A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$64 Billion and seventeen years to land on the moon. What's wrong with this picture?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 04, 06:10 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $64 Billion and seventeen years to land on the moon. What's wrong with this picture?


This week's AW&ST:

"Pressed by Congress for cost estimates on Bush's Moon/Mars
exploration plan, NASA releases some figures to back up its pretty but
imprecise "sand chart" that purports to demonstrate there's no hidden
cost "balloon" in the plan (AW&ST Jan. 26, p. 22). According to the
Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, NASA assumes it
will cost $64 billion in Fiscal 2003 dollars to land humans on the
Moon in 2020. That amount includes $24 billion to build and operate
the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) through 2020, plus $40
billion in Fiscal 2011-20 to build and operate a CEV lunar lander. "


  #2  
Old March 1st 04, 06:45 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Ferrin wrote in
:


This week's AW&ST:

"Pressed by Congress for cost estimates on Bush's Moon/Mars
exploration plan, NASA releases some figures to back up its pretty but
imprecise "sand chart" that purports to demonstrate there's no hidden
cost "balloon" in the plan (AW&ST Jan. 26, p. 22). According to the
Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, NASA assumes it
will cost $64 billion in Fiscal 2003 dollars to land humans on the
Moon in 2020. That amount includes $24 billion to build and operate
the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) through 2020, plus $40
billion in Fiscal 2011-20 to build and operate a CEV lunar lander. "


That's about two-thirds the cost of Apollo, in current dollars. That sounds
about right, considering that 1) we've done it before, but 2) everyone who
did it the first time is retired or dead.

What did *you* find wrong with the picture?


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #3  
Old March 1st 04, 07:07 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 01 Mar 2004 05:45:17 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote in
:


This week's AW&ST:

"Pressed by Congress for cost estimates on Bush's Moon/Mars
exploration plan, NASA releases some figures to back up its pretty but
imprecise "sand chart" that purports to demonstrate there's no hidden
cost "balloon" in the plan (AW&ST Jan. 26, p. 22). According to the
Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, NASA assumes it
will cost $64 billion in Fiscal 2003 dollars to land humans on the
Moon in 2020. That amount includes $24 billion to build and operate
the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) through 2020, plus $40
billion in Fiscal 2011-20 to build and operate a CEV lunar lander. "


That's about two-thirds the cost of Apollo, in current dollars. That sounds
about right, considering that 1) we've done it before, but 2) everyone who
did it the first time is retired or dead.

What did *you* find wrong with the picture?



Seventeen years.
  #4  
Old March 1st 04, 07:27 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Ferrin wrote in
:

On 01 Mar 2004 05:45:17 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote in
m:


This week's AW&ST:

"Pressed by Congress for cost estimates on Bush's Moon/Mars
exploration plan, NASA releases some figures to back up its pretty
but imprecise "sand chart" that purports to demonstrate there's no
hidden cost "balloon" in the plan (AW&ST Jan. 26, p. 22). According
to the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, NASA
assumes it will cost $64 billion in Fiscal 2003 dollars to land
humans on the Moon in 2020. That amount includes $24 billion to
build and operate the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
through 2020, plus $40 billion in Fiscal 2011-20 to build and
operate a CEV lunar lander. "


That's about two-thirds the cost of Apollo, in current dollars. That
sounds about right, considering that 1) we've done it before, but 2)
everyone who did it the first time is retired or dead.

What did *you* find wrong with the picture?



Seventeen years.


There's two possible responses to this:

1) The actual date for the first lunar return in the plan was a range
between 2015-2020, and CRS automatically picked the most pessimistic. It
could happen sooner.

2) Even if it is 2020, why hurry? The artificial deadline placed on Apollo
helped force some design decisions that ensured that the program would be
too expensive to sustain.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #5  
Old March 1st 04, 12:22 PM
William R. Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

(snip)

That's about two-thirds the cost of Apollo, in current dollars. That sounds
about right, considering that 1) we've done it before, but 2) everyone who
did it the first time is retired or dead.


What did *you* find wrong with the picture?


I couldn't find the AW&ST report online, but I did find this summary of
the budget:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070930/posts

There's no mention of funds for booster development--either man-rating
a current booster, or developing a new booster in case the CEV and lunar
vehicles can't fit current boosters. The timeline for developing the
unmanned, Block I CEV alone seems amazingly rapid, especially as there
are no plans available for it and its mission requirements. The
schedule
also seems to assume nothing will go wrong on this limited budget. In
addition some funds will be taken from next-generation booster
development.

--Bill Thompson
  #6  
Old March 1st 04, 04:29 PM
ed kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"William R. Thompson" wrote in message ...

There's no mention of funds for booster development--either man-rating
a current booster, or developing a new booster in case the CEV and lunar
vehicles can't fit current boosters.


This time around, NASA doesn't have to spend so much on
boosters. Years of shuttle investment provide an existing
heavy-lift infrastructure. NASA's estimate for Shuttle-C
development would amount to about $3 billion today - a minor
fraction of the total program cost for a lunar program.
EELV, thanks to the U.S. Air Force, is pretty much ready to
go for CEV/LEO missions.

- Ed Kyle
  #7  
Old March 1st 04, 04:33 PM
Alan Erskine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

This week's AW&ST:

"Pressed by Congress for cost estimates on Bush's Moon/Mars
exploration plan, NASA releases some figures to back up its pretty but
imprecise "sand chart" that purports to demonstrate there's no hidden
cost "balloon" in the plan (AW&ST Jan. 26, p. 22). According to the
Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, NASA assumes it
will cost $64 billion in Fiscal 2003 dollars to land humans on the
Moon in 2020. That amount includes $24 billion to build and operate
the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) through 2020, plus $40
billion in Fiscal 2011-20 to build and operate a CEV lunar lander. "



In fifteen years, GWB's idea will be long forgotten; just like his daddy's
is. George Bush 'Senior' said something *very* similar in 1989 at the 20th
anniversary celebrations of Apollo II. "This time to stay" he said. Now,
people don't even remember he said it, and it is _fifteen years ago this
year_.... Shame, really.

I call my idea "Five-by-Five" -

Five billion dollars a year; five years for research and development; five
years for prototype flying and initial landings (testing of equipment in
space and on the Moon to make sure it works 'as advertised') and for
uninterupted science; five years for industrial startup; five years for
change-over to commercial operations (after commercial organisations are
convinced of capabilities/profit margins) and then the five billion per year
is used to develop Mars operations at a similar pace.

20 years, little risk of failure and major chance of success. This means
that first human return to the Moon would be four to five years from green
light, not ten, fifteen, seventeen or whatever.

Once commercial operations begin on the Moon, there's no turning back.

Five billion is roughly what the Shuttle costs to operate (no suggesting
that STS/OSP be cancelled - quite the contrary as I feel it is a most
important program).

I hope you now know what I mean by "we".

Five billion is sweet FA for the U.S. government, considering the amount it
spends on the military (it's less that 1.5% of the current U.S defence
budget and wouldn't make that much of a dint there, either) and other
programs; hell, New Yorks MTA (public transport) has a budget of $7.5
billion a year! This money, however, would be in addition to the current
NASA budget. Not a large amount and quite easy to achieve in my opinion.
I've been working on an idea for about three years now and feel it's _just
about_ ready for public opinion.

Anyone interested can email me and I'll send them a copy; it runs to about
380ish kilobytes, including a couple of images. Both the size of the
document and the fact that it contains images precludes posting it here.
Emails will be sent individually to ensure privacy, but comments may be made
to the group if you wish. sci.space.policy might be more appropriate
however.
--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge



  #8  
Old March 1st 04, 04:37 PM
Alan Erskine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"William R. Thompson" wrote in message
...

I couldn't find the AW&ST report online, but I did find this summary of
the budget:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070930/posts

There's no mention of funds for booster development--either man-rating
a current booster, or developing a new booster in case the CEV and lunar
vehicles can't fit current boosters. The timeline for developing the
unmanned, Block I CEV alone seems amazingly rapid, especially as there
are no plans available for it and its mission requirements. The
schedule
also seems to assume nothing will go wrong on this limited budget. In
addition some funds will be taken from next-generation booster
development.

--Bill Thompson


Mary, didn't you have something to say about 'man' rating an lv some time
ago?

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge



  #9  
Old March 1st 04, 04:52 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



This time around, NASA doesn't have to spend so much on
boosters. Years of shuttle investment provide an existing
heavy-lift infrastructure. NASA's estimate for Shuttle-C
development would amount to about $3 billion today - a minor
fraction of the total program cost for a lunar program.
EELV, thanks to the U.S. Air Force, is pretty much ready to
go for CEV/LEO missions.

- Ed Kyle


Well shuttle C MIGHT be cheap to develop but how about operate? Take the
shuttle for instance. Its fully developed but cost way too much to operate.
Will shuttle C be a impriovenment or a fiancial drag?
  #10  
Old March 1st 04, 05:52 PM
Alan Erskine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
This time around, NASA doesn't have to spend so much on
boosters. Years of shuttle investment provide an existing
heavy-lift infrastructure. NASA's estimate for Shuttle-C
development would amount to about $3 billion today - a minor
fraction of the total program cost for a lunar program.
EELV, thanks to the U.S. Air Force, is pretty much ready to
go for CEV/LEO missions.

- Ed Kyle


Perhaps NASA wants to get away from the 'stigma' associated with STS? Two
failures, resulting in *all* U.S. space deaths...

Perhaps they want to try something new and considerably less expensive like
the Delta IV.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.