Moon Walkers.

[MileHigh]

You are so right 

[picowatt]

So why have we not been back to the moon ?.
Maybe cost is the reason/. Some info on the orion project.
Quote: NASA officials set April 2023 as the timeframe when they expect the Orion spacecraft to be ready to host humans on a flight around the moon.

April 2023 -->why so long. They managed to get man on the moon much quicker back in the 60's.

Quote: NASA says it needs another $6.77 billion to complete development of Orion through 2023, atop $10.5 billion spent on the spacecraft since the project dawned with the Constellation program, an initiative started in 2005 under the Bush administration.That brings the program's total projected cost to more than $17 billion through the first flight with astronauts.

17 billion dollars before the first maned flight.
The cost of 1 single project is enough to eliminate world hunger 
How pathetic

I am not really sure what today's cost to launch a moon mission has to do with evidence of whether man has been to the moon or not, but NASA's budget is pathetically low and I for one wish more of my tax dollars were going there.

However, stamp out world hunger for only $16billion?  Not to make light of that issue, but that is way less than $30 per hungry person.  That would definitely help for a short time, but I do not think that would "eliminate world hunger".


Apollo was very expensive.  From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs

"The final cost of Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.[82] It took up the majority of NASA's budget while it was being developed. For example, in 1966 it accounted for about 60 percent of NASA's total $5.2 billion budget.[83] A single Saturn V launch in 1969 cost up to $375 million, compared to the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1970 budget of $440 million.[84]

In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space, September 2004.[80] The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars.[85]"


$16 billion sounds pretty cheap compared to what Apollo cost.  Spaceflight, while still pricey, costs much less now than it used to (using inflation adjusted numbers).

PW

[MileHigh]

Brad:

And it was a debate you lost in the end,along with some very !self acclaimed! smart guy's.

Really?  I didn't know it was about winners and losers.  I saw it as just another incomplete inconclusive experiment where you are staring at an ordinary vanilla pulse motor and are thinking that something miraculous is taking place because of the presence of some magnets.  The problem is your failure to realize that everything was normal and happening just like it was supposed to be happening.

There are active engineer's,and passive engineer's.
I am an active mechanical engineer.
Do you know the difference between the two MH?-->im guessing not.

I have never heard that terminology in my life so please explain.  Did you study engineering and graduate from an accredited engineering school or is it like the old cliche, "I am not a doctor but I play one on TV?"

And you know this how?.
You know very little about me,and you have based your judgement only on what you have seen me do-->just like you have based your judgement on the moon landings by what NASA has shown you.
The difference being--one you need to believe in,and the other you need not to believe in. You make me laugh MH-->you have just made two opposite judgement's on two different thing's,based around what you have been shown or seen so far lol.

I only had one summer job in the aerospace industry and have visited a few aerospace companies in my time.  So that doesn't amount to much.  What I can tell you for sure is that you can't build a lunar rover like you are claiming.

Absolute rubbish.
You think all this is needed just because the temperature may reach 150*C,and that the vehicle will be operating in a vacuum?.

You have been sucked in to the world of bullshit,and that is very obvious now.

You absolutely would need a huge team of engineers to develop a rover in this day and age and Picowatt who is wiser than you and me put together is in agreement with that.

You are deluding yourself about being able to build a rover on the cheap nearly all by yourself just like you are deluding yourself and being pig-headed about your unremarkable pulse motor.  It's all part and parcel of the explanation for all of the crazy foolish professional free energy propositions and semi-related pulp fiction hucksterism there is out there.  Even in this day and age you can make money selling magnetic bracelets and "structured" water.  I suppose that these things are never going to change because the human condition is never going to change.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

PW:

In a move that promises to shake up the fighter jet market, Canada's new Liberal Party government is widely expected to pull out of the Pentagon's F-35 program.

For Canada's supply base, the stakes are high. Many Canadian companies have spent years building components for the new plane and stand to lose as much as CDN$11 billion (US $8.3 billion) in work over the life of the jet.

I am not posting this to debate about the F35 itself, but rather I want to make another point relating to costs.

From memory, I think the total cost to Canada over 25 or 30 years to have a Canadian fleet of F35s was projected to be about $30 billion Canadian.  That was bandied about in the news and used as an argument about the "staggering costs."  I can't believe how stupid the media and the gullible public can be sometimes.  That averages out to only $3 billion per year, which is peanuts!  That's probably the annual budget of a typical large city.

Not to count how much of that money would be recycled back into the local economy which keeps people working, keeps the aerospace sector healthy, preserves brain power, develops new brain power, and pays the bills for housing and sending kids to school - not to mention that it defends our country from the nasties and allows us to project power to keep all of us safe and snug in our beds.

$30 billion over 30 years?  Horror of horrors!

MileHigh

[picowatt]

MH,

My apologies, I must have edited out my reference to the military budget in my prior post as you were posting.

I thought on it a bit and decided to not open that can of worms, hence my deletion of that reference.

PW