![]() "We have to be able to utilize the resources of another world, and on the moon we now know that there's hundreds of millions of tons of water ice," which can be used to make breathable air, drinkable water and even fuel for spaceships. "The moon is the proving ground," Bridenstine said. Rather, it will help NASA develop the technology needed to send astronauts to Mars. ![]() While planting American boots on the moon is NASA's current priority, the moon is not the end goal. "That kind of vision is in front of us if we want to go after it, and I think we can achieve it, given what is available right now." Bridenstine acknowledged that NASA would need additional resources to reach that goal, adding that bipartisan consensus will be key to securing the necessary funds. "We have an opportunity here, should we choose to accept it, to no-kidding get to the moon in 2024," Bridenstine said. ![]() That amendment will be ready on April 15, Bridenstine said. The NASA administrator did not offer an estimate of exactly how much it will cost to return to the moon in 2024, but said the agency is working with the White House on a budget amendment that should make that cost more clear. "We have a lot of hardware that exists right now that didn't exist in 1961 and in 1962 when President Kennedy made his famous speeches." That averages to about $37 billion per landing.īridenstine argued that Apollo-era funding levels won't be necessary to return to the moon in 2024, because "we have more capabilities right now," such as the miniaturization of electronics, reusable launch vehicles and commercial launch vehicles, he said during the hearing. NASA estimated that the entire Apollo program, which lasted from 1960 to 1972 and successfully executed six lunar landings, cost a total of $220 billion, with inflation. In addition, the budget request includes about $1 billion for "new lunar surface technologies required for humans to successfully operate on the lunar surface." This includes money for the development of new spacesuits, a power supply on the lunar surface and in situ resource utilization, or the ability to use natural resources found on the moon.įor contrast, NASA's overall budget at the height of the Apollo program in 1966 was $5.9 billion, which is about $46 billion today when adjusted for inflation. The federal budget request released by the White House Office of Management and Budget on March 11 gives NASA a total of $21 billion and allocates about $5 billion to research and development of deep-space exploration systems, including the new Space Launch System (SLS) megarocket, the Orion crew capsule and the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, a proposed lunar space station. However, it seems highly unlikely that NASA's funding will ever reach the same levels that it did during the Apollo era. Ideally, that revamped budget request should provide NASA with the funds it needs to start working toward that goal. "The question is, how do we achieve that?" To start, NASA is preparing to file a budget amendment, because the agency's fiscal year 2020 budget request was filed before the Trump administration announced its plans to land humans on the moon in 2024. "We're making assessments right now as to if we're going to land in 2024 - which we're going to do," Bridenstine said. This graph shows NASA's total budget as a percentage of the federal budget from 1958 to 2017.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |