|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|