So how can we afford that ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg

On 6 Sep 2005 19:02:09 -0700, wrote:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg

Cutting down on War spending would be one. Still, it does seem hard to
see how congress would approve this funding in the future.

Cardman.

Looks like only thing affordable is an ISS bound CEV...

Scrap the CLV for one.

wrote in message
ps.com...
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg


Is this NASA's way of saying: "We need (lots) more money!!" ???

The $22 billion annual budget earmarked for 2018 to realize Bush's dream of
putting men on the Moon is far more than the money NASA has at the moment
and only $5 billion of that is used for actual manned spaceflight. Are these
numbers 2005 dollars or do they take inflation into account?

wrote:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg

Since the government seems to create money out
of thin air for any number of projects, we can
- afford it that is. This projection seems much
more realistic than the O'Keefe era projection.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Since the government seems to create money out
of thin air for any number of projects, we can
- afford it that is.

No, that would be "printing money," which notoriously
leads to inflation. What we do is to get the PRC to
put it on our tab by issuing debt, which they are so
far quite willing to buy.

This projection seems much more realistic than the O'Keefe era projection.

That may turn out to be true.

On 6 Sep 2005 20:12:23 -0700, wrote:

Looks like only thing affordable is an ISS bound CEV...

I would predict that NASA will be allowed to create the CEV and
"stick", when congress has little other choice. However, when they
want the money for Moon aspects, then I would expect that these
aspects would be mostly delayed about 5 or 6 years.

This is naturally due to the USA one day having to pay back all this
War money. So for a long time it could well seem like a CEV to the ISS
situation.

As I also doubt the amount of following allowed budget, then I would
expect NASA to land people on the Moon in 2026.

That would break Bush's command of before 2020, but then it is not
like NASA could do anything if congress refused to pay for it.

Congress may desire to fund this Moon plan, while cutting everything
else, in some kind of "keeping spirits up" situation. However, as they
come to tighten their belts to starvation point, then I expect that
everything that is not vital will have to go.

So all of 2026 is my Moon landing estimate. Anyone want to take a bet
on that? ;-]

Cardman.

wrote:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg

About three billion a year for the CLV once it is operational? For six
flights a year (a later spaceref article) that's half a billion a
launch. Not a cheap vehicle.

Will McLean

wrote:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...budget.med.jpg

So, how can we afford that?

The answer has been obvious since before Apollo.

The first step is to get to LEO much more cheaply,
reliably and frequently. This has always been the
top priority; but it has never been addressed
seriously and properly and competitively.

Once an appropriate Earth-to-LEO transportation
system is in place, then we would have a capability
for carrying vast amounts of propellants or water to
LEO. From there on, a very ambitious program would
cost far less than those shown on the NASA charts--
assuming that somehow we avoid ludicrous,
self-serving management.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com