NASA Moon-Mars Price Tag at $229 Billion, not $1 Trillion

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...27COSTMYTH.htm

"Moon-Mars cost estimate is too high -
NASA price tag at $229 billion, not $1 trillion"
_FLORIDA TODAY_ - April 26, 2004

'CAPE CANAVERAL -- Mistaken as gospel and spread around the country by
countless news outlets outside of Brevard County, an oft-quoted but
flawed trillion-dollar cost estimate is coloring public opinion on
President Bush's plan to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020, and
it's swaying election-year political debates.'

'A more realistic estimate: $229 billion over the next 16 years. That's
how much NASA expects to be available to carry out the plan, according
to a FLORIDA TODAY review of agency budget projections for the years
2005 through 2020.'

See the URL for the rest of the article.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

Mark

On 28 Apr 2004 05:24:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Mark) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

As opposed to a cost prediction from ignorant reporters?

(Mark) writes:

So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

Don't forget the original cost prediction of $8 billion for Space
Station Freedom.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 28 Apr 2004 11:13:31 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

(Mark) writes:

So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

Don't forget the original cost prediction of $8 billion for Space
Station Freedom.

That wasn't a cost projection for SSF, which didn't exist yet, even in
design. It was a generic estimate for a generic space station, and in
fact could have been easily achieved, if building a space station had
been the program goal.

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

And don't forget our nice new $8.5 billion dollar space station.

That said, do I expect NASA to come in under $229 billion? No. Do I expect
it to cost $1 trillion? Also "no". Do I think news agencies should toss
around numbers based on someone's wild-assed guess? No.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

jeff findley wrote:

(Mark) writes:

So, um, we're supposed to believe a cost prediction of hugely complex
new projects from the agency that claimed the shuttle would fly 50+
times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound?

Don't forget the original cost prediction of $8 billion for Space
Station Freedom.

Even that would have been overpriced, but NASA fell headlong into the
trap of developing the Space Station the way they developed launch
vehicles: high-tech to the max, and dry mass to the absolute minimum.
"We've GOT to push the technology - it's our mandate" as one early Space
Station official was quoted as saying. They didn't need to do it that
way, but they did, and it turned the space station into a very high cost
program, and those high costs were then multiplied by all the re-designs
which stretched out the program.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

IIRC, the typical overrun during the 1980s and 90s on large NASA and DOD
programs was about 40%.
The members of the congressional oversight committees have learned over the
years to double any cost or schedule number they get from NASA.

Later
Ray Schmitt



"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...yN0427COSTMYTH
..htm

"Moon-Mars cost estimate is too high -
NASA price tag at $229 billion, not $1 trillion"
_FLORIDA TODAY_ - April 26, 2004

'CAPE CANAVERAL -- Mistaken as gospel and spread around the country by
countless news outlets outside of Brevard County, an oft-quoted but
flawed trillion-dollar cost estimate is coloring public opinion on
President Bush's plan to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020, and
it's swaying election-year political debates.'

'A more realistic estimate: $229 billion over the next 16 years. That's
how much NASA expects to be available to carry out the plan, according
to a FLORIDA TODAY review of agency budget projections for the years
2005 through 2020.'

See the URL for the rest of the article.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Dick Morris writes:
Even that would have been overpriced, but NASA fell headlong into the
trap of developing the Space Station the way they developed launch
vehicles: high-tech to the max, and dry mass to the absolute minimum.
"We've GOT to push the technology - it's our mandate" as one early Space
Station official was quoted as saying. They didn't need to do it that
way, but they did, and it turned the space station into a very high cost
program, and those high costs were then multiplied by all the re-designs
which stretched out the program.

This is exactly why NASA shouldn't be allowed to develop their own
launch vehicle for the lunar and Mars program. They're going to have
enough trouble containing themselves from going "technology happy"
with the CEV and all its associated modules and hardware.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:46:54 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"rschmitt23" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

IIRC, the typical overrun during the 1980s and 90s on large NASA and DOD
programs was about 40%.
The members of the congressional oversight committees have learned over the
years to double any cost or schedule number they get from NASA.

Irrelevant in this case, since NASA hasn't provided a cost or schedule
number for the president's new initiative. People who talk about a
trillion dollars are just pulling numbers out of their rear.