Armstrong lauds another spaceman

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Note that if NASA figures are to be believed, it would cost MORE now
(in constant dollars) to put a couple men on the Moon than it cost us
the first time we did it.

Even stipulating that's true -- and I see there's some disagreement --
that means it would cost *NASA* more to do it now than then. Which is not
too surprising, given the sad state of today's NASA.

Getting to LEO has become cheaper (although not as much cheaper as one
would expect) because LEO is a commercially viable place and because
we were putting stuff there for a long time.

Actually, it's GSO that's the commercially viable place. Non-government
interest in LEO is slight at the moment.

And interestingly enough, getting to low lunar orbit is no more difficult
than getting to GSO. When it comes to getting to the Moon -- as opposed
to doing things there -- Moon-specific systems basically become important
only for the last few kilometers of the trip.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
m:
:
: Note that if NASA figures are to be believed, it would cost MORE now
: (in constant dollars) to put a couple men on the Moon than it cost us
: the first time we did it.
:
:NASA's figures show no such thing.

Then they revised the hell out of them, because that's certainly what
they showed the first time they were asked.

No, they did not. The CBO's analysis of NASA's figures show a cost of $63.8
billion through the first lunar landing, which is less than the
corresponding $77.9 billion figure for Apollo (both figures adjusted for
inflation). (source: CBO)

If you have a cite for your figures, I'd love to see it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:18:55 -0500, Georgiana Gates

wrote:



I'm embarrassed to say that the title of the thread made me think
of
*Lance* Armstrong, the bicyclist.


Armstrong, space newsgroups. Yeah, that naturally lead to...a
cyclist.

;-)


I saw this thread on rec.arts.startrek, not a space newsgroup.

Yes, since there's so much bicycling on Star Trek. :-)

Hey, I can remember distinctly those times when Scotty would cry out
"Cap'n, I'm giving her all she's got... but the pedals canna take much
more!".


Or something like that...

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
: Note that if NASA figures are to be believed, it would cost MORE
: now (in constant dollars) to put a couple men on the Moon than it
: cost us the first time we did it.
:
:NASA's figures show no such thing.

Then they revised the hell out of them, because that's certainly what
they showed the first time they were asked.

No, they did not. The CBO's analysis of NASA's figures show a cost of
$63.8 billion through the first lunar landing, which is less than the
corresponding $77.9 billion figure for Apollo (both figures adjusted
for inflation). (source: CBO)

Does the $63.8B figure include the infrastructure requirements for
returning to the moon and *staying*? Apollo was a get there quick/get
home project which succeeded famously, but really had no long term
goals. As I understand, the next time we set off for the Moon, it's for
good.

--
Bob

"Bob Flaminio" wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
: Note that if NASA figures are to be believed, it would cost MORE
: now (in constant dollars) to put a couple men on the Moon than it
: cost us the first time we did it.
:
:NASA's figures show no such thing.

Then they revised the hell out of them, because that's certainly what
they showed the first time they were asked.

No, they did not. The CBO's analysis of NASA's figures show a cost of
$63.8 billion through the first lunar landing, which is less than the
corresponding $77.9 billion figure for Apollo (both figures adjusted
for inflation). (source: CBO)

Does the $63.8B figure include the infrastructure requirements for
returning to the moon and *staying*?

No, it doesn't. And it *shouldn't*.

Apollo was a get there quick/get
home project which succeeded famously, but really had no long term
goals. As I understand, the next time we set off for the Moon, it's for
good.

Right. So if you are going to do an apples-to-apples comparison with
Apollo, you have to stop at the first landing. After that point, the goals
of the two programs diverge and a direct comparison is meaningless.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
cost of going there.

Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
of advances not specifically directed at those things.

Paul

Muzz wrote:

How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Depends on what you mean by 'colonize'. Spain had already turned
a net profit on new world activities in less time than the 'space
age' has existed.

Paul

Muzz wrote:

How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Colonization started at least 500 years after Leif Ericson sailed
the ocean blue to the new world.

Alain Fournier

"Muzz" , in a broken top-posting which I have
corrected, wrote:

:"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
: have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
: cost of going there.
:
: Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: of advances not specifically directed at those things.
:
:How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
:to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Less than three years.

In point of fact, Columbus served as Royal Governor of the colony at
the site of what is now Santo Domingo until 1499.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
:
:
: Note that if NASA figures are to be believed, it would cost MORE now
: (in constant dollars) to put a couple men on the Moon than it cost us
: the first time we did it.
:
:NASA's figures show no such thing.

Then they revised the hell out of them, because that's certainly what
they showed the first time they were asked.

You are comparing the incomparable. Flags and footprints
do not, of course, cost the same as building a lunar base.