Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 16 2019, @03:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-SpaceX-launches-would-that-buy? dept.

Bridenstine estimates Artemis cost at $20–30 billion

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in a television interview June 13 that it will cost the agency an additional $20 billion to $30 billion to return humans to the moon, the first range of costs given by the agency for the program.

In an interview with CNN, Bridenstine said that estimate would be above earlier projections for costs of existing elements of what's now called the Artemis program, such as the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.

"For the whole program, to get a sustainable presence on the moon, we're looking at between 20 and 30 billion dollars," he said. "When we talk about the 20 to 30 billion dollars, it would be 20 or 30 billion on top of the normal NASA budget but, of course, that would be spread over five years."

[...] The lack of cost estimates for Artemis had become a point of frustration for members of Congress. "For us in Congress to be able to grapple with these things, we need some idea of how much of a cost is expected to be incurred over the next five years," said Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) during a June 11 hearing by the House Science Committee's space subcommittee on NASA's science program where he sought, unsuccessfully, to get a cost estimate like the one Bridenstine provided in the interview.

Also at The Verge.

Previously: Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Lockheed Martin Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing
Artemis: NASA to Receive $1.6 Billion for 2024 Manned Moon Landing
NASA Orders First Segment of Lunar Station for 2024 Artemis Moon Mission


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:12PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:12PM (#856270)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom%27s_Sentinel [wikipedia.org]

    Operation Freedom's Sentinel is the official name used by the U.S. Government for the mission succeeding Operation Enduring Freedom in continuation of the Global War on Terrorism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Defense_spending.png [wikipedia.org]

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (#856282)

    Stop wasting our time with BS numbers:

    This ultimately means that, when done to conceal confidential information, entities can–and are essentially required to under the terms of Standard 56–shift money from one line item to another so long as the totals stay consistent. The rule also allows entities to omit the line item entirely while retaining the amounts so as to maintain the same net results. This means that readers of these reports will never know if the amounts reported spent on specific projects or things are an accurate representation (see id.). As you might expect given the rationale of this being a national security precaution, there will not be any narrative in these reports explaining or revealing where a modification has taken place (see id.). If they can maintain net position in their reports, an entity can even omit a project entirely by folding it into another department or project within the same entity.

    https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]

    In a strange twist, paragraph 8a of the new rule seems to insist that modifications may only be made if it does not “change the net results of operations.” In conversations with federal officials, this was stressed to me, that the new rule would not allow for changes to “total net cost” line items on public financial disclosures.

    However, paragraph 8c of the same rule reads:

    “An entity may apply Interpretations of this Statement that allow other modifications to information required by other standards, and the effect of the modifications may change the net results of operations and/or net position.”

    This directly contradicts 8a, and seems to allow in some cases for changes even to total net position numbers. When asked on the record if 8c opened the door for greater changes, FASAB answered, “We cannot speculate about the changes.”

    One thing is certain: the taxpayer who opens up a federal financial statement expecting to find correct numbers will no longer be sure of what he or she is reading. Bluntly put, line items in public federal financial statements may now legally be, for lack of a better word — wrong.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/secret-government-spending-779959/ [rollingstone.com]

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:45PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:45PM (#856285)

      It's not BS to say that US military spending is > $700B per year, and > $40B of that is attributable to continuing operational costs associated with cleaning up the 2003 "Mission Accomplished" adventure.

      That's $40B per year, whereas Artemis is ~$25B over 5 (likely more) years.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]