After Artemis 1, it will take NASA 2 years to send astronauts to the moon. Why so long?

[Admin]

With Artemis 1 now in the books, the focus is quickly shifting to the Artemis program's next phase: crewed flight. But that can't happen until several pieces fall into place.

After Artemis 1, it will take NASA 2 years to send astronauts to the moon. Why so long? : Read more

 

[orsobubu]

after reading the article, I'm now absolutely certain that that something in the apollo missions reports was fudged and misguided

 

[billslugg]

The Apollo program spent 2.5% of US GDP and took 9 years to land someone on the Moon.
Artemis will spend 0.1% of US GDP and do it in 8 years.

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

Artemis is just NASA propaganda to cover the fact that their spending $$ incredibly inefficiently. lots of woot-woot about the accomplishments - none of which are sustainable. Its really sad to see how much that agency relies on - literally - propoaganda - to support its "mission". Go read the book by Lori Garver, a former high-level NASA official!

 

[billslugg]

News flash: "Government agency found to be wasteful. Film at 11."

 

[orsobubu]

The Apollo program spent 2.5% of US GDP and took 9 years to land someone on the Moon.
Artemis will spend 0.1% of US GDP and do it in 8 years.

nope, if adjusted for inflation gdp was 5400b in 1972, and 19000 in 2020, apollo spent 28b (0,51%) in 9 years, artemis will spend 93b (0,48%) in at least 20 years (2005 is the starting date for the orion-ares program), and this is without computing the unknown side of spacex contribute (starship)

 

[billslugg]

Here is my source for the 2.5% of GDP claim.
By comparison: the moon landing (herkulesprojekt.de)|

Apollo peak spending year was 1966 at $2,967M, which is $28B adjusted for inflation. Apollo did not spend $28B in 9 years, they spent that much in one year. GDP that year was $705B unadjusted. Apollo spending was 0.4% of GDP by that reckoning. I do not know why the source I quoted is so far off.
Apollo Program Budget Appropriations (nasa.gov)

I've read that the three missions leading up to getting Artemis to land people on the Moon will cost $4B each. That is $12B over three years. GDP is $23T each year. Percent of GDP is 0.02%.

If we take your $93B for Artemis over 20 years and GDP averages no more than the current $23T then Artemis will use 0.02% of GDP.

Using the lowest Apollo spending of the sources I could find, we spent 0.4% of GDP in the leadup effort. Compare to your number and my number for Artemis, both of which are 0.02%.

It appears that we put 20 times the effort into Apollo than we are putting into Artemis.

Does this answer your concern?:
"after reading the article, I'm now absolutely certain that that something in the apollo missions reports was fudged and misguided"

 

[orsobubu]

Here is my source for the 2.5% of GDP claim.
By comparison: the moon landing (herkulesprojekt.de)

United States GDP and real GDP 1929-2022 | Statista

On October 29, 1929, the U.S.

www.statista.com

 

[billslugg]

Yes, there are different GDP numbers you will get depending on the source. For 1966, the peak year of Apollo spending this source puts GDP at $813B. Apollo spending was $2.8B. Percent of GDP was 0.34%.
Artemis spending is 0.02% of current GDP.
Using your number for GDP, we are spending 1/17th on Artemis what we spent on Apollo.

That said, I cannot understand why in the world the critical path of 27 months is based on unplugging, moving and plugging in avionics.