5 ms·

We put a man on the moon though? I thought a moonshot was hard but doable.

stickfigure 6y ago
The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." That's about Google's entire revenue for 2020. I don't think even Google could put a man on the moon at those rates. Literal moonshots are expensive.
- snoshy 6y ago
  A public funding source can provide that kind of support for a decade, but even for the likes of Google that's a stretch. I prefer to think of a moonshot as longer than a longshot, whatever that might be worth. It sure is sad though, coming from the acquisition before Google X that had just so many great players throughout.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." And SpaceX will soon have the capability to do it with zillion times less. Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    > Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can. More like "if the hard groundwork has been done 60 years ago". It's not as if SpaceX had to quite literally invent the orbital rocket. So after 60 years of manned spaceflight, 9 manned lunar missions, and 30 years of flying reusable crewed vehicles with a space station that has been permanently crewed since 1998 someone better do it MUCH more cheaply. The culprit isn't just "space is hard" - it's decades of cost-plus contracts and heavy government involvement that kept costs high and results low.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I think SpaceX could put a man on the moon for much less? We’re currently at a few billion to put a whole horde of them on Mars I believe.
  - sgt101 6y ago
    We don't have the technology to get a person to Mars or to land them when they get there. We probably have the technology to build a spaceship that they could die in on the way there - but that's the closest that we realistically have.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Surviving on the way to Mars isn't a huge leap in difficulty over a space station, and we have those on lock.
      - ForHackernews 6y ago
        There's much greater radiation exposure away from Earth's magnetic field. I believe this is still an unsolved problem. Proposed solutions for shielding are heavy and expensive.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You just have to keep the lights on and not die of cancer for six months. The radiation isn't that bad. Edit: The specific number is under 2 millisievert per day. And "One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing fatal cancer based on the linear no-threshold model."
        DEADBEEFC0FFEE 6y ago
        I though shielding with water was the way forward there.
        sgt101 6y ago
        In science fiction novels...
- scottLobster 6y ago
  That's the total cost over the decade+ the program was in existence. Divide by 10 and it becomes roughly 10% of Google's revenue. So it wouldn't be insubstantial, but they could fund a similar effort if they really wanted to. Shareholders would have a thing or two to say about that though, which is why Elon Musk is keeping SpaceX private.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Sending 2nd rocket to the moon was much cheaper than the first one, so you can’t just divide by 10.
    - knorker 6y ago
      That's not what the poster meant. It wasn't counting rockets, but the fact that the cost was spread out over multiple years. Yes, if it were possible to go from zero to moon in one year then that would be all of Google revenue. But spread over 10 years that's just 10% per year.
      - jimhi 6y ago
        The parent comment's point is that the money spent on the space program was likely very highly weighted to the first years building that first rocket. So dividing by 10 because it was roughly a decade is probably underestimating the budget needed to get to the moon.
        knorker 6y ago
        Yes, but even pessimistically Google could send one rocket to the moon in 10 years with only 10% revenue.
- ves 6y ago
  I don’t think anyone was alleging that google should be literally landing people on the moon, so invoking the economics of moon landings specifically is hardly relevant.
- walrus01 6y ago
  At the peak of Apollo program spending in 1966, Dreier says, NASA accounted for roughly 4.4% of the federal budget — 6.6% of discretionary spending — more than the Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bomb. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-much-did-it-cost/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-much... as a percentage of the yearly federal budget, it's not that extreme. I believe the DoD budget (entirely non-NASA) is presently running around 700 billion a year. some very quick searching tells me the total federal budget is something like 3500 billion a year. 4.4% of that would be 154bn a year.

The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." That's about Google's entire revenue for 2020. I don't think even Google could put a man on the moon at those rates. Literal moonshots are expensive.

snoshy 6y ago
A public funding source can provide that kind of support for a decade, but even for the likes of Google that's a stretch. I prefer to think of a moonshot as longer than a longshot, whatever that might be worth. It sure is sad though, coming from the acquisition before Google X that had just so many great players throughout.
ekianjo 6y ago
> The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." And SpaceX will soon have the capability to do it with zillion times less. Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can. More like "if the hard groundwork has been done 60 years ago". It's not as if SpaceX had to quite literally invent the orbital rocket. So after 60 years of manned spaceflight, 9 manned lunar missions, and 30 years of flying reusable crewed vehicles with a space station that has been permanently crewed since 1998 someone better do it MUCH more cheaply. The culprit isn't just "space is hard" - it's decades of cost-plus contracts and heavy government involvement that kept costs high and results low.
Aeolun 6y ago
I think SpaceX could put a man on the moon for much less? We’re currently at a few billion to put a whole horde of them on Mars I believe.
- sgt101 6y ago
  We don't have the technology to get a person to Mars or to land them when they get there. We probably have the technology to build a spaceship that they could die in on the way there - but that's the closest that we realistically have.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Surviving on the way to Mars isn't a huge leap in difficulty over a space station, and we have those on lock.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      There's much greater radiation exposure away from Earth's magnetic field. I believe this is still an unsolved problem. Proposed solutions for shielding are heavy and expensive.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        You just have to keep the lights on and not die of cancer for six months. The radiation isn't that bad. Edit: The specific number is under 2 millisievert per day. And "One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing fatal cancer based on the linear no-threshold model."
      - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 6y ago
        I though shielding with water was the way forward there.
        sgt101 6y ago
        In science fiction novels...
scottLobster 6y ago
That's the total cost over the decade+ the program was in existence. Divide by 10 and it becomes roughly 10% of Google's revenue. So it wouldn't be insubstantial, but they could fund a similar effort if they really wanted to. Shareholders would have a thing or two to say about that though, which is why Elon Musk is keeping SpaceX private.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Sending 2nd rocket to the moon was much cheaper than the first one, so you can’t just divide by 10.
  - knorker 6y ago
    That's not what the poster meant. It wasn't counting rockets, but the fact that the cost was spread out over multiple years. Yes, if it were possible to go from zero to moon in one year then that would be all of Google revenue. But spread over 10 years that's just 10% per year.
    - jimhi 6y ago
      The parent comment's point is that the money spent on the space program was likely very highly weighted to the first years building that first rocket. So dividing by 10 because it was roughly a decade is probably underestimating the budget needed to get to the moon.
      - knorker 6y ago
        Yes, but even pessimistically Google could send one rocket to the moon in 10 years with only 10% revenue.
ves 6y ago
I don’t think anyone was alleging that google should be literally landing people on the moon, so invoking the economics of moon landings specifically is hardly relevant.
walrus01 6y ago
At the peak of Apollo program spending in 1966, Dreier says, NASA accounted for roughly 4.4% of the federal budget — 6.6% of discretionary spending — more than the Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bomb. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-much-did-it-cost/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-much... as a percentage of the yearly federal budget, it's not that extreme. I believe the DoD budget (entirely non-NASA) is presently running around 700 billion a year. some very quick searching tells me the total federal budget is something like 3500 billion a year. 4.4% of that would be 154bn a year.