Sweet Jesus...we're going back to the moon!

Why in God's name it's going to cost $100b and 7 years to do something that was done from scratch in under 10 years 40 years ago, I don't know.

I bet a private aerospace company could get a man or woman on the moon for $1b in less than a year.

I agree with most of everyones thoughts here about going to the moon. We did this in the 60's and now we are going back? Yippie?
I agree that we should at least put a station on the moon and then from there its just a hop skip and a jump from Mars.

But seriuosly 100billion to the moon. Technology should have been far more agressive on getting us to the moon at least half that cost?

Another option is to build a spacestation........... o wait, we did that and it sucks and its just about the size two school buses. WOW, NEAT-0.

I would think that 100 billion would be just the beinning of going to outer space. I would think that MAYBE just MAYBE we could use what we already know and build something that could kick serious ass, I KNOW!, a super star destroyer!...... o wait, sorry again, StarWars came into my head.


Anyway, to the moon Alice!

Originally posted by texmiller
I agree with most of everyones thoughts here about going to the moon. We did this in the 60's and now we are going back? Yippie?
I agree that we should at least put a station on the moon and then from there its just a hop skip and a jump from Mars.

Having a base on the moon isn't going to make getting to Mars any simpler *unless* some combination of several things happen as part of having a base on the Moon.

1. We can manufacture much of the hardware (the ship, lander, parts of the mars base, etc.) that is needed on the moon using materials found in the lunar crust.
2. We can manufacture the fuel needed on the moon.
3. We can launch from the moon (this will reduce the fuel needed as the escape velocity for the moon is trivially small).

If none of the above 3 things happen, then having a moon base will be completely useless for helping us GET to Mars. Having the base will help us establish a base on Mars because we'll have experience in that area, but beyond that, it won't mean a thing.

The 100 billion dollar price tag doesn't just cover getting to the moon and setting up a base. It covers:
- Development of a space shuttle replacement
- A series of moon rovers
- The mission to the moon
- Establishing a temporary base
- Other miscellaneous items

Developing a space station with our level of technology is a trivial matter. The difficulty is in launching it into orbit and keeping it supplied and operational.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by boredom]

"Other miscellaneous items " -

That is some EXPENSIVE TOLETPAPER!

texmiller
But seriuosly 100billion to the moon. Technology should have been far more agressive on getting us to the moon at least half that cost?

You people just dont seem to get it, Back in the 60's & 70's we used rockets to get to the moon.....and guess what...Were Still Using ROCKETS! So how do you figure the price would go down, by using the same technology as we did back then???

and If were still using rockets 50 years from...Guess What, another shocker...It will still cost a lot.

Well, considering that a private company can do a suborbit for just undeer 10million I would think that alternative fuel and technology would make it alittle cheaper than rockets that we used in the 60's . Here is alittle research that I did on the cost of space.

The cost of the entire Apollo program: USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in 2005 Dollars). See NASA Budget. (Includes Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbitar, Apollo programs.) Apollo spacecraft and

Saturn rocket cost alone, was about $ 83-billion 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $ 28-billion (CS/M $ 17-billion; LM $ 11-billion), Saturn I, IB, V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars).

Amount of moon material brought back by the Apollo program: 381.7 kg (841.5 lb). Most of the material is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston.

Notice that the rocket cost? Interesting stuff.

Well, considering that a private company can do a suborbit for just undeer 10million I would think that alternative fuel and technology would make it alittle cheaper than rockets that we used in the 60's.

Actually that craft costed over 20 million, but it could only go sub-orbital, and that was cheaply built, It didn't even have fly-by-wire, its used cables...Since its much cheaper. I'm just stating facts, I'm not making there flights pointless or worthless, cause they did an excellant job to kick start commercial space flight.

Kennedy said he wanted to see men on the moon, truth is he didn't give a rats ass about it. All he wanted was for American's to win the space race against the Russians. So we followed up on a dead man's wishes who beat his chest for the sake of his own job so that we could spend billions to go to the moon and find moon rocks.

Nothing amazing about moon rocks other than they come from the moon. Now the Chinese have ambitions to go to the moon. So the US government once again beats its chest for the sake of their jobs at now the cost of hundreds of billions.

Reagan said the space station would cost $10 billion, more like $100+ billion. This latest endevour will bleed at least $200 billion from an already struggling government agency. Fact is, the guys and ladies in the senate don't give a # about space exploration, science, math or anything other than their own goddamn careers. They just don't want to have to deal with the fact that there may be a likely possiblity that the Chinese will place men on the moon and they didn't attempt to do anything about it.

Because how bad does that look in the history books if you are a US congressman and the Chinese land on the moon and you didn't attempt to place American men on the moon before the dern Chinese got there? They just won't allow that to happen. NASA meanwhile is hoping that the general public will once again become interested in space exploration. And you know what? I think this just might work.

The general public isn't at all too thrilled about having probes take photos of shorelines on Titan 800+ million miles from earth or have some comet smash into a comet for scientific and research pruposes. No! The general public wants men on the moon, men in space. Why? Well, I guess because it's cool.

In DOSE newspaper yesterday (Canadian daily paper) a former Canadian Defense Minister said in a speech at the University of Toronto said that he believe that the US project to the moon is really aimed at setting up shop to monitor possible alien activity. He also mentioned that he believes that the US has been hiding the alien info from the public since Roswell and that Regan's Star Wars was really aimed at fighting hostile aliens and not Russians.

Originally posted by hotsheets
In DOSE newspaper yesterday (Canadian daily paper) a former Canadian Defense Minister said in a speech at the University of Toronto said that he believe that the US project to the moon is really aimed at setting up shop to monitor possible alien activity. He also mentioned that he believes that the US has been hiding the alien info from the public since Roswell and that Regan's Star Wars was really aimed at fighting hostile aliens and not Russians.

Its all true!

BTW, I'm sure you also know that the US didn't land on the moon / on 9/11 a missile hit the pentagon / Bush blew up the New Orleans levees / & the NWO is preparing to take-over.

Dont believe every whack job out there.

Originally posted by Frosty
Kennedy said he wanted to see men on the moon, truth is he didn't give a rats ass about it. All he wanted was for American's to win the space race against the Russians. So we followed up on a dead man's wishes

Thats cold.

frosty
Fact is, the guys and ladies in the senate don't give a # about space exploration, science, math or anything other than their own goddamn careers.

some...yes, but certainly not all. There regular people to, and they vote not according to there jobs, but what they see fit for Nasa's next step.

frosty
Because how bad does that look in the history books if you are a US congressman and the Chinese land on the moon and you didn't attempt to place American men on the moon before the dern Chinese got there?

- How would that look bad? That they made it 50 years after us.

This topic is also discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Although ti was started a few days after this thread, it is still bding posted to and has more replies. Also, I feel the topic better fits in Space Exploration Forum.
Please post your comments in the aboave topic.

Closed.