I'd really like to know if there is any truth to the claim that the old lunar rovers could still work today if only given a fresh battery.

        When going to the moon 50 years ago the missions were very short and limited in scope. All the devices used to get there were highly experimental, and we have a lot of experiments we can run yet. Let's put a telescope up there to look at the stars.

    • Before you go for that how about asking SpaceX to see how much they would charge? They have arguably been far more innovative than NASA, at least recently, and they may even be cheaper.
    • Another space race would be great for hard sciences and the economy.

      It'll be good for space sciences, but probably not for the economy. You're incorrectly comparing to a zero base state ($0 spent vs $25 billion spent). The correction comparison has to take into account opportunity cost [investopedia.com] - comparing a moon shot's return on investment versus the next best alternative. In other words, to be good for the economy, that $25 billion spent on a moon shot has to result in more economic benefit than $25 billion sp

      • Given that there's very little scientific or commercial gain to be had from returning to the moon

        And that's where your argument falls apart. Even just going for a single hop would have downstream benefits as far as science and technology are concerned, but that pales in comparison to the economic and scientific gains which could be realized from a sustained presence (and a continually expanding commercial involvement in space).

      • They're still uneconomic for transporting goods, except for a niche overnight delivery market.
        Nevertheless the cargo/freight air plane traffic dwarfs passenger traffic.

    • Well, cynics would ask: how many percents of the school budget is that?
      And if you would want to sell it better you would say: it is about one super carriers see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Wait till you see NASA. They are usually two order of magnitude off. Elon is just one order of magnitude off.
  • Nope (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shaitan ( 22585 )

    "NASA wants that mission to include two astronauts: A man and the first-ever woman to walk on the moon."

    NASA is a government funded organization and is not legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender or race (or and this is a social issue that actually does need fixed orientation). Declaring the gender of the astronauts in advance means they are doing exactly that.

    All else being equal they should select the two best qualified astronauts, whether that is two white men or two minority women is irre

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday June 14, 2019 @01:57PM (#58762840) Journal

      Depends what you think the mission is. It's not (yet) discrimination on the basis of gender to only interview actresses to play a female role. Do you think the mission is actually to do science? No. The mission is to inspire a new generation, and that makes astronaut selection a casting decision.

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        No but it is discrimination on the basis of gender to alter a role from male to female or vice versa or alter the race etc. Government agencies aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and/or gender for mission selection either.

        Just because blatantly unlawful discrimination is ignored or even praised on a daily basis as if white and male isn't a protected class or doesn't count doesn't make it lawful or mean it should be tolerated.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          But the right crew here is a man and a woman, because you want to inspire a new generation of both, and people identify better with others who look like them.

          • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            How does it inspire someone to suggest they couldn't actually earn a spot without a handicap? Also, this isn't sports and about creating role models or inspiring someone, this is a scientific mission for the purpose of advancing (or reclaiming previous advancement) the human race.

            It isn't the governments job to inspire people, its their job to promote our common interests. Men and women both have the common interest of knowing if they become an astronaut and can claim an achievement it is actually an achiev

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              How does it inspire someone to suggest they couldn't actually earn a spot without a handicap?

              Anyone in the astronaut program is amazingly qualified. The Apollo 11 astronauts were chosen simply because it was their turn in the rotation. Also, young people aren't that cynical.

              It isn't the governments job to inspire people, its their job to promote our common interests.

              You should at least finish a sentence before contradicting yourself.

            • It isn't the governments job to inspire people,
              Yes it is, what else would be its job?

              its their job to promote our common interests.
              Wow, is that not a contradiction to the first half of the sentence?

          • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            P.S. the new generation doesn't need to see people with the same junk accomplishing things to be inspired, they are all people and people accomplishing things inspires them. All you have to do is keep your daughters away from people who are trying to beat them over the head with the message that girls can do things too and they won't have the idea that they couldn't do them in the first place. You also have to shelter your sons from the message that the girls can do everything they can do, only BETTER and t

          • by BenBoy ( 615230 )

            But the right crew here is a man and a woman, because you want to inspire a new generation

            Or, you could create that new generation during the flight ...

      • Do you think the mission is actually to do science?

        Yup. "The effects of microgravity and low gravity on african-american males and hispanic lesbian women." Done.

      • and that makes astronaut selection a casting decision.

        Exactly. One reason Neil Armstrong was chosen to be the first man on the moon was because he was a civilian. Sure, he flew fighters while in the US Navy but at the time he was a civilian employee of NASA. Previous missions had military men "on loan" to NASA. The mission to the moon was (at it was supposedly such) a civil mission of space exploration, not a military beachhead to the high ground on the moon.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They need to test all the systems for getting to the Moon, landing, EVA etc. with women. So far they have only tested with men.

      Most of it will be similar, but the suits will be a bit different, and the spacecraft will need to support women's bodily functions (i.e. toilet, and for longer missions menstruation).

      That's all very important for the longer missions to Mars.

    • Hmmm. You're right. Given that there are many with the qualifications to follow directions on a highly scripted mission in an age where nobody needs to know how to fly the thing, the qualifications really should be looking at height and weight. We can certainly discriminate on the basis of physical characteristics. It would cut a lot of costs to design the system for two people under 5' in height and around 100 pounds in weight.
  • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Friday June 14, 2019 @01:32PM (#58762630) Homepage Journal

    Elon Musk can do it for $1 million and with cost savings the mission will pay for itself.

  • Seriously, give SpaceX $200 for a technology demonstrator and this project may be done.

    Without the NASA-enforced seawater contamination the hypergolics should work better.

    Oh, right, this needs to spread $50M around fifty-five senators' districts. Nevermind, then. Wave to the SpaceX mining outpost when you arrive in eleven years.

  • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Friday June 14, 2019 @02:30PM (#58763110) Homepage

    The article suggests that Space Launch System will be the workhorse vehicle that will be at the heart of this project. SLS is massively over budget, very much behind schedule, and has never flown.

    SpaceX has shown that they can reliably and predictably and affordably deliver stuff to orbit. So I would favor a program where SpaceX rockets are the work horses for the moon project. If Blue Origin or anyone else can get their stuff flying reliably, they are welcome to the party also.

    There is an old saying, attributed to Heinlein, that goes something like this: "Once you are in Earth orbit you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system." If you can reliably put stuff into Earth orbit, you can accumulate supplies there, assemble modules there, and launch a well-equipped setup from there.

    The Apollo program was trying to win a race and put everything on one, single rocket. That's the most expensive and risky way you could possibly do it. Instead, send up some fuel tanks, and launch enough rockets to fuel them up. Send up the space equivalent of a shed and stock it with dried food and other stuff. Send up the oxygen and water.

    Send up a "moon shuttle" in pieces and assemble it. It could be ridiculously stark and simple: a long stick with points for attaching things and with rockets at one end. It doesn't have to be pretty. Also send up some kind of moon landers, maybe even two different designs made by two different companies, and send both on the mission. (In fact, before the first moon shuttle leaves, maybe build a second one and have it ready as a rescue craft in case something goes wrong with the first one!)

    When it's time to go, you just attach landers, supplies, living modules, and fuel modules to the moon shuttle, and it leaves Earth orbit and goes to Moon orbit. Landers drop and return. Then the shuttle returns to Earth orbit. The shuttle can be reused many times; if designed right, maybe the shuttles can be reused many times (or maybe those really need to be disposable, I don't know).

    I am not any kind of expert but it seems to me that this plan is way better than getting a heavy-lift cargo rocket built, and launching a moon mission on it.

    And I would propose that the government finance all this with a series of bounties. Pay some large sum for the first company to put a fuel tank in orbit. Pay a smaller sum for the second and third companies. Pay a nice amount for each kg of fuel delivered to a fuel tank in orbit. Pay a really large chunk for the first lander to safely land on the moon and return. And so on.

    The best thing about bounties is that the government is only paying for success. (Dumping money into big government projects like SLS doesn't guarantee success.)

    The above program would require developing expertise in assembling things in orbit, but once all the pieces were in place visiting the moon could become as routine as SpaceX launches are now.

    • by steveha ( 103154 )

      the shuttle can be reused many times; if designed right, maybe the shuttles can be reused many times (or maybe those really need to be disposable, I don't know).

      Whoops, brain fault. I meant: "if designed right, maybe the landers can be reused many times (or maybe those really need to be disposable..."

      The moon shuttle should last approximately forever. All the shuttle does is switch between moon orbit and Earth orbit. But maybe there aren't any near-term practical moon lander designs that are reusable;

  • Hugh Dryden told JFK that a moon landing would cost between 10 and 20 billion. In today's dollars, that's between $85 and $170 billion.

  • What's $10B among friends? How about funds for a border wall that can be diverted?

  • If I understand this correctly, NASA is suggesting that a government program fund a moon mission without a military or legitimate propaganda goal... and they are expected to gain and maintain funding for the project long enough to reach completion and the only actual hard deadline is that is should be done while Trump is still president (assuming a second term) so he can take credit for it from beginning to end?

    Oh and the funding is still not allocated, the engineers are on easy-going mode until funding is
  • Artemis (after the Greek goddess of the moon)
    Artemis is not he goddess of the moon. She is the huntress, sister of Apollo.

    The goddess of the moon is Selene.

    *facepalm*

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Artemis is the goddess of the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis). Selene is as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selene).

      Greek mythology didn't have a pope to tell everyone what to think, so people mostly did their own thing. Although even with a pope christianity ended up with a trinity, so yeah.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...