![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give sufficient justification for it: Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma. posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block "WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the moon. But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or more." .... "But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it, “infeasible.” "But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station. "Even the panel members themselves were surprised. "Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10- member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020." http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...a-dilemma.html It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100 billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years? According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6 successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted dollars: Apollo program. 7 Program costs and cancellation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...d_cancellation You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than that? Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly 1/10th that amount. We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon missions. Bob Clark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
United Nations 1979 Moon Treaty -- Prohitbiting the militarization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids. | J Waggoner | Space Shuttle | 12 | July 31st 08 09:34 PM |
United Nations 1979 Moon Treaty -- Prohitbiting the militarization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids. | J Waggoner | Policy | 12 | July 31st 08 09:34 PM |
United Nations 1979 Moon Treaty -- Prohitbiting the militarization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids. | J Waggoner | History | 12 | July 31st 08 09:34 PM |
Watch: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon: The $100 Billion Moon Landing Fraud. | [email protected] | History | 37 | November 3rd 07 03:24 AM |
Will Bush nuke the moon? Will the black hole bomb be tested on the moon first? | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 3 | December 6th 03 05:41 PM |