Go To The Moon?---OR---USS Gerald Ford+USS Kennedy+F-22 ------- What One Would You Want?

Costs

Both Carriers= $33 billion
F-22= $74 billion
Total cost $107 billion Very close to a manned moon program estimate. What National asset would you have rather have had?


Going to the moon soon is $109,000,000,000 to $170,000,000,000

In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space, September 2004.[126] The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars

F-22 cost of project is $74,000,000,000

Haters cite “unit cost,” which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.

USS Gerald R. Ford $18,000,000,000 & USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) $15,000,000,000 (estimate)



en.wikipedia.org...
www.wired.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
breakingdefense.com...

Ill take space any day. I assume they already have stuff that would outdo what they are presenting anyway. Not to mention just how many war planes do we really need anyway...

a reply to: seasonal

In the current climate we live in... 100% the ships! But id like to think as a world we would benefit more from space exploration!

a reply to: onehuman

F-22 has never been in action, just sit there like a nice 1957 chevy-trailer queen.

a reply to: AMNicks

I think the carriers are as outdated as the horse was in WWII. I would like to see the moon, or unmanned capabilities soar. The $ that is sunk into these awesome power houses, if invested in drone tech or thorium produced energy, would put the US light years ahead of the curve.

Let's see one is our only hope for survival the other is the opposite.

Plus the moon stuff can give us satellites that surely can just erase areas using physics.

a reply to: luthier

I had to read that first sentence 3 times for it to sink in. Very good points.

The US seems, and I am an ignorant civilian, to have a huge lead in respect to number of aircraft carriers. Again I am ignorant to the ways of the most powerful military this world has ever seen.

I think we are already on the moon or beyond and if we arn't we should be. I am shocked that we arn't further in our science and space; maybe we are but don't know it.

There is also much to explore deep within the oceans and earth with much potential for many reasons; ecological, scientific, medical-a huge list.

We do need to explore both-but these antiquated destroyers-I don't get it.

a reply to: seasonal

I think the carriers are as outdated as the horse was in WWII

you might want to rethink that statement .

Horse-drawn transportation was most important for Germany, as it was relatively lacking in natural oil resources. Infantry and horse-drawn artillery formed the bulk of the German Army throughout the war; only one-fifth of the Army belonged to mobile panzer and mechanized divisions.

To the Moon!!!!!

We can then fire rockets fromthe moon waaay better than 2 ships and a plane

a reply to: hutch622

Germany lost WWII

Horse-drawn transportation was most important for Germany, as it was relatively lacking in natural oil resources. Infantry and horse-drawn artillery formed the bulk of the German Army throughout the war; only one-fifth of the Army belonged to mobile panzer and mechanized divisions.

a reply to: seasonal

The carriers also protect trade routes and international maneuvering. I couple destroyers aren't going to scare the Chinese from devouring say Taiwan any regional trade disputes, a carrier and forward bases provide an incentive to follow rules.

Of coarse the use of all these devices is based on the morality of the people in charge.

a reply to: seasonal


Plans for exploring space result from two factors, the desire/need/drive to fulfill that function and the capability to make it possible with industrial prowess and money.

Why is it that few people even on ATS filled with wary citizens with slit-eyed suspicions of government never stop, slap themselves on the forehead and say, "Hey, I think I understand why we put the skids on manned space flight. Let me see, we sent repeated trips to the Moon on large rockets (which we still have plentiful) and from them we develop the space shuttle, a glorified rocket, that some say was a 'death trap' and used it for three decades to do nothing more than orbit the earth. Manned flights to the Moon and elsewhere were decided as too expensive."

"So after the shuttle was used long past the time it should have been grounded, its 'replacement,' dubbed the 'space plane' made its showy appearance. It should have been called the 'little ship that couldn't' in that it has no real purpose except to orbit the Earth in a pathetic 'show and tell' effort except to cover what was really going on over the decades.

So why the Hell aren't I open to the concept that the black triangles are real, super-duper craft and are probably long past secretly exploring the Moon and god knows where else? --Do I put too much faith in what the government wants me to believe? Am I too stupid to reason on my own that my government maybe need to keep all of this business secret because alien UFOs really exist and the revelation of the triangles would quickly lead to uncovering the stark reality of what is facing Earth with this confrontation of this outside influence? Naw! I trust my government and they wouldn't lie to me and couldn't keep such a big secret. Oh, well, anyway, I see that Boeing is updating their Dreamliner again and the F-35 is finally getting off the ground. Better that I concern myself with what I know from reading the news than scaring myself with mysterious craft and the possibility of looming alien influences on my life."

a reply to: Aliensun

That's about what I was thinking......I think.

Basically who TF knows. Am I right?

a reply to: seasonal

To be honest I see both as a huge waste of money. What good would we get out of going to moon that we haven't already gotten from the previous trips? Now space science is a VERY big interest of mine, but going back to the moon is a waste of money until we can develop the ability to traverse space at less cost than presently.

a reply to: seasonal

Germany lost WWII

So tanks airplanes and ships were not relevant either using that logic ,

I say we take the U.S.S. Gerald Ford to the moon like it was Star Blazers.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think Trump just tapped Spielberg to run NASA so I think that is the plan.

a reply to: onehuman

as many as they need to keep the ball rolling for the military industrial complex. theya re so greedy that funding for the f-35 from one country wasnt good enough for them. i dont even fully understand the need for aircraft carriers these days other then to prosecute countries with a meager military force. in a war between the superpowers they will be sunk in the first strike.

a reply to: TheScale

Agreed, I think drones are the future. The Aircraft carrier, in some people's mind, is a huge target. It also is a huge muscle flex to enemy nations that are not doing what is in the national interest of the US.

Of course the milt industrial complex is/are the same companies that would make most of the space ship stuff.