Author Topic: If NASA Had An Infinite Budget - Feasible but Ludicrously Expensive Missions  (Read 24055 times)

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Guys, you're missing the point ;)

The title is merely metaphorical - I wanted to share some ideas I have for missions that are theoretically and practically possible, but prohibitively expensive.

Then maybe you should correct that "misleading" (being *way* too polite about it) title?  That's the point you're missing.

Offline MarsDude

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Making the rocket explode
  • Wherever the rocket explosion is
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
I'm sorry, dude, I'll do that :)
-MarsDude, over and out

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Money isn't always the "No-Go" metric of mission planning. Unfortunately the current culture in regards to human spaceflight is averse to possible adverse outcomes.
Fortunately the powers at be still accept at least some risk as evidenced by plans to launch humans aboard Orion/SLS, Starliner/Atlas-V and Dragon-2/Falcon vehicles and launchers.  The most effective risk mitigation device in human spaceflight is to keep Astronauts on the ground.  No one wants LOCV, but the possibility of such events cannot prevent audacious and innovative ventures into space.  TO BOLDLY GO.............!
Paul

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11189
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8817
  • Likes Given: 7823
Here’s what NASA could accomplish if it had the US military’s $600 billion budget

Tech Insider
Published on Jul 15, 2017


NASA has been a household name for Americans since the '60s when it achieved the seemingly impossible, landing humans on the Moon.

Since then, NASA has explored other alien surfaces like Mars and Saturn's moon Titan, as well as flown by every planet in our solar system.

It has achieved so much on a budget that is so small. Imagine if we gave NASA hundreds of billions of dollars a year like what we give the US military. What more could NASA have achieved over the years?

This is one example where the sky is not the limit — it's the starting line. Following is a transcript of the video.

The US spends more on space exploration than any other country in the world. A big chunk of this investment goes to NASA, the country's leading agency for space exploration.

But that’s still a pittance compared to the overall US Federal budget. Since NASA landed the first man on the Moon in 1969, its budget has plummeted from 4.5% of the Federal budget to less than 0.5%.

But what if NASA’s budget hadn’t shrunk? What if, instead, its funding was comparable to the US militaries?

How close would we be to actually colonize Mars or visiting another star system?

It’s impossible to know for sure, but here’s a look at how NASA’s budget compared to the US military’s in 2016.

Put another way, the military’s budget for 2016 would pay for a crewed mission to Mars with tens of billions to spare. NASA estimates it would cost $450 billion to land the first humans on Mars by the late 2030s or early 2040s.

What else might NASA do with $600 billion? Let’s look at how NASA allocated its funds in 2016. That would easily meet current costs for NASA’s biggest ongoing projects including:

• Construction and launch costs for the most powerful rocket in history, the Space Launch System.
• The most powerful space telescope ever built, the James Webb Space Telescope.
• Partner with SpaceX on its first mission to Mars in 2018, the Red Dragon Mission.
• Pay for NASA operations on board the ISS through 2024.



Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
At present a craft that can carry humans from the ISS TO L1 and a slow cargo barge to carry fuel and parts to L1 are needed . So about 8 Billion .

A reuseable manned  Lunar lander 6 Billion

L1 station  about 15 billion

Maintenance and upkeep 4 billion per year 400 tons to leo per year.

Initial lunar access 5 years from start 6 people on the lunar surface

Upgraded 10 years later new LEO station,  reusable manned space shuttle ,large lunar Cargo ship and heavy lift rocket .1000 tons to Leo.

15 years after first lunar landing the Mars ship launches from the moon carrying humanity to a new world .






 

« Last Edit: 07/20/2017 08:05 pm by floss »

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
- SLS/Orion. So ludicrous that it literally costs its weight in gold fully fueled on the launch pad.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
- SLS/Orion. So ludicrous that it literally costs its weight in gold fully fueled on the launch pad.

That is the problem with space in general focusing on the dollars not one word about the thousands of great jobs it would create  .

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1081
- SLS/Orion. So ludicrous that it literally costs its weight in gold fully fueled on the launch pad.

That is the problem with space in general focusing on the dollars not one word about the thousands of great jobs it would create  .


That is the problem with space in general focusing on the thousands of great jobs it would create not one word about the dollars.

 :P

Anything space is ridiculously overpriced and that is what must change. And yes, the army of highly qualified people that it currently takes to design and launch a single rocket is part of the problem. Space program should not be a jobs program.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
- SLS/Orion. So ludicrous that it literally costs its weight in gold fully fueled on the launch pad.

That is the problem with space in general focusing on the dollars not one word about the thousands of great jobs it would create  .


That is the problem with space in general focusing on the thousands of great jobs it would create not one word about the dollars.

 :P

Anything space is ridiculously overpriced and that is what must change. And yes, the army of highly qualified people that it currently takes to design and launch a single rocket is part of the problem. Space program should not be a jobs program.

True but what do you expect when the largest civilian space agency is unfocused for 50 years .

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0