Looks like we aren't going back to the moon... surprise suprise, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:27 PM by Jbird

Lets try not to veer too far from the specific topic, Folks.

Plenty of Moon Hoax threads already .

TIA

[edit on Wed Sep 9 2009 by Jbird]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:43 PM by jra

Originally posted by Total Package
Well what a shock... it appears NASA will no longer be going to the moon.... it's all become just too hard and too expensive.

It's always been expensive, but too hard? No. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. But NASA clearly doesn't have the funding to return to the Moon with the way things are currently going.

The original plan for returning to the Moon depended on funds from decommission the ISS and retiring the Space Shuttle. But funding for the ISS is likely to be extended as is for the Shuttle. And like all complex engineering projects, the Ares 1 and Orion have been experiencing various set backs in there development, which leads to higher than planned costs. Unfortunately NASA doesn't have the budget required to do everything it would need to make it all happen, something has to get cut.

You might want to actually read the Summary Report[.PDF], if you haven't yet already.

Just as I said when it was first announced... it would literally never get off the ground and they will find a way of not having to go but making it look like they really really wanted to.

Riiight

So they've just been pretending this whole time? I supposed this photo of a fully assembled Ares 1-X (large image), due to launch this October is just a prop? And the modifications done to launch complex 39B to handle launching the Ares 1 was just for the fun of it? Ok then...

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 03:59 AM by stanislas

reply to post by Maslo

Well, I should have mentioned that the $100 Billion mentioned on the site was adjusted to 1994 CPI. Let me try the maths to date... its been a while so anyone correct me if I am wrong

Thats....100 billion dollars in 1994 terms. So I need to find out how many US$ 1 Billion (1994) is worth today.

So .... from here : www.osba.org...

1994 CPI is 147.7
2009 CPI is 214.1

2009 equivalent cost = 1000,000,000 / (147.7/214.1)

= $1,449,559,919. ??

Anyway, I get your point.

-------------
I need a sig.

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Thu Sep 10 2009 by Jbird]

reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 04:06 AM by cloakndagger

Robotics have been found to be cheap and reliable. It's the only way to do it on a tight budget.

reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 02:20 PM by FORMe2p00p0n

If NASA really wanted to go to the moon, all they would have to do is sell off a fraction of their top secret technology

reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 02:35 PM by Xeven

We should just barrow a trillion more and give it to NASA with one Task.

Populate the Solar System with self sustaining humans colonies everywhere possible.

Then step back and provide oversight.

reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 02:42 PM by thegagefather

Originally posted by Republican08

The program to send humans back into space, dubbed Constellation, was launched by former US president George W Bush in 2004, with the goal of sending astronauts to Mars in 2020.

But in an executive summary of its report, a White House commission named by President Barack Obama to review the US manned space program, said the current schedule was unachievable.

Bush, tried, and Obama failed it

Well,

astronauts back to the moon, the committee said that a robust human space flight program would cost $US3 billion ($3.5 billion) more than the $US18 billion ($21 billion) currently in NASA's budget.

It seems we could've at least put forth a bit of that trillion toward this, I'd of been in favor!