|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:23:42 -0500, "Christopher M. Jones"
wrote: "TangoMan" wrote: I've seen reports that the cost of ISS has appraoched $90 Billion. I've seen cost estimates all over the map for ISS. Does anyone have a definititive number amd a source they can point me to. The major differences are in what you count as an ISS cost and what you don't. Then, of course, you've got to count, in an appropriate manner, the development costs of everything involved. The highest cost estimates come from two things: first, taking the cost of all the Shuttle flights that will ever visit ISS and adding it to the cost of ISS; second, adding in a lot of the development costs of the ISS systems, the per-flight development cost of the Shuttle, etc. The lowest cost estimates come from simply adding up the ISS specific budget, while ignoring the cost of the Shuttle flights, etc. If the ISS did indeed cost $90 billion, then a rethink for even a Stanford Torus is in order. Just because a certain amount of money will eventually be spent, effectively, on ISS, don't think that the same quantity of money could be allocated for any other use, even related uses. Even *the exact same use*. Yeah, congress is weird that way. Personally, I'd like to see how the figure is that low, that is generally agreed to be the US cost, but I've heard estimates that exceed 200B for the total cost of ISS. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:22:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, trakar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Personally, I'd like to see how the figure is that low, that is generally agreed to be the US cost, but I've heard estimates that exceed 200B for the total cost of ISS. The cost of ISS has absolutely no relevance to the cost of building a Stanford Torus. It had unique requirements, few of which had anything to do with actually building a space station, or saving money. If it had been important to do so, for some reason, we could have easily had ten or a hundred times the space station for less money than ISS. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
Operation costs should be irrelevent to a true colony, as it needs to
able to at least produce as much as it consumes. Once it's fully functional and operational it should be more than self-sufficient. Uh - Colonies usually begin by shipping raw materials - lumber, beaver pelts, etc. back to the home country in return for manufactured items that they aren't set up yet to produce themselves. They do not start out by producing as much as they consume, they start out bascially shovelling coal back home. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
Your argument about the cost, "its only 15 B2 bombers", is fatally flawed.
The cost of the B2 is enormous. It was/is justified by it backers as a necessary deterrent in a dangerous and unpredictable world. Your personal opinion non withstanding that argument was sufficiently compelling for a majority of the population and has become more so in the wake of 9-11. What argument do you have for a colony that is as equally compelling to the majority to the majority of Americans? The answer is currently none, which is why we have bombers instead of bases. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!
"gmw" wrote in message ...
Your argument about the cost, "its only 15 B2 bombers", is fatally flawed. The cost of the B2 is enormous. It was/is justified by it backers as a necessary deterrent in a dangerous and unpredictable world. Your personal opinion non withstanding that argument was sufficiently compelling for a majority of the population and has become more so in the wake of 9-11. What argument do you have for a colony that is as equally compelling to the majority to the majority of Americans? The answer is currently none, which is why we have bombers instead of bases. In the mdium term there is no attractive alternative. Sounds pretty compelling to me. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |