A Moonbase on a Budget

[Mazon Del]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-would-cost-only-10-billion-to-live-on-the-moon-2016-03-17?siteid=yhoof2

The gist of the article is that it is analysis stating that if we really wanted to, for about $10 billion, we could have NASA set up a moon base much like how our Antarctic stations operate. It would do this through using spaceX rockets to get there, modified Bigelow Aerospace modules for the habitats, and a few other cost saving moves.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Mazon Del said:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-would-cost-only-10-billion-to-live-on-the-moon-2016-03-17?siteid=yhoof2

The gist of the article is that it is analysis stating that if we really wanted to, for about $10 billion, we could have NASA set up a moon base much like how our Antarctic stations operate. It would do this through using spaceX rockets to get there, modified Bigelow Aerospace modules for the habitats, and a few other cost saving moves.

Hmmm, that's pretty good, but you'd have to design/build/test a lander as well, and create new life support systems for long term habitation, so extend the budget to 24 billion, and push it to 2032, and then that could be feasible

[Andem]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Hmmm, that's pretty good, but you'd have to design/build/test a lander as well, and create new life support systems for long term habitation, so extend the budget to 24 billion, and push it to 2032, and then that could be feasible

Not to mention how much other equipment they would need to send, like a gym, Storage, etc. I think 32000000000000$ is a better estimate, minus any wiggle room and accidents that will occur.

[PB666]

2 hours ago, Mazon Del said:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-would-cost-only-10-billion-to-live-on-the-moon-2016-03-17?siteid=yhoof2

The gist of the article is that it is analysis stating that if we really wanted to, for about $10 billion, we could have NASA set up a moon base much like how our Antarctic stations operate. It would do this through using spaceX rockets to get there, modified Bigelow Aerospace modules for the habitats, and a few other cost saving moves.

maybe by 2024 but not for 10 billion, increase by a factor of 3 to 10.

 

[fredinno]

9 hours ago, Andem said:

Not to mention how much other equipment they would need to send, like a gym, Storage, etc. I think 32000000000000$ is a better estimate, minus any wiggle room and accidents that will occur.

Add margin, a robotic program to support it, proper testing and research, necessary infrastructure (rockets, etc) and launch costs, $10 Billion is laughable. The ISS was $100 Billion. Granted, the Shuttle bloated that cost tremendously, but still. I would be surprised if a similarly sized Lunar Base cost less.

 

HOW DID THAT GUY GET 10 BILLION DOLLARS AS AN ESTIMATE!?!?!?!

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

HOW DID THAT GUY GET 10 BILLION DOLLARS AS AN ESTIMATE!?!?!?!

Probably with a bare minimum estimate from some of the original plans of a Moon base with reusable rockets, assuming it has a Kerbal designed lander.

EDIT: Granted, Robert Zubrin said that a private company could send a Mars semi direct with a budget of 12 billion, so...

Edited March 21, 2016 by Spaceception

[kerbiloid]

• Wow-effect ("just 10 billion dollars?! wow!")
• Holy pathos ("keep Russia and China at bay")
• Severe manful figure ("an aircraft carrier")
• Fashionable and rebellious brands ("SpaceX's Falcon", "Bigelow's habitats")

Author's book with autograph? Space souvenirs? Lunar T-shirts?

[NuclearNut]

Well, it could cost that much but (leans forward and starts speaking in a low voice) we would need to do something a little... nookular with the launch system.

[tater]

If you are imagining a base that is occupied for periods of time, the logistics of supporting the thing seems like it would rapidly outpace the expense of setting it up in the first place. It doesn't cost substantially less to resupply and rotate crews than it would cost to land the thing initially. Less, yes, but not hugely less.

It's sort of like SLS, you can have the program in place, but maintaining it becomes the issue.

Edited March 22, 2016 by tater

[NuclearNut]

1 hour ago, tater said:

If you are imagining a base that is occupied for periods of time, the logistics of supporting the thing seem like they would rapidly outpace the expense of setting it up in the first place. It doesn't cost substantially less to resupply and rotate crews than it would cost to land the thing initially. Less, yes, but not hugely less.

It's sort of like SLS, you can have the program in place, but maintaining it becomes the issue.

Unless you had a reusable tug vehicle, it would become much more expensive than the ISS.  If you had a reusable and refuelable tug vehicle, it would be a lot more reasonable in upkeep in comparison to a moonbase without one.

[tater]

A reusable tug is a not inconsiderable expense, then of course you have to haul propellant up to the tug.

[NuclearNut]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

A reusable tug is a not inconsiderable expense, then of course you have to haul propellant up to the tug.

 Or extract it from the moon.  Again, it would add a lot to the capital cost, but if you had a functioning lunar base with functioning lunar hydrogen extraction, it would work.

[tater]

Lunar ISRU is pretty industrial. The methodology is cracking regolith, which is mostly oxides. The thread is "moonrise on a budget," and once you start heading towards delivering bulldozers, etc, it starts being A budget, but not a small budget.