I am sure such programs will get the funding needed(relatively small amount needed to do research in comparison with a $500M shuttle launch).
I am sure such programs will get the funding needed(relatively small amount needed to do research in comparison with a $500M shuttle launch).
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Ok let me get this straight....
Apollo mission was over 100 billion in today's dollars. Bush Senior's mission to Mars in 90's was estimated at 400 billion, which would reach into trillions judging by how much ISS was over budged, from less than 10 billion it went to over 100 billion.
Now, Bush proposes a moon base followed by a manned Mars mission by adding 1 billion to NASA's budged and re-shuffling and cancelling some programs already on the way?
Publicity stunt? I think so.....
Apollo mission was over 100 billion in today's dollars. Bush Senior's mission to Mars in 90's was estimated at 400 billion, which would reach into trillions judging by how much ISS was over budged, from less than 10 billion it went to over 100 billion.
Now, Bush proposes a moon base followed by a manned Mars mission by adding 1 billion to NASA's budged and re-shuffling and cancelling some programs already on the way?
Publicity stunt? I think so.....
Depends. First nasa needs a re-org and that it has been getting. Once Nasa shows progress, more money could easily be allocated in future budget years. Nasa first has to develope heavy lift again before it can think about going to the moon.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That is my biggest complaint about Bush's announcement. It's just another IOU passed to his successors (and our children). He wants the political credit for announcing the program, but dodges any hard decisions about paying for it. When Bush shows us how to get to Mars while maintaining a balanced budget, then I will be impressed. Until then, it's mostly an empty gesture.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Most any large scale project has an IOU to be picked up by future generations. They will also be the ones that will benifit by it.
I do not expect I my lifetime to travel in space, even though I may work on technology to allow my grandchildren to get there.
Some of the cost benifit regarding the moon/mars bases is that there may be minerals that can assist in the development of technological advances.
If we are able to develop methods to harvest minerals from other lunar bodies, it will benifit us immensely. there are more minerals floating around the local (relative) area that can exist on earth, even if we had the technology to extract from the internal core.
You do realize, even if Bush got elected, 4 years would not be enough time to get to Mars. The groundworks has to be put in place. We must have heavy lift again and we likely need new propulsion. This is not going to happen in the next 4 years(heavy lift likely will).
If he would have proposed full funding for such a project, there would have been screaming about it busting the budget and it likely would not get passed. This will likely get passed and Nasa will be better for it.
The shuttle budget can't shrink much more. Launching the shuttle isn't that expensive, it's the army of people it needs to keep maintained is what's expensive. Cutting down the number of flights done per year wouldn't give you much extra cash.
I agree that it isn't enough money for the huge scope of the task. It would probably be enough for a Mars mission but not a Mars mission AND a lunar base. Unfortunately the American public doesn't want to pay a huge chunk of cash to do either of those.
We do need to seriously research the space elevator but no congressman is going to support diverting a big piece of NASA's budget to doing it. The reason for that is because most people haven't heard of it and when they do they laugh.
Your right. But spending the next couple of years developing heavy lift could largely replace the shuttle.(sooner than 6 years)
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Long term lead items for any shuttle replacement unlsee is is a derivative of the Shuttle-C concept
would take 10 years to make the first vehicle. And from there youl'd be lucky to add one a year.
Even if we were to try to remanufacture an Apollo style rocket, that would be as much as 8 years.
Titan IV's are a risky launch vechicle due to the nature of the Hypergolic Propelants, and the amount they use.
Any 'Replacement' of the Shuttle as in a 'Space Van' is in a 8 to 10 minimum window.
Why scrap the Shuttle when it's all you have, and the newest you've developed ?
And why are we abandoning the most economically successful system we have - the Hubble Telescope,
when we have $ 200 Million in new parts designed to replace in a 2 year window that only fit the Hubble?
That makes absolutely no sense !
would take 10 years to make the first vehicle. And from there youl'd be lucky to add one a year.
Even if we were to try to remanufacture an Apollo style rocket, that would be as much as 8 years.
Titan IV's are a risky launch vechicle due to the nature of the Hypergolic Propelants, and the amount they use.
Any 'Replacement' of the Shuttle as in a 'Space Van' is in a 8 to 10 minimum window.
Why scrap the Shuttle when it's all you have, and the newest you've developed ?
And why are we abandoning the most economically successful system we have - the Hubble Telescope,
when we have $ 200 Million in new parts designed to replace in a 2 year window that only fit the Hubble?
That makes absolutely no sense !
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Of course I realize we won't get to the moon or Mars in four years. The point is that Bush makes these grand announcements, takes the credit, provides only token funding during his term, and leaves the real cost to his successors. As you point out in your second paragraph, if Bush was forthright about total costs, people would probably reject it. Bush's budgetary sleight of hand is dishonest and irresponsible.
Mind you, I very much want to see us go to Mars. I'm part of the Sputnik generation, watched Armstrong's first step on the moon live, love science fiction, etc. In spite of my emotional desire to see this go, I recognize the high cost will be difficult to bear without people in Washington who are willing to show fiscal responsibility. Our current elected officials spend like drunken sailors and Bush is the Drunkard in Chief. I applaud his vision, but I question his motives and deplore his reckless management.
The "Real" reason for a Moonbase, it's FUEL and the power that goes along having this fuel as a Monopoly over it means a Military base to guard it:
1-18-2004 U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground
President Bush's plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.
The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor.
"And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike.
Gerald Kulcinski of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison estimated the moon's helium 3 would have a cash value of perhaps $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil.
Scientists reckon there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the earth for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 30 tons could meet all U.S. electric power needs for a year, Kulcinski said by e-mail.
1-18-2004 U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground
President Bush's plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.
The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor.
"And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike.
Gerald Kulcinski of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison estimated the moon's helium 3 would have a cash value of perhaps $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil.
Scientists reckon there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the earth for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 30 tons could meet all U.S. electric power needs for a year, Kulcinski said by e-mail.
There is always a reason for doing something. Right now, we would have too make a great leap in technology to bring back a ton of anything for 4 billion.
But dont you want us to stop using oil?
Ah, a lot more than 1 ton and a meager 4 Billion dollars. "$4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil"
"The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 30 tons could meet all U.S. electric power needs for a year"
I didn't know about this Helium 3 did you?
I have read about it in the past. But from what i understand, it is still theoretical science on turning H3 into energy. Of course mining on the moon still is a big if for a while.
There is also talk of being able to massive solar arrays on the moon and transmit energy back to eartch as microwave.
Right now, we lack the technology to do any of this.
We most certainly DO have the Technology. It is chosen for us that we do not use it. But we are all happy about that of course.
Ok, so where are the H3 fussion plants and where are the microwave power tranmission station?
And where the our abilities to mine on the moon.
Dave they just dont exist right now.
Mostly true
. Any fusion energy source is still in the research phase, obviously. He3 is an ideal fuel for fusion power production, but isn't a requirement by any means. Technically, we DO have the tech for a solar array and power transmission stations. We don't actually have any on hand, but the capability is there. Same with mining capability. There is a difference between not having the technology, and not having the money and will to deploy it. Splitting hairs, but there you go. TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter