It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moonbase by 2022 for $10 billion, says NASA

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
NASA is saying that a MoonBase can be built by 2022 for 10billion due to advances in technology and new alliances/ partnerships in the world of Space.







The first is that funding is the largest hurdle to overcome, which is understandable given the past 50 years of space mission costs. To put it in perspective, the Apollo Program would cost taxpayers approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars. Meanwhile, NASA’s annual budget for 2015 was approximately $18 billion, while its 2016 is projected to reach $19.3 billion. In the days when space exploration is not a matter of national security, money is sure to be more scarce. The second assumption is that a presidential mandate to “return to the Moon to stay” is all that is needed overcome this problem and make the necessary budgets available. But despite repeated attempts, no mandate for renewed lunar or space exploration has resolved the issue. In short, space exploration is hampered by conventional thinking that assumes massive budgets are needed and that administrations simply need to make them available. In truth, a number of advances that have been made in recent years are allowing for missions that would cost significantly less. This, and how a lunar base could be a benefit to space exploration and humanity, were the topics of discussion at the 2014 workshop. As NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay – who edited the New Space journal series – told Universe Today via email, one of the key benefits of a cost-effective base on the Moon is that it will bring other missions into the realm of affordability.




“While there will be commercial markets for the eventual fruits of our lunar exploration endeavors, the initial markets are likely to be dominated by governments. The private sector is best able to respond in ways that provide cost effective and competitive solutions when governments specify and commit to long term exploration goals. I believe that a Google Lunar XPRIZE win will flush out other private and commercial partners for pursuing a permanent settlement on the Moon, that could eclipse the need for significant government participation. Once a small company demonstrates that it is actually possible to get to the Moon and be productive, that allows others to start to plan new business and endeavors.”


No time for do a lengthy review. Check it out and let me know what you think, ATS!

www.universetoday.com...

 

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
edit on 24/3/2016 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'm all for it. 10 billion is chump change compared to 1.5 trillion for the "war on terror," or 1 trillion to "revamp and modernize our nuclear arsenal."

Plus, you know, the high ground, which is ALWAYS good to hold in uncertain times....



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

What is on the Moon that is so precious and that they need before 2023?

Helium-3, maybe?


The unique atomic structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors.


www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I'm not seeing where NASA actually said this, officially. I see people from NASA said it, but that doesn't mean it's NASA's official position on the matter. Perhaps I'm just overlooking something though.

In any case, unless they already have further plans in place to use this 'moon base' as a jumping off point for missions further out in the solar system, this would be a waste of $10 billion.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
I'm all for it. 10 billion is chump change compared to 1.5 trillion for the "war on terror," or 1 trillion to "revamp and modernize our nuclear arsenal."

Plus, you know, the high ground, which is ALWAYS good to hold in uncertain times....


Fear and aggression nets $1.5 TRILLION.

Courage and advancement begs for $10 Billion.

What in God's name is wrong with us? (as a nation/world in general, of course, not those of 'us' who think $10B for a moon base is money much better spent!) Heck, even if it runs 5x the expected cost, it's still a drop in the bucket, not even 1/10th of what we've spent in Iraq alone.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
War on drugs, war on terror, and homeland security all cost a bit, wtf 10bil dollars why not



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
Regolith comes to mind. It can be used for a large number of different industries. And if the estimates are correct, it could be also water under the subsurface of the moon. Along with it being a big stepping stone for mankind to exist on another planet, leaving the bonds of earth. If they can achieve it, then it could be a means to get to Mars, and beyond as well.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I'm not seeing where NASA actually said this, officially. I see people from NASA said it, but that doesn't mean it's NASA's official position on the matter. Perhaps I'm just overlooking something though.

In any case, unless they already have further plans in place to use this 'moon base' as a jumping off point for missions further out in the solar system, this would be a waste of $10 billion.


Wow. I would gladly pay taxes for that. Science and having a base to expirement on and study geology as well as a vast amount of other things is vital for further space travel. They are talking about making a tandem that would launch spacecraft. All the space ships that can travel deep in space would be better built in space.

You have to start somewhere.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It wouldn't surprise me if this is the year that marks the next "space race". Where different countries compete against each other in technology and claiming territory on different planetary bodies.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
We can outsource it to the Chinese for half that price!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

We want it to work and not kill the scientists.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe, but then --they-- would have the keys to the Lunar mass driver, and that never works out in the comic books.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Maybe we could finally get to visit the people living on the far side of the moon, i read somewhere that bases are already there...

Fair price Btw.
edit on 24-3-2016 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Not just Helium 3...


But helium-3 isn’t the only resource the moon might have to offer. It could also be a source for rare earth elements, such as europium and tantalum, which are in high demand on Earth for electronics and green energy applications (solar panels, hybrid cars), as well as being used in the space and defense industries.

China is the largest exporter of rare earth elements, but there are growing concerns over supply vulnerability as China drastically reduces its rare earth exports. Scientists know that there are pockets or rare earth deposits on the moon, but as yet they don’t have detailed maps of those areas. Potassium, phosphorus and thorium are other elements that lunar rocks have to offer a potential mining venture.

Lunar Prospecting?

And there’s more! In 2009, NASA bombed the moon — part of its Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission — and observed grains of water ice in the remnants of the resulting plume, as well as light metals such as sodium and mercury, and volatile compounds like methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This implies that the moon is chemically active — via a process called “cold grain chemistry” — and also has a water cycle. Where you have water ice, you have a potential mother lode for lunar prospecting of hydrogen.


Source



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If a Moon base can be constructed for such a sum then one has to wonder why some ultra rich billionaire has not already done so.............or have they?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


If there is someone living on the moon at present they would need supplies.


It is possible that a small contingency is plausible without the public in general necessarily knowing anything about it.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

THEY know that Jesus is coming in 2023, and they think they can escape His wrath. No joke.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Moondoggle



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
NASA just needs a marketing gimmick.

Picture this: "Survivor: Kardasians on the Moon"

Hollywood could easily raise the money for the project. Advertising and endorsements could pay for the upkeep. What will Kim wear this week? Do these boots go with that outfit? Is Chris in danger of being voted off the Moon? Tune in next week to find out!

If they don't make it, the world will be heart-broken. But you could always cast the next Presidential debate there.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
I'm all for it. 10 billion is chump change compared to 1.5 trillion for the "war on terror," or 1 trillion to "revamp and modernize our nuclear arsenal."

Plus, you know, the high ground, which is ALWAYS good to hold in uncertain times....


People have a weird notion of what money is and how it's used.
The only problem we have with money is how some choose to hoard it. That $10 billion would go to manufacturers of components, then to expansion of business, to paying employees, who spend it in stores, which pay employees...

Money is like water. The problems arise when people build dams.

I have no problem with governments spending such money, I just wish there were fewer opportunities for the already obscenely wealthy to hoard.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join