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
Related Stories
Here's why NASA's audacious return to the Moon just might work
Speaking in front of a high-fidelity model of the Apollo program's Lunar Module spacecraft, Vice President Mike Pence charged NASA with accelerating its Moon plans last week. Instead of 2028, Pence wanted boots on the ground four years earlier, before the end of 2024. This marked the rarest of all moments in spaceflight—a schedule moving left instead of to the right.
Understandably, the aerospace community greeted the announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many rocket builders, spaceship designers, flight controllers, and space buffs have seen this movie before. Both in 1989 and 2004, Republican administrations have announced ambitious Moon-then-Mars deep space plans only to see them die for lack of funding and White House backing.
And yet, this new proposal holds some promise. Pence, as well as NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, have adopted a clear goal for the agency and promised enduring political support. Moreover, they have said the "end" matters more than the "means." This suggests that whatever rockets and spacecraft NASA uses to reach the Moon, the plan should be based on the best-available, most cost-effective technology. In short, they want to foster a healthy, open competition in the US aerospace industry to help NASA and America reach its goals.
Lockheed Martin offers architecture for 2024 human lunar landing
Lockheed Martin says it has developed an approach to achieving the goal of landing humans on the south pole of the moon by 2024, but warns that construction of essential hardware would have to start soon to meet that deadline.
In a briefing at the 35th Space Symposium here April 10, company officials said they can make extensive use of existing hardware to develop components like a scaled-down version of the lunar Gateway and a two-stage lunar lander on an accelerated schedule.
While many details have yet to be worked out, the basic elements of the plan, Lockheed argues, demonstrates that the ability to meet the 2024 deadline established March 26 by Vice President Mike Pence in a National Space Council speech is at least technically feasible, if challenging.
[...] Lockheed's plan would diverge from NASA's old approach after Exploration Mission (EM) 1, an uncrewed test of the Orion spacecraft launched by the Space Launch System in 2020. The company proposes launching a "Phase 1" Gateway in 2022 consisting of just the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and a small habitation module with docking ports. NASA expects to issue awards for the PPE in May, while the habitation module could be adapted from ongoing studies that are part of NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships, or NextSTEP, program.
Also at Space.com.
See also: Falcon Heavy's first commercial flight is 'huge' as 'an inflection point' for SpaceX, banker says
Previously: Is the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway the Right Way to the Moon?
Canada Will Contribute to the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Trump adds $1.6 billion to NASA budget request to kick start 'Artemis' moon mission
The Trump administration is adding an additional $1.6 billion to NASA's $21 billion 2020 budget request to kick start plans to return American astronauts to the moon in 2024, four years earlier than previously planned, NASA announced Monday. In a surprise announcement, agency Administrator Jim Bridenstine said the revitalized moon program will be named Artemis after the Greek goddess of the moon.
[...] According to a NASA fact sheet, the new budget request includes $1 billion "to enable NASA to being supporting the development of commercial human lunar landing systems three years earlier than previously envisioned. This acquisition strategy will allow NASA to purchase an integrated commercial lunar lander that will transport astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back."
Gateway development will be limited to what is needed to make the station a viable staging base for trips to the surface. That will free up $321 million for other moon spending. An additional $651 million is earmarked for the Space Launch System — SLS — heavy lift rocket and Orion spacecraft. Lunar surface technologies and propulsion systems would receive an additional $132 million with $90 million going to robotic exploration and research near the moon's south pole.
[...] The same day Bridenstine talked of the challenge of landing on the moon, Amazon-founder Jeff Bezos unveiled a lunar lander called Blue Moon that could put 6.5 metric tons on the surface of the moon. He said Blue Moon, carrying an ascent stage, could meet NASA's schedule for landing astronauts on the surface by 2024.
Previously: NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Lockheed Martin Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing
According to Extreme Tech,
NASA is going back to the Moon, and this time, it intends to stay a while. That's the news from NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who announced the first company chosen to deliver a vital component of the space agency's Lunar Gateway space station. Maxar Technologies will build the power and propulsion system for the Lunar Gateway, the first step in NASA's ambitious new Artemis project that will put humans on the Moon's surface in just five years.
"This time when we go to the Moon, we're actually going to stay," Bridenstine said. "The goal here is speed. 2024 is right around the corner."
But then, there is this:
May 24 (UPI) -- Just weeks after he was assigned to lead NASA's renewed efforts to explore the moon, special assistant Mark Sirangelo has left the space agency, officials said.
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Sirangelo's departure in an internal memo Thursday, Space News reported.
Sirangelo joined NASA last month as special assistant to the administrator and was tabbed to guide the agency's efforts to explore the lunar surface. Bridenstine said, however, that NASA's proposal for the "Moon to Mars Mission Directorate", which had support from the White House, was turned down by Congress.
"NASA proposed to the House and Senate a reorganization to establish a new mission directorate focused on a sustainable lunar campaign," Bridenstine said in a statement. "The proposal was not accepted at this time, so we will move forward under our current organizational structure within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate."
The mission was first announced in March to meet Vice President Mike Pence's goal of returning humans on the moon by 2024.
Sirangelo appeared with other NASA officials this week at an advisory council to discuss exploration plans. At the meeting, he said he'd been working on the plan to return to the moon, a mission he called "daunting." Also at the meeting, Bridenstine said NASA needs an additional $1.6 billion for the 2020 budget to reach the goal.
"Given NASA is no longer pursuing the new mission directorate, Mark has opted to pursue other opportunities. I want to personally thank Mark for his service and his valuable contributions to the agency," Bridenstine said.
What is a young science-curious Soylentil to think?
After shocking leadership shakeup at NASA, new head of human exploration says moon 2024 is doable:
Less than 24 hours after being named head of human exploration at NASA, former astronaut Ken Bowersox said the agency is trying to speed up decision-making in its quest to reach the moon by 2024.
"The key is we need to fly when we're ready, but if we don't shoot for 2024 we have zero chance," Bowersox said Thursday at the American Astronautical Society's John Glenn Memorial Symposium. "Our attitude is to get as much of this going as we can — to move as fast as we can, as long as we can."
Bowersox' brief remarks in Cleveland follow the shocking announcement Wednesday night that Bill Gerstenmaier — a pillar in NASA's human exploration operations since 2005 — was out as the agency's associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate.
The announcement was made in a Wednesday email to NASA employees from Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "As you know, NASA has been given a bold challenge to put the first woman and the next man on the Moon by 2024, with a focus on the ultimate goal of sending humans to Mars," he wrote. "In an effort to meet this challenge, I have decided to make leadership changes." He then named Bowersox — a 62-year-old veteran of five space shuttle flights — as Gerstenmaier's replacement.
The decision — which surprised many in the space community — comes as NASA continues a years-long struggle to keep its human exploration plans on track. Projects such as the Space Launch System rocket being built to launch humans to the moon and the commercial crew program, meant to alleviate the country's reliance on Russia for transportation to the International Space Station, are years behind schedule.
See also: To the Moon and beyond
Related: 2020s to Become the Decade of Lunar Re-Exploration
NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon
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
Project Artemis: Return to the Moon to Cost Another $20-30 Billion
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:12PM (3 children)
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]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)
Stop wasting our time with BS numbers:
https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]
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)
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]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:16PM
Did you even read my links? How do you know whether the numbers are BS or not?
Also, the DoD has "lost" $21 trillion:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#ab9144e7aef9 [forbes.com]
These numbers are all BS.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:18PM (4 children)
I take two!
Sorry, only one per customer
The Apollo program cost around that much, in 1969 dollars.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:40PM (2 children)
I'm no Alan Einstein, but shouldn't inflation mean it is cheaper to do this now than in the 1960s?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM
$20b in 1969 is $140b today, so that's about 15-20% of the cost of apollo.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM
Isn't that what I said? Why it's such a deal? At these prices how can anybody refuse?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @06:53AM
That is comparatively inexpensive.
And given the SLS, the analogy to Apollo is quite apt [youtube.com].
Let's do it! For Buzz, Neil and Mike!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:22PM (6 children)
The earlier hearing before congress may not have been the place to say
"they're not necessarily the final figures." or "it's practically impossible to settle on an accurate price tag." which were also part of the CNN interview.
But yeah, bad optics there.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:27PM (5 children)
The real question is, when the budget is approved and all those White men send another rocket into space, will Google portray it as being the work of Black women and hipster faggots rather than clean-cut conservative White men?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:47PM
Watch it again: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340/ [imdb.com]
you know you want to.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)
So, you think NASA is populated primarily by conservatives?
Hadn't really thought about it. There are factors I can see that would pull both directions.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:31PM
Mission Control Houston, is built on Lyndon B. Johnson's family ranch land.
They hire from all over, and kids that went to tech school can come out a little liberalized, but once they're on campus there's not much to eat besides BBQ, and off campus there's not much politics you can talk without getting beat up besides conservative.
Other big NASA centers like Huntsville, Cocoa Beach, Stennis in Mississippi as very much the same.
JPL is an exception to the rule, can't swing congressional funding without California's support.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:20PM (1 child)
There are no conservatives, men or women, at NASA, because conservatives don't use the metric system. And NASA does. Duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @10:13PM
I don't know about that. Brad always struck me as a right-winger. Remember what happened to him [youtube.com]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (3 children)
20 Billion would go a long way towards sustainable presence on this rock as well...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)
Fine, take it from the 650 billion military budget. Increasing sustainability will reduce the events that require U.S. military funding, so it's a win-win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:32PM
You havent figured out the welfare-warfare state yet have you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:39PM
That'd buy a lot of blanket trees and hambushes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:10PM (1 child)
Uncle/Cousin/Daddy Joe Bridenstine needed a new mansion.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:32PM
There's a clue in the summary. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.). Alabama being where the Marshall Space Flight Center is.
Yes, it's pork. It gets distributed to various states. Bridenstine is just the negotiator. Putting a politician in charge of NASA actually makes sense if the main goal is to secure budget from fellow politicians.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:41PM (9 children)
Anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @12:35AM
Depends how much you like Tang.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @05:22AM
zero. it's a complete waste of resources.
we should be working on better ways to get oil out the ground, then we can drive our big trucks like men are supposed to!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @10:41AM
Infinite, it is the best possible use of resources. The benefits of the possible discoveries and technologies developed are unimaginable.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday June 17 2019, @10:54AM (1 child)
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-the-business-roi-on-nasa-research-investments/ [spacenews.com]
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551652/nasa-research-finds-way-into-it--consumer-products.html [computerworld.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @07:48PM
Assuming generously that the goods and services wouldn't be produced anyway and are actually worth what is claimed here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday June 17 2019, @11:38AM
GPS; Satellite comms; Weather forecasts; Various military assets.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday June 17 2019, @07:06PM (2 children)
Considerable [wikipedia.org].
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:20PM
Don't be MASHUGANA! [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:24PM
And When you're done being Mashugana, We'll make your dreams come true! [youtube.com]