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.
Your link shows payload capacities for LEO, GTO, and Mars. No moon.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr
He's a smart guy but he is getting on in years.
I'm ambivalent, to say the least, about a Lunar base. It really is not necessary if the goal is exploration.
Wow where did you get 104 billion so far with building and testiing orion has spent about 16 billion.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.
I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.
originally posted by: Forensick
One thing that never pops up in these discussions is that if you invest $103bn in American Aerospace, you will get probably more that 2/3 back in taxes. you create American jobs, they pay taxes, they buy more which is taxed, you pay less welfare, where the American supply is, those workers take on more people, the supply chain is mostly American, everyone feels a bit richer and buys more...it actually stimulates the economy.
If they could measure military spending, the USA is mostly self sufficient so apart from fat cat profits which don't get reinvested and lands in offshore tax havens, every other penny will find its way back to the US coffers aside from that spent overseas.
Of course there is the GDP which means spend on products made overseas will leave the US, but then it puts you in a position to make better deals.
It also breeds future scientists, skilled labour and cutting edge technology which again finds it way back into the US economy.
Smart move if they do it IMO
NASA seems to be doing well with an almost 20 billion dollar budget, and additional earmarks for certain missions, which better the previous administrations' efforts.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: putnam6
Yup, that is exactly what I mean.
Currently, we can't do it because we do not have a material strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are hopeful to do the job if they can fix a flaw in their creation process. IMO that is what NASA should be spending time and money on RND. With a space elevator things like colonization and asteroid mining in space can become not only a reality, but also profitable.
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: projectvxn
NASA seems to be doing well with an almost 20 billion dollar budget, and additional earmarks for certain missions, which better the previous administrations' efforts.
NASA estimated the cost at about $104 billion , that was in 2005 , add ten years worth of inflation to that and the 20 billion dollar budget looks a bit weak.
originally posted by: projectvxn
Now that Trump is doing it space exploration is bad.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: projectvxn
Now that Trump is doing it space exploration is bad.
I'm all for space exploration, but talk is cheap, especially with Trump. I'll believe it when I start seeing the funding to make it a reality.
originally posted by: projectvxn
All ANY president can do is set the agenda. Congress has to act on it and if you want any action on a particular initiative you have to do your part too. Write letter, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls.
Otherwise you're just blowing hot air expecting more from the executive than can be legally done.