11 ms·

Sat here in lockdown, I have just rewatched Matt Damon's The Martian and yes, we want to go up and out. I am so glad someone is still trying. I am also blown a

Sat here in lockdown, I have just rewatched Matt Damon's The Martian and yes, we want to go up and out. I am so glad someone is still trying. I am also blown away by the American Federal budget - this is a classified military space program. How much does one of those cost ?!

zrail 6y ago
The budget is classified. One can assume $texas levels of money.
azernik 6y ago
Not sure, but I would imagine it's less than you'd think. The spaceplane was originally a NASA project that DoD picked up after most development was done, and it launches from commercial rockets (eg they've used SpaceX rockets to launch these before). I would assume that the payload (experimental sensors and components, most likely) are more expensive than the amortized-per-mission cost of the vehicle.
NortySpock 6y ago
Well, the budget of NASA is $22.6B/year for all projects combined. And as others have said, this is a small unmanned reusable vehicle, with a few flights under it's belt, after all of the reusable R&D was done for the Space Shuttle. If I were to lick my finger and lift it into the wind, I'd estimate this flight cost between $0.5B and $1.5B, and most of that would be the gear that they are testing, given that the spacecraft itself is fully reusable.
- denlekke 6y ago
  this is part of the Air Force budget (~$165.6 billion)
astronautjones 6y ago
ironically, the post below this about unemployment fraud with "potential losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a new alert issued by the U.S. Secret Service." is full of people who don't really understand the scale you're working with with federal money
- kortilla 6y ago
  Unemployment fraud hurts the state budget where money matters.
CapitalistCartr 6y ago
This comes from the military budget; they can light Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills as a rounding error. The US Navy has 11 large fleet aircraft carriers, 9 assault carriers, when the rest of the World considers two carriers to be a lot. Schools hold bake sales to buy supplies, the Pentagon/The Congress spends a Trillion USD on a new manned fighter we don't need just to shovel pork into as many Congressional districts as possible. In a similar vein as our Carriers, we have 123 military satellites. Since the X-37 is maneuverable and reusable, it might be cheaper in the long run than more satellites.
- willart4food 6y ago
  This and similar mission are not NASA missions but USSF's missions (United States Space Force), and USFF is part of the United States Armed Forces, different budget: Sources: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Operational_histor... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
  - whoopdedo 6y ago
    I'll never get used to that "Starfleet" logo. I don't suppose Viacom/CBS would be able to sue the Dept. of Defense for copyright violation?
    - swebs 6y ago
      If they could, they would have done it 40 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- ericmcer 6y ago
  It’s hard to quantify because military supremacy and having the best weapons in the world is a huge part of why the dollar is THE global currency. And we can print dollars, hell we just printed 5 trillion in a couple weeks. This gives us insane leverage when it comes to foreign debts because most debts are in dollars. The dollars for military budget and the dollars raised by a school fundraiser are not even the same currency.
badrabbit 6y ago
Enlighten a simpleton here please, why do "we" need to leave the planet. I am far from a space nerd but I do know that neither mars or any solar object other than other is known to contain climate that is better or would even come close to earth's climate even with no polar ice caps and extreme global warming. Wouldn't it be cheaper (more humane as well) to "colonize" earth? For the next 100 years,even with full on warming , coastal areas and certain eco systems will be lost but you will still no matter have most parts of the big continents in tact. The land there exists now can support humanity even with 10x the population (if made arable). I mean things like beef and single story housing would certainly be rare. How about building new cities by the rockies and great planes and build things like the hypertube (whatever it:s called) to make emmigration easier. Have friendly eco-immigration policies to avert a humanitarian and geopolitical crisis. Heck, even "colonize" the sahara,antarctica or ocean beds! Half your problem is solved on earth once you desalinate ,irrigate and build viable transport.
- alex_young 6y ago
  Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game. Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see what we can do outside of our bubble. I personally think Venus cloud stations are a better target, but why not try them all? We learn great things and enable wonderful tech like the internet and GPS when we do huge projects like this, so why not?
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Why not? Because trillions and trillions of dollars. Even $2T is barely enough to feed america for a few months and it is barely afforded. My point also ws that it's not zero-sum. As in, "we" don't need to colonize mars,but I see no problem in doing so as long as it isn't done by sacrificing people's lives on earth.
    - wastedhours 6y ago
      But there's also a difference between $2T dollars invested over a long time horizon, dripping out of the collective budget of (hopefully) more than one country and spending it in one chunk across the whole of society. Again, a lot of it is forward planning - extra resources, hedging against future threats etc. I'd rather they start active planning in case we have to, rather than waiting until it's almost too late (like we have with some issues on Earth as it stands). Balancing investment at the expense of present day spending is a standard knife-edge for governments around the world. It's a sucky balance to have to strike though.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
It kind of reminds me of another bit about the size of the US military budget (What's the largest Air Force in the world? The US Air Force. What's the second largest Air Force in the world? The US Navy)[1]. In terms of budget, the United States probably has at least the top 2 biggest space programs in the world and depending on what parts of the military/intelligence budgets you lump together, #1 is probably not going to be NASA. [1] I believe that this is actually true if you combine the Navy and Marine Corps and don't count helicopters

zrail 6y ago

The budget is classified. One can assume $texas levels of money.

azernik 6y ago

Not sure, but I would imagine it's less than you'd think. The spaceplane was originally a NASA project that DoD picked up after most development was done, and it launches from commercial rockets (eg they've used SpaceX rockets to launch these before). I would assume that the payload (experimental sensors and components, most likely) are more expensive than the amortized-per-mission cost of the vehicle.

NortySpock 6y ago

Well, the budget of NASA is $22.6B/year for all projects combined. And as others have said, this is a small unmanned reusable vehicle, with a few flights under it's belt, after all of the reusable R&D was done for the Space Shuttle. If I were to lick my finger and lift it into the wind, I'd estimate this flight cost between $0.5B and $1.5B, and most of that would be the gear that they are testing, given that the spacecraft itself is fully reusable.

denlekke 6y ago
this is part of the Air Force budget (~$165.6 billion)

astronautjones 6y ago

ironically, the post below this about unemployment fraud with "potential losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a new alert issued by the U.S. Secret Service." is full of people who don't really understand the scale you're working with with federal money

kortilla 6y ago
Unemployment fraud hurts the state budget where money matters.

CapitalistCartr 6y ago

This comes from the military budget; they can light Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills as a rounding error. The US Navy has 11 large fleet aircraft carriers, 9 assault carriers, when the rest of the World considers two carriers to be a lot. Schools hold bake sales to buy supplies, the Pentagon/The Congress spends a Trillion USD on a new manned fighter we don't need just to shovel pork into as many Congressional districts as possible. In a similar vein as our Carriers, we have 123 military satellites. Since the X-37 is maneuverable and reusable, it might be cheaper in the long run than more satellites.

willart4food 6y ago
This and similar mission are not NASA missions but USSF's missions (United States Space Force), and USFF is part of the United States Armed Forces, different budget: Sources: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Operational_histor... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
- whoopdedo 6y ago
  I'll never get used to that "Starfleet" logo. I don't suppose Viacom/CBS would be able to sue the Dept. of Defense for copyright violation?
  - swebs 6y ago
    If they could, they would have done it 40 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ericmcer 6y ago
It’s hard to quantify because military supremacy and having the best weapons in the world is a huge part of why the dollar is THE global currency. And we can print dollars, hell we just printed 5 trillion in a couple weeks. This gives us insane leverage when it comes to foreign debts because most debts are in dollars. The dollars for military budget and the dollars raised by a school fundraiser are not even the same currency.

badrabbit 6y ago

Enlighten a simpleton here please, why do "we" need to leave the planet. I am far from a space nerd but I do know that neither mars or any solar object other than other is known to contain climate that is better or would even come close to earth's climate even with no polar ice caps and extreme global warming. Wouldn't it be cheaper (more humane as well) to "colonize" earth? For the next 100 years,even with full on warming , coastal areas and certain eco systems will be lost but you will still no matter have most parts of the big continents in tact. The land there exists now can support humanity even with 10x the population (if made arable). I mean things like beef and single story housing would certainly be rare. How about building new cities by the rockies and great planes and build things like the hypertube (whatever it:s called) to make emmigration easier. Have friendly eco-immigration policies to avert a humanitarian and geopolitical crisis. Heck, even "colonize" the sahara,antarctica or ocean beds! Half your problem is solved on earth once you desalinate ,irrigate and build viable transport.

alex_young 6y ago
Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game. Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see what we can do outside of our bubble. I personally think Venus cloud stations are a better target, but why not try them all? We learn great things and enable wonderful tech like the internet and GPS when we do huge projects like this, so why not?
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Why not? Because trillions and trillions of dollars. Even $2T is barely enough to feed america for a few months and it is barely afforded. My point also ws that it's not zero-sum. As in, "we" don't need to colonize mars,but I see no problem in doing so as long as it isn't done by sacrificing people's lives on earth.
  - wastedhours 6y ago
    But there's also a difference between $2T dollars invested over a long time horizon, dripping out of the collective budget of (hopefully) more than one country and spending it in one chunk across the whole of society. Again, a lot of it is forward planning - extra resources, hedging against future threats etc. I'd rather they start active planning in case we have to, rather than waiting until it's almost too late (like we have with some issues on Earth as it stands). Balancing investment at the expense of present day spending is a standard knife-edge for governments around the world. It's a sucky balance to have to strike though.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

It kind of reminds me of another bit about the size of the US military budget (What's the largest Air Force in the world? The US Air Force. What's the second largest Air Force in the world? The US Navy)[1]. In terms of budget, the United States probably has at least the top 2 biggest space programs in the world and depending on what parts of the military/intelligence budgets you lump together, #1 is probably not going to be NASA. [1] I believe that this is actually true if you combine the Navy and Marine Corps and don't count helicopters