Moon Landing by 2018

[jackyl]

So I was reading an article on CNN (link) (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/19/space.moon/index.html) about how the US is gearing up for a return to the moon in 2018. The big thing that stuck out to me was that this is 13 years from now.

President Kennedy in 1961 wanted to put a man on the moon by the end of that decade, and the US did in 1969. Now, the costs were around $9 billion in 60's dollars, and this go round is priced at an estimated $104 billion.

I know that a mid-sixties dollar has to be worth more than a dime in current dollars, so what I got out of this is that with our technologically advanced scientific base, a moonshot is going to cost at least ten times what it did the first time and that NASA needs five years longer today than they did forty years ago. WTF?

Maybe we ought to just give each engineer and scientist involved in this project a slide rule and a brass ashtray and tell them to start dreaming up ideas.

[sabotai]

Well, the main difference would be that in the 60's, our only goal was to get there. I'm sure that NASA wants to do a lot more than simply get there this time around.

[Pyser]

the bigger question is why are we going back?

least the special effects should be much better when we fake it this time around. :)

[kcchief19]

Going back to the moon is just one step in a plan to go to Mars. Since the goal is to get to Mars in 30 years, you can assume that the belief is that it will take us 17 years to get to Mars once we get to the moon.

I'm a tremendous supporter of space exploration, but I'm not sure if this is the plan I'd support. The argument is that building a base on the moon to launch trips to the moon would be easier and possibly safer than a trip from Earth.

If the goal is simply to reach Mars, there are plans out there for a more direct approach to Mars that would be faster. Regardless, we need to learn a few more things about how to do some stuff before we pull it off.

That said, the real reason for the length of time it would take to go to the moon now versus the '60s can pretty much be explained by bureacracy. Everyone will have to stick nose in the trough to run up the budget a bit more and there will be lots of crazy loopholes for people to jump through.

I'm starting to sound like Bucc.

[sterlingice]

Well, the main difference would be that in the 60's, our only goal was to get there. I'm sure that NASA wants to do a lot more than simply get there this time around.
Not only that, but there was a significant chance of people dying there. Contrary to popular belief, the chances of an accident now are quite a bit lower and the media pitches a fit everytime something goes wrong now so the standards are a bit different.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, I don't see (nor am I in the mood to look for right now) what sort of economic model they used to come up with the figure in this quote, but the AP version of the story makes reference to the cost vs Apollo.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050919/D8CNI7RGD.html

The $104 billion cost, leading up to an initial four-person lunar landing and spread over 13 years, represents 55 percent of the comparative cost of the Apollo program, Griffin said. Apollo development spanned eight years, from 1961 to the first manned moon landing in 1969.

[RPI-Fan]

Not only that, but there was a significant chance of people dying there. Contrary to popular belief, the chances of an accident now are quite a bit lower and the media pitches a fit everytime something goes wrong now so the standards are a bit different.

SI

People did die there, essentially. The Apollo test missions had as much to do with landing on the moon as the actual moon missions themselves; without the new propulsion systems being employed (which had to be tested), the moon landing couldn't have occured.

[Neon_Chaos]

Whip out another fake moon landing... :)

[sterlingice]

Whip out another fake moon landing... :)
Maybe they should name this series the Carl Everett missions

SI

[sterlingice]

People did die there, essentially. The Apollo test missions had as much to do with landing on the moon as the actual moon missions themselves; without the new propulsion systems being employed (which had to be tested), the moon landing couldn't have occured.
Could you imagine if an Apollo 1 happened again in this day and age? "If we're doing it to beat the Russkies, it's ok if someone dies. But if it's in the name of science, it's lawyer time!"

SI

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Science!