Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Government Moon Space

NASA Puts a Price On a 2024 Moon Landing: $35 Billion (arstechnica.com) 184

Posted by BeauHD from the pretty-penny dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Nearly 10 months after Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return astronauts to the Moon by 2024, the space agency has estimated how much its Artemis Program will cost. NASA says it will need an additional $35 billion over the next four years -- on top of its existing budget -- to develop a Human Landing System to get down to the Moon's surface from lunar orbit while also accelerating other programs to make the 2024 date. NASA's human spaceflight chief, Doug Loverro, shared this number Monday at Johnson Space Center, as the Trump White House released its fiscal year 2021 budget. It calls for a big increase in NASA's budget, 12 percent over last year's budget request, with a top-line number of $25.2 billion.

The biggest increase will go toward the Human Landing System, $3.37 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone. NASA says, if funded by Congress, this would mark the first time the United States has directly spent money on a lunar lander since the Apollo program in the 1960s. The human spaceflight budget also funds a small space station in orbit around the Moon, called the Lunar Gateway. This is a sizable budget request and, other NASA programs aside, represents the kind of funding the space agency needs if it is to make progress toward landing humans on the Moon in the mid-2020s. The president's budget also supports a lunar program that does meaningful things on the Moon, providing hundreds of millions of dollars to study the extraction of ice from the lunar poles and establishing a habitat on the surface. "In contrast to a recent authorization bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the White House budget proposes using lunar landers developed via public-private partnerships, with contractors investing in their own landers," the report adds. "Those landers would also be launched on privately developed rockets, helping to contain costs of the Artemis Program."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Puts a Price On a 2024 Moon Landing: $35 Billion More

NASA Puts a Price On a 2024 Moon Landing: $35 Billion

Comments Filter:

  • They haven't added up the fees yet (Score:5, Funny)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @11:37PM (#59718258) Journal

    It will be another 40 billion for checked baggage.

  • Bargain! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @11:44PM (#59718270)

    The first time, it was around 25 billion, give or take. In 1969 dollars, mind you.

    35 billion is a steal!

    The real answer, tho, is "Why did we ever stop?"

    Ohyea, people got bored of it.

    Can't help it, I'm a child of Apollo, moreso than Shuttle. I think Shuttle was an El Camino. Apollo was... different. No fucks given to anything but man on moon. No re-usability, no commercial venture, it was a Ferrari... no. not even a Ferrari is as single-minded as Apollo. Not even close.

    Apollo was "Why climb the mountain?" manifest in blood, sweat and tears.

    Even tho it was really a cover for dominating the missile war.

    Ultimately, it's only the results that count, and not the backstory... and the results is: a few LEM bases scattered about, a couple of cars, a buncha Hasselblad cameras... damn, we *were* fierce litterbugs back then, weren't we..

    Pitale a la basura!

    • Re: Bargain! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @01:59AM (#59718572)

      > The real answer, tho, is "Why did we ever stop?"

      Because if we continued, a spectacular disaster was absolutely inevitable... sooner, rather than later. Pretty much every mission came within minutes of disaster at least once. We got lucky, prudently took our winnings, and went home from the casino while we were still ahead.

      Most of what NASA has done over the past 40 years has been boring & mundane... but we've also come an ENORMOUSLY long way, in no small part thanks to SpaceX. I honestly think even Werhner von Braun would have had his jaw drop in amazement & had tears of joy if he'd lived to see the first pair of Falcon Heavy booster engines landing at Cape Canaveral. IMHO, *that* was the day it finally started to feel like we were living in the 21st Century, after decades of disappointment.

      • I like your theory, but honestly it was just the cost/benefit. You only get to put the first man on the moon once, after that it's hard to get the tv ratings. The cost had to come way down to make it worth doing again, and here we are. Now Mars...

        • The Apollo program did land people on the moon on six separate occasions - with Apollo 11,12,14,15,16, and 17. So it's not like it was all about the "first man on the moon". It was actually getting pretty routine, with 17 actually carrying a geologist who was able to do something useful beyond a test pilot collecting random samples with no idea what they were looking at.

          But it was ferociously expensive, and there wasn't really any driving purpose behind it beyond the diminishing PR returns. "Blue sky" sc

      • Pretty much every mission came within minutes of disaster at least once. We got lucky, prudently took our winnings, and went home from the casino while we were still ahead.

        Awesome post, bro. Even if it wasn't the only reason we stopped, it was certainly a good one. I think it more boiled down to cost/benefit though. No doubt, it was very fucking cool, but ultimately, there really wasn't much benefit in continuing the ride. And 35 billion can buy a fucking lot of probes, telescopes, robots.

        Screw the meat missions, get more of our digital betters out there.

        • I'm glad you mentioned 'telescopes', because IMHO, they're likely to be a profitable lunar industry.

          Launching a single Hubble-like telescope from Earth & landing it on the Moon would have been stupid... its view would have been determined by the Moon's orbit & rotation, and it would have been even HARDER to service than Hubble.

          HOWEVER...

          Suppose there were a couple of manned bases on the Moon with mining, a factory to make glass & building materials, the ability to manufacture large lenses &

          • I suspect lenses and mirrors will be made on Earth for a long time to come - they're *far* more difficult to make than the imaging sensors. We're talking about precision manufacturing that's constantly pushing the limits of what we're capable of making on Earth. It doesn't do you any good to build telescopes on the Moon, if the lenses and mirrors aren't good enough to resolve a better image than you can get through the Earth's atmosphere. The tubes and other support structure components though could like

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • human space flight expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @11:45PM (#59718274) Homepage Journal
    One thing we know right now is that human space flight is just too expensive of a publicity stunt. We have seen time and again that our technology make robots far more effective for exploration of out local environment. Voyager has shown this.

    Also the US is simply too risk adverse. One reason Russia is flying to the ISS is that they run a much more cut rate shop. The mars mission is indicative of this. Mars One was soundly and rightly ridiculed, but they had one critically correct concept. Going to mars is going to be one way trip, and the life expectancy can't be understated. But if we are going to know what it like to be human on another planet any time soon, this is what is needed. A group of people who are willing to go forth and explore, really explore. Just think of those europeans who came to north america, those Asians who went through the islands of the pacific, how many must have died.

    Going to another place is not the issue. We can do it, we have done it, and it is done. Going to the moon is like those people who follow sherpas up Everest and say they climbed it. If we are going to have long term habitation, the would be interesting. If we are going to set up long term science, that would be great. But I don't see what we are going to do that is novel in getting there.

    • Watch Trump support funding this only on the condition that it's branded the first mission of Space Force, and that a number of classified experiments remain active on Lunar Gateway and the surface.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jamu ( 852752 )
      I'd love to see a base on the moon. One at L4 or L5 too.

    • Going to the moon is like those people who follow sherpas up Everest and say they climbed it. If we are going to have long term habitation, the would be interesting. If we are going to set up long term science, that would be great. But I don't see what we are going to do that is novel in getting there.

      2020's technology is very different from what did the job in the late 60's. A lot can be learned from doing what was done back then - but using modern methods & equipment. Possibly cheaper especially if private companies do the grunt work. But you didn't mention the value of what we'd discover once humans get there.

      Much of our own planet still hasn't been discovered. Places in a desert where no human ever set foot. Much of Antarctica that has only ever been seen from an airplane's window or satellite

    • One thing we know right now is that human space flight is just too expensive of a publicity stunt. We have seen time and again that our technology make robots far more effective for exploration of out local environment. Voyager has shown this.

      But we NEED human space flight! - The warranty on this planet is about to expire and we need to be able to move on...

      • But we NEED human space flight! - The warranty on this planet is about to expire and we need to be able to move on...

        The fact that the warranty is about to expire is no reason to start looking for a replacement. As long as we keep up regular maintenance and don't forget to change (away from) oil, it should be good for another 100,000 easy; and more if we keep it in good shape.

    • My only point to add to your well thought-out post is that there IS a strategic-tactical reason to go to the moon: there are only 2 points on the moon that have line of sight to both the sun and the earth simultaneously, the poles.

      These are of supreme strategic importance: the sun for simple, reliable, constant power. Earth for communication NOT relying on bouncing off satellites. (Not to mention I believe the greatest concentration of available water?)

      There are only two such points on the moon. They will

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      One reason Russia is flying to the ISS is that they run a much more cut rate shop.

      That's a gross oversimplification. The reason it's cut rate is because they have been consistently improving the technology since it first flew in 1966. America could have had the same thing if they continued to develop the Apollo program.

      As for the Shuttle program, it looked like a whole lot of porq when the same could have been achieved by developing a true glider that sat *on-top* of the Apollo launch system and avoided all of the design flaws that STS had. You could have had both.

      The reason Amer

  • How much of a wall fraction is that?

  • Just ask Musk and Bezos for their numbers. The court fees they generate fighting over the contract can fund the program!

  • 17 days of the military budget (Score:5, Informative)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @12:05AM (#59718356) Homepage

    17 days of the military budget. Totally doable. Do it.

    • Re:17 days of the military budget (Score:4, Funny)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @01:19AM (#59718484)

      So the justification for going to the moon again is that we already spend money on other things that are even stupider?

      • Re: 17 days of the military budget (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Firedog ( 230345 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @01:37AM (#59718524)

        If I were an economics professor, I would love to put this question on one of my final exams:

        What is the *total* ROI on the Apollo program, including ancillary effects on the US and global economy over the last 50 years.

        Be specific.

        • Well, there was Tang. Except that actually existed before Apollo made it famous.

          There was the pen that can write in zero-gravity. Except it was developed by a private company with no NASA funding.

          Then there were huge advances in semiconductors. Except they were really developed for the ballistic missile program, not Apollo.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Firedog ( 230345 )

            You're forgetting about the freeze-dried astronaut ice cream...

            Seriously, though - the Apollo program proved that Americans could "do" space (to both civilians and the military). It boosted the nation's confidence at a critical time. It inspired countless kids around the world to pursue careers in STEM (myself among them). I thought we'd all be living in space stations by the year 2000, but I'm somewhat claustrophobic, so maybe that wouldn't have worked out so well.

            I don't know if we'd have GPS (and all the

            • The first commercial satellites pre-dated the moon landings by several years.

              GPS does not rely on technology from Apollo.

              Part of the justification for the ISS was an inspiration for young people. Yet more young people were inspired by the robots on Mars, which cost 1% of what we spent on the ISS.

          • Then there were huge advances in semiconductors. Except they were really developed for the ballistic missile program, not Apollo.

            Both-- the development of integrated circuits was a joint program between the Air Force (for the Minuteman missile) and NASA (for the Apollo Guidance computer).

            If it had been purely an Air Force program, the results would have remained classified.

        • That's a really stupid, short-sighted way to look at things like the space program.

        • Re: 17 days of the military budget (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @06:49AM (#59718994)

          There are a lot of effects the Moon program had that are at first glance not easy to identify. First and foremost, the economic impact was huge. There were a lot of people who suddenly had jobs, both inside the space program but also in auxiliary jobs that meant that a lot of people had a lot of money to spend, boosting the total economy and effectively meaning that the economy soared, an effect that kept going on well into the 80s.

          There was also the development of new and more flexible management structures. Process management and systematic process planning got a decisive boost in that time, meaning that when the people working in those programs hit the free market after they left NASA and the associated companies, they took that knowledge and experience with them. And knowing that something works because you have first hand experience is a considerable motivator, also for those that usually resist change because "it was done in the moonshot" was a powerful argument for the effectiveness of a process. This meant that US companies were superior in efficiency and cost compared to international competitors, and that effect even outlasted the purely economic one.

          You also had this "we can do it" motivational boost that swept the country, leading to many people daring to do something new, open a business or risk a business decision. "If they can put a man on the moon, why shouldn't I be able to X" was the sentiment of the time and that, too, outlasted the moon shot phase by quite some time.

          International politics were at an all-time high for approval of US politics. Let's face it, the US did some really shady things internationally in the 60s and 70s, but have you heard anyone complain outside of the Warsaw Pact? You just could do nothing wrong because you were the good ones, the ones with the space heroes and someone we loved to consider a "friend". It sure wasn't the military power, given that today that's magnitudes higher, it was genuinely that everyone was looking up to the US and wanted to be like them. Hell, they put a man on the moon, anything's possible to them!

          You see, not all benefits from the moon program are easily quantifiable, but the effects were very beneficial and outlasted the program itself by decades.

          • There are a lot of effects the Moon program had that are at first glance not easy to identify. First and foremost, the economic impact was huge. There were a lot of people who suddenly had jobs, both inside the space program but also in auxiliary jobs that meant that a lot of people had a lot of money to spend, boosting the total economy and effectively meaning that the economy soared, an effect that kept going on well into the 80s.

            This is a just pure broken window fallacy. We could have paid all of those people the same money to carry rocks back and forth all day and the same would be true about them having money to spend. The question you need to ask was whether or not the activity that they engaged in produced any value of its own. I personally think that it does, but that's my own opinion. If you wanted the answer of society you'd have to ask if they would have privately funded such a venture and I don't think they would.

            All of

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          If I were an economics professor, I would love to put this question on one of my final exams:

          What is the *total* ROI on the Apollo program, including ancillary effects on the US and global economy over the last 50 years.

          Be specific.

          A lot more if they stuck to the program instead of scraping it. That's a more interesting question, what is the *lost* ROI from dumping the Apollo program instead of developing the technology.

      • US military is a good investment. As long as it exists, nobody is going to even to try to fuck in the US. 4% of GDP is not too bad for such insurance to protect the wealthiest country in the world, and ensure it can actually continue to enjoy the free trade thanks to which it has gotten so rich.

        What I'm pointing out is that $35B over 4 years is a very tractable sum. Even $70B (which is what this will cost when everything is said and done) is easily tractable. And unlike the military, another moon landing co

        • > US military is a good investment. As long as it exists, nobody is going to even to try to fuck in the US.

          Well... that doesnâ(TM)t exactly bode well for our fertility rate, does it?

        • nobody is going to even to try to fuck in the US.

          Is that why America's birthrate is falling?

        • protect the wealthiest country in the world
          By which metric would that be?

        • Re:US military is a good investment (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Alwin Henseler ( 640539 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @04:32AM (#59718816)

          US military is a good investment. As long as it exists, nobody is going to even to try to fuck with the US.

          There, FTFY. But let's face it: most of the US military budget is used for:

          • Protecting oil interests. None of that "spread freedom" bullshit.
          • Projecting power in places the US has no business flexing their muscles in the 1st place.
          • Toppling sovereign governments. No matter how questionable their existence, or how much the US dislikes them.
          • Otherwise interfering in nations' internal affairs because of... reasons.
          • Bolstering the profits of the Blackwaters and Lockheed Martins of this world.
          • Training military personnel to be tomorrow's military style cops that are hated almost universally. Discarded military equipment included. Well that or produce veterans that have trouble fitting into society after their experiences overseas.

          Bottom of the list: protecting US soil. Which is what it should be doing - and only that. Which would be much cheaper.

          So what are those US defence spendings getting you? Interfering with other nations' internal affairs. Creating enemies. Enriching a small clique of well-connected cronies. A good investment you say? Space exploration (or tending to a long list of issues like poverty, medical expenditures, infrastructure etc etc) sounds more useful to me...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by melted ( 227442 )

            Be that as it may, that does not change the fact that it is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and for as long as we have it, nobody will even think to fuck with us.

            • Be that as it may, that does not change the fact that it is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and for as long as we have it, nobody will even think to fuck with us.

              Yep, those planes just flew themselves into the twin towers.
              Wonder how long it would take to mutate another corona virus and let it loose in a few key US cities?
              What would I know though, I'm sure those F35's you spend so much money on will be able to target the virus. Well once it's finally working properly anyway. Keep spending those billions.

          • Bottom of the list: protecting US soil. Which is what it should be doing - and only that. Which would be much cheaper.

            Case in point for "protection" being much cheaper: Switzerland, despite having a a higher per capita personnel [nationmaster.com] (due to still being mandatory conscription based), is spending a much smaller fraction of its GPD [worldbank.org]. Mostly due to it being a defense-only force (with a few peace keeping exception) and never taking part in any war because of its neutrality.

            (And somebody familar with Japan should their numbers too. I would expect the same kind of finding, given that they don't even formally have a military, but a "Ja

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by G00F ( 241765 )

              Switzerland and japan can get by with so little because they have friends and allies with so much more.

              The US, is a trading nation that depends on unrestricted free access to the sea is a matter of national security and pays for the fleet of warships all over the planet not just Persian Gulf, Somalia, South China Sea etc. This is a benefit realized by those who don't help protect it.

              Another benefit for all are the underwater sea cables for global communication/internet. It takes large state actors to keep

        • As long as it exists, nobody is going to even to try to fuck in the US.

          yeah. it is like 9/11 never happened and never will happen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      As long as North Korea doesn't figure out which 17 days you should be fine!

  • Very cheap if true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guillermito ( 187510 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @12:08AM (#59718368) Homepage

    For perspective:

    Moving humans from Earth to Moon in a spaceship: 35 billion; ready in 2024

    Moving humans from LA to San Francisco on a high speed train: up to 98 billion; ready in 2033 (last estimate according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      All the while humans on the moon (again) is a useless publicity stunt, while the high speed train will make the lives of many thousands of people better.

      • Re:Very cheap if true (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @01:25AM (#59718498)

        the high speed train will make the lives of many thousands of people better.

        Then perhaps those thousands of people should pay for it, instead of all 39 million California taxpayers, most of whom will never use it.

        • society is not a-la-carte (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:02AM (#59719124)
          The same reason you have to pay tax which go toward school, is that we decided as a society that long ago some burden have to be shared. The line is set differently among different society, e.g. school get general tax in Europe, in the US it is local tax, but in both case when it is decided who are covered , then all pay the tax even if they have no children. Same for public transport : the whole pay it, even if you never use bus or train.

        • Re:Very cheap if true (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:05AM (#59719132)
          That's absurd. Public transportation doesn't work that way anywhere in the world.

        • 39 million Californian tax payers benefit from having less cars on the road, and having cleaner air sure to lower emissions.

          Yep everyone in California "uses" this to some extent.

      • Yeah sure, until China lands there, builds a base and a colony, populates it, creates a military presence there, then claims it as their property, and don't sit there and tell me they wouldn't do it.

        • They wouldn't do it.

          Unless they find a reason to actually do it. Chinese prestige projects are far easier to do, just report about it, it's not like anyone in the country could verify whether you're bullshitting them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Getting humans to the moon will inspire a new generation to become scientists and engineers. A high speed train will inspire many thousands to save up a bit more for plane tickets.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )
          HSR will make it possible to commute to the Bay Area from the Imperial Valley. This will generate additional GDP. A LOT of it.

          Let's assume that the ridership will be 30,000 people a day - this is a fairly conservative estimate, Caltrain is at 65,000 riders per day right now. If these 30,000 people buy a house then it's an immediate 20 billion or so in direct construction expenses added to the GDP, without even considering its multiplier (very high for construction work). And with time this works the other

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          A lack of high speed trains is what's making this scientist leave the fucking country. So good luck with whatever silliness you're talking about.

    • So... cheaper to get to San Francisco by rocket then?

    • https://www.planetary.org/get-... [planetary.org]
      total lunar effort 28 billion. Adjusted for inflation 288 billion. The 35 billion announced is *dirt cheap* because we learned from experience and have better tech.

    • No property rights or infra required in space

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This is pretty common with airline tickets. It's often cheaper to have a layover somewhere, in this case the Moon, even though the total distance is greater than going direct.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tsqr ( 808554 )

      For perspective:

      Moving humans from Earth to Moon in a spaceship: 35 billion; ready in 2024

      Moving humans from LA to San Francisco on a high speed train: up to 98 billion; ready in 2033 (last estimate according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])

      Not really a fair comparison. California's high-speed rail project is just a scam to enrich political cronies and labor unions (but I repeat myself), and it's "high speed" in name only --under the current plan, it will take nearly as long (if not longer, once the TSA gets involved) to get from LA to SF by this train as by car. Then there's the issue of all the legal challenges resulting from the deceptive and illegal (per the funding measure passed by the voters) shenanigans regarding how the money's being

  • If we were going back, we'd have been back some time in the last 50 years.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Let's be real: the only reason Trump is willing to fund this is his ego. He wants to be in the history books as the POTUS that sent man back to the Moon.
    That being said, I think we should build permanent habitats on the Moon regardless, and have a permanent, self-sustaining colony there. The scientific and medical data we'll get from humans living there long-term will be priceless.
    Also if we eventually built a big enough colony, we'd have a failsafe for humanity in case something happens to the Earth.

    • I think we should build permanent habitats on the Moon regardless

      What on Earth for!?!?! Humans on Earth about to cook the only place they can live on! And they CBF'ed to even use public transportation, or even keep the CDC fully funded!

      The scientific and medical data we'll get from humans living there long-term will be priceless.

      No, it would be near pointless. You get more useful data studying humans in LEO. There's little new or useful to be learned paying hundreds of million per year putting up an extended lifeboat on the Moon. Use the money to do something NEW and potentially useful, like a manned mission to Mars! It would have to be an extended period of

  • Or does that sound like a reasonable price tag for the 2020's?

    The problem is that its a hideous waste of money to merely send a bunch of gov't employees to the Moon as tourists.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Close