The CM of an elevator is at GEO, but that doesn't have to be the destination. The elevator will actually go quit3e a bit higher, from which a transfer to the moon (for example) would be much cheaper than a launch from the ground.
The NASA budget hasn't quite kept up with inflation over the years, but it hasn't been cut in a long time. The space shuttle and ISS get the lion's share. A HUGE amount of money has gone into these two over the years - close to $100 billion, and without a great deal to show for it. About $100 million was spent just trying to fix the foam problem alone.
Funding has been a factor in some notable failures - e.g. the Mars Polar Lander, but it has never been an excuse, and in the case of Shuttle safety, not a factor at all, IMO.
Now, it looks like enough money to fund an entire robotic exploration program will again be spent on the external tank.
I don't know what's so disgusting about $4 billion dollars. That is, for example, about one-quarter of NASA's annual budget.
The cost with overhead is probably more like $250 K/year for top-drawer west coast techies. so if you assume no material costs (shaky), that comes to 4,000 staff-years per billion dollars, ar about 16K staff years.
It's very difficult to breakdown material costs into labor, so it's not practical to account it that way. The labor theory of cost is hopeless, and the labor theory of value is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Just by luck, they caught an image of a really large and nearby devil about 3 sols ago. A second one is visible in the background. They seem to travel in packs.
If you could go inside any such mind, your reaction would be: "That's it? That's all there is?"
Got any numbers supporting that argument?
The CM of an elevator is at GEO, but that doesn't have to be the destination. The elevator will actually go quit3e a bit higher, from which a transfer to the moon (for example) would be much cheaper than a launch from the ground.
The NASA budget hasn't quite kept up with inflation over the years, but it hasn't been cut in a long time. The space shuttle and ISS get the lion's share. A HUGE amount of money has gone into these two over the years - close to $100 billion, and without a great deal to show for it. About $100 million was spent just trying to fix the foam problem alone.
Funding has been a factor in some notable failures - e.g. the Mars Polar Lander, but it has never been an excuse, and in the case of Shuttle safety, not a factor at all, IMO.
Now, it looks like enough money to fund an entire robotic exploration program will again be spent on the external tank.
I don't know what's so disgusting about $4 billion dollars. That is, for example, about one-quarter of NASA's annual budget.
The cost with overhead is probably more like $250 K/year for top-drawer west coast techies. so if you assume no material costs (shaky), that comes to 4,000 staff-years per billion dollars, ar about 16K staff years.
It's very difficult to breakdown material costs into labor, so it's not practical to account it that way. The labor theory of cost is hopeless, and the labor theory of value is nonsense.
Flight attendant? Where do I apply?