Foo - What would you guess it would cost to do a private manned lunar landing and return?

No, I'm not taking my wife's pain pills. :p The thought just occurred to me from the Alien thread, and other posts.

We have some engineering savvy folk here, and I'd bet we could figure out a reasonably accurate estimate for what a private manned lunar mission could be done for. Anyone game to try to figure this out?

My preliminary guess is that with existing technology, we could do it for <$20billion.

No, I'm not taking my wife's pain pills. :p The thought just occurred to me from the Alien thread, and other posts.

We have some engineering savvy folk here, and I'd bet we could figure out a reasonably accurate estimate for what a private manned lunar mission could be done for. Anyone game to try to figure this out?

My preliminary guess is that with existing technology, we could do it for <$20billion.

I don't know. How much are those D size Estes rocket engines going for? :P

and what if you want to set up own mansion on the Moon and stay. I'd reckon the lunar night view of the Earth would be more spectacular than of the Moon from Earth.

Do the astronauts need to come back alive?

Do the astronauts need to come back alive?

That would be preferable, yes.

I would think it would cost at least two ****loads of dollars or at least one ****wad.
At least our watches have more computoing power than Apollo missions used.

which space agency will be used?
the only countries with this sort of technology would be russia, china and USA.

My cousin, the family super-achiever, actually is a rocket scientist for NASA. I asked her on Facebook and she told me it was a stupid question. Irritating.

My cousin, the family super-achiever, actually is a rocket scientist for NASA. I asked her on Facebook and she told me it was a stupid question. Irritating.

Tell her it's just for a bunch of bored cyclists speculating for fun, and we know it's a stupid question, but are going with it for kicks.

According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $135 billion in 2005 dollars).

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)

Divided that by six successful missions, and you're talking a very rough estimate US$22.5 billion [2005 dollars] a mission. Probably cheaper since there were those unsuccessful missions, too... (2?)

I bet you could even go cheaper than with some smart off-the-shelf purchasing and piggybacking on Russian launch vehicles, say.

Salvaged Saturn V - 3 billion $
Saturn V overhaul - 10 billion $
Fuel - 6 million pounds - 22 million $
Lunar Module/new - 1 billion $
Assembly building and launch pad rental 15 million $
Ground tracking - 10 million $
Crew/training - 5.5 million $
Recovery/USS Ronald Reagan rental - 50 million $
Miscellaneous/box lunches/cigarettes etc. 20 thousand $
Cost overruns - 6 billion $
Golf balls/flag - 20 dollars

Total - 20.1 Billion $

Since size doesn't matter....

I could do it for £29.90
Corgi James Bond 007 Space Shuttle And Hugo Drax Figure Set
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511HaWtRZLL._SS500_.jpg

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)

Divided that by six successful missions, and you're talking a very rough estimate US$22.5 billion [2005 dollars] a mission. Probably cheaper since there were those unsuccessful missions, too... (2?)

I bet you could even go cheaper than with some smart off-the-shelf purchasing and piggybacking on Russian launch vehicles, say.A lot of stuff would be more off-the-shelf now than it was in the 60s. Everything had to be invented or designed from the ground up completely from scratch. Nowadays there's a lot of knowledge and rockets laying about.

A) About a tenth of what the federal government would spend.

No, I'm not taking my wife's pain pills. :p The thought just occurred to me from the Alien thread, and other posts.

We have some engineering savvy folk here, and I'd bet we could figure out a reasonably accurate estimate for what a private manned lunar mission could be done for. Anyone game to try to figure this out?

My preliminary guess is that with existing technology, we could do it for <$20billion.

It's only $19.95! but wait! there's more! If you order now you'll recieve a second trip absolutely free! :p

I think if we get enough members involved we can build a pedal powered "rocket like" vehicle! and it would prob cost us nothing to build as between all the members we may have all the parts we need!!!! I'M IN! :twitchy:

I see where this is heading.

YouTube - david bowie ground control to major tom

I see where this is heading.

YouTube - david bowie ground control to major tom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-g_Y0UCxmg)

Hey, if its going to be headed anywhere it might as well be to that song! Its great! OK...an "Ass-tro-Nut" kicks it in the song...but it's still great! :thumb:

Hey, if its going to be headed anywhere it might as well be to that song! Its great! OK...an "Ass-tro-Nut" kicks it in the song...but it's still great! :thumb:

I have the advantage of being in Crazy Lady's position, only with a leg and knee issue. As long as the drugs hold out I have all kinds of time to let the mind wander.

Drugs may not be THE answer, but they are AN answer:D

I don't remember the source, but if there were pure gold bars sitting on the moon's surface, it wouldn't be economical to go get them.

According to NASA, $80 billion for manned space flight isn't enough to get us to the moon by 2020 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32403431/ns/technology_and_science-space/).

I think if we get enough members involved we can build a pedal powered "rocket like" vehicle! and it would prob cost us nothing to build as between all the members we may have all the parts we need!!!! I'M IN! :twitchy:

If we could power it with hot air, I could always try to harness the P&R form. ;)

A gagillion Euros.

I wonder which would be cheaper...

multi stage rocket, like Saturn 5, that basically makes a one shot from earth to moon and back.

-or-

launching all necessary equipment into earth orbit to make a lunar lander, which will return to earth orbit and be picked up by a shuttle or the ISS.

I wonder which would be cheaper...

multi stage rocket, like Saturn 5, that basically makes a one shot from earth to moon and back.

-or-

launching all necessary equipment into earth orbit to make a lunar lander, which will return to earth orbit and be picked up by a shuttle or the ISS.

Good question. Theyre would be a lot less Delta-V needed to make the translunar insertion if already in LEO. A strong case could probably be made to do unmanned cargo launches using Russian boosters, as Goobs suggested to get the components and necessary fuel into orbit, and the ISS would make a great logistics base for assembly and staging the cargo, etc. It would also establish the techniques and necessary infrastructure for multiple launches, and eventually grow into something like Heinlein's Supra New York Station concep of an orbital port city.

It could also provide the necessary impetus to develop a Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) up to Geosynchronous Orbit. Carbon nanotubes are looking really interesting to be used as a sufficiently strong material to manufacture the lifter cables, for example.

there's a fictional story called 'Moonlight Mile' that is very similar to what you just wrote there.

I wonder which would be cheaper...

multi stage rocket, like Saturn 5, that basically makes a one shot from earth to moon and back.

-or-

launching all necessary equipment into earth orbit to make a lunar lander, which will return to earth orbit and be picked up by a shuttle or the ISS.

A pound of maned mission payload is more expensive than a pound of unmanned payload. Not only with all the abort systems, but also the trajectory the rocket takes. Maned missions take more of a horizontal trajectory and slice through more atmosphere, while unmaned missions take a "lofted trajectory". That is, more of an up, then over trajectory. This trajectory is more fuel efficient, but more dangerous should an upper stage fail.

So long story short, this is why Aeries is going to launch the crew capsule and lunar lander separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation

Forget the Moon, just wait around 70 years for the Vulcans to make first contact, then we're set. :D

there's a fictional story called 'Moonlight Mile' that is very similar to what you just wrote there.

I was thinking Arthur C. Clarke's novel The Fountains Of Paradise


Wasn't there a recent competition to see what private company or individual could build a launch vehicle that would escape Earth orbit, or some such goal? I thought the winner (if there was one...or maybe it was just a criteria for winning) was to be able to do it for significantly less than $20 billion?

I was thinking Arthur C. Clarke's novel The Fountains Of Paradise


Wasn't there a recent competition to see what private company or individual could build a launch vehicle that would escape Earth orbit, or some such goal? I thought the winner (if there was one...or maybe it was just a criteria for winning) was to be able to do it for significantly less than $20 billion?

well, that's just a vehicle to launch payload into LEO.

getting from LEO to the moon is a whole different story.

even if you could, the GOV would never let it happen...you would find something they don't want you too. They need to keep the sheep in the barn.

$9.63. Walmart PRICE CUT!:p

The moon has been done. Too much. Let's do something different.

The moon has been done. Too much. Let's do something different.

let's all go to Venus.

I'd really like to go deep, deep, deep into the ocean. Deeper than anyone. It's real creepy looking and there's life there that we haven't even seen. Nightmarish things.

I'd really like to go deep, deep, deep into the ocean. Deeper than anyone. It's real creepy looking and there's life there that we haven't even seen. Nightmarish things.

You can't go any deeper, in 1960, the Trieste, a manned submersible made the bottom of the Challenger Deep, which is the deepest spot in any ocean, which is ~~11000 meters, or 37,000odd feet.. THere have only been to other descents and they were unmanned.

I would bet that you could do it for less that 1 Billion in todays money. It might not be safe, but you could do it. eventually, we WILL do it, btut some of us might not come back.

It could also provide the necessary impetus to develop a Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) up to Geosynchronous Orbit. Carbon nanotubes are looking really interesting to be used as a sufficiently strong material to manufacture the lifter cables, for example.True. The "launch" point for stuff outside Earth's orbit would be from the "counterbalance" point, which is approximately twice geosynchronous orbit. One thing most people do not understand about a "Space Elevator" is that the base station "sits" in geosynchronous orbit. The elevator "cable" extends up AND down, from there by tidal forces.

you'd have to figure out how to have babies that won't die from the Gs during reentry for civilians to live in space or moon for extended periods of time.

you'd have to figure out how to have babies that won't die from the Gs during reentry for civilians to live in space or moon for extended periods of time.

More the aspect of living in zeroG calcium loss. There wuld be very few reasons to ever expose newborns to reentry stress or launch stress. There would be physiological effects to chidren born on the moon, though in a 1/6 G field, on their skeletal development and muscular development, no doubt. Also any that were born and reared in a zero G environment, although this could be addressed by having the children raised under conditions of centripedal acceleration to simulate a normal 1 G field, for any children raised on the eventual orbital port.

when ever I want to go to the moon, I just call explodyPup and he let's me catch a ride with him and sleep on the couch.

You can't go any deeper, in 1960, the Trieste, a manned submersible made the bottom of the Challenger Deep, which is the deepest spot in any ocean, which is ~~11000 meters, or 37,000odd feet.. THere have only been to other descents and they were unmanned.

Well, I missed out on that trip.

when ever I want to go to the moon, I just call explodyPup and he let's me catch a ride with him and sleep on the couch.


Does Couch know you're sleeping on him?

I would bet that you could do it for less that 1 Billion in todays money. It might not be safe, but you could do it. eventually, we WILL do it, btut some of us might not come back.True. The "launch" point for stuff outside Earth's orbit would be from the "counterbalance" point, which is approximately twice geosynchronous orbit. One thing most people do not understand about a "Space Elevator" is that the base station "sits" in geosynchronous orbit. The elevator "cable" extends up AND down, from there by tidal forces.

You need a mass to anchor the cable to. I love the idea, but it would be very expensive. Just putting that rock into orbit would prob cost a trillion, with the actual
project costing another trillion or two.

I suspect the way to do it is the easy way. Pick the most suitable mountain chain and dig an ascending tunnel. Design a high speed train that can do a few hundred miles an hour (there are some clever ways you can lower air pressure in the tunnel to help). Once the 'train' clears the tunnel, a modest booster could get the vehicle into orbit.

It would all depend on what technology is used.

With some of the secretive aircrafts (UFOs) I have seen flying around in the desert, I've got a fairly decent look at just how far beyond main stream technology has gone. So my answer would be that it obviously depends. If you use conventional and outdated technology, it will probably be expensive as hell. If you were to use the stuff the government obviously has but won't tell us about, it would probably be much cheaper and easier.

It would all depend on what technology is used.

With some of the secretive aircrafts (UFOs) I have seen flying around in the desert, I've got a fairly decent look at just how far beyond main stream technology has gone. So my answer would be that it obviously depends. If you use conventional and outdated technology, it will probably be expensive as hell. If you were to use the stuff the government obviously has but won't tell us about, it would probably be much cheaper and easier.

NASA feeds the military, not the other way round. The more exotic drives get talked about in Scientific American. That's to preserve security, because no one reads it.

A lot of stuff would be more off-the-shelf now than it was in the 60s. Everything had to be invented or designed from the ground up completely from scratch. Nowadays there's a lot of knowledge and rockets laying about.

Off-the-shelf - no. Nothing works off the shelf in a space or defense mission. Off the shelf will never be a reality in that kind of environment, whether it's funded privately or by the gvt. You can take an "off the shelf" item, but it WILL get modified and those modifications will then get tested 10 ways to sunday and modified again and tested again, etc.

The complexity and number of systems necessitate customization and massive amounts of testing in order to ensure mission success.

I wonder which would be cheaper...

multi stage rocket, like Saturn 5, that basically makes a one shot from earth to moon and back.

-or-

launching all necessary equipment into earth orbit to make a lunar lander, which will return to earth orbit and be picked up by a shuttle or the ISS.

Once you are in orbit, you are halfway to anywhere.

$.50

How much would it cost to build two humongous slingshots?

I think if we can get the Chinese to do a dog pile,we can get there you a few bags of rice.....