3 ms·

NASA's budget has been pretty steady at about half its boom-time moon-landing 60's budget for several decades. http://jeffreyellis.org/images/NASA_budget_histor

by Empact 16y ago

NASA's budget has been pretty steady at about half its boom-time moon-landing 60's budget for several decades. http://jeffreyellis.org/images/NASA_budget_history_2.png http://jeffreyellis.org/images/NASA_budget_history_2.png That's $15 Billion a year - not a ton of money when the shuttle costs a billion per launch, but I'll bet it's plenty in the hands of a more efficient organization such as SpaceX, with costs 1/5 - 1/10th as much.

arethuza 16y ago
Exactly, and when there is a good commercial reason for going to the moon (or anywhere else).
- randallsquared 16y ago
  I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades. The problem isn't inherent to the task, the problem has been legislative and regulatory uncertainty. The only way around that would be operating from a more open jurisdiction (difficult due to so many of your potential workers being banned from working with you due to ITAR) or having so much personal wealth that you can afford to take the risk, which is the path it seems to be happening on.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    "I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades" What commercial reason would you have for going to the moon at the moment?
    - chadgeidel 16y ago
      Luna Park[1] isn't going to build itself. Seriously though - is there a market for exotic vacationing (orbit/lunar surface)? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Series_Has_Landed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Series_Has_Landed
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      The moon is an excellent source of raw materials for orbital work: silicon, oxygen, aluminum, and potentially the rare earths also needed to turn these into communication satellites and solar power satellites. We're on the cusp of being able to do these things entirely through automation and occasional remote operation, but it would have likely been profitable to do it with on-site humans in the 80s if political fear hadn't gotten in the way.

by Empact 16y ago

arethuza 16y ago

Exactly, and when there is a good commercial reason for going to the moon (or anywhere else).

randallsquared 16y ago
I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades. The problem isn't inherent to the task, the problem has been legislative and regulatory uncertainty. The only way around that would be operating from a more open jurisdiction (difficult due to so many of your potential workers being banned from working with you due to ITAR) or having so much personal wealth that you can afford to take the risk, which is the path it seems to be happening on.
- arethuza 16y ago
  "I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades" What commercial reason would you have for going to the moon at the moment?
  - chadgeidel 16y ago
    Luna Park[1] isn't going to build itself. Seriously though - is there a market for exotic vacationing (orbit/lunar surface)? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Series_Has_Landed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Series_Has_Landed
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    The moon is an excellent source of raw materials for orbital work: silicon, oxygen, aluminum, and potentially the rare earths also needed to turn these into communication satellites and solar power satellites. We're on the cusp of being able to do these things entirely through automation and occasional remote operation, but it would have likely been profitable to do it with on-site humans in the 80s if political fear hadn't gotten in the way.