Oh, a moon base is a waste of resources, but the ISS isn't? Haven't we all seen this argument before, back when the ISS was the enemy, and no purpose or reason for it's bloated existence?
It seems sad that in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, many nations were able to produce truly ambitious engineering designs (hell, the Germans had a B2-like flying wing bomber capable of reaching New York near production, plus a ROTON-like VTOL jet), but in the 80s and 90s, people are bickering over table scraps. Come on, it's 50 years later? Where's my space nuclear power reactor? Where's my VASIMR? Where's my Delta Clipper? Almost no new designs have been flown in the last 20 years. Speaking of which, where's my supercollider, or my fusion reactors? Funding for science and engineering is pitiful these days. You're telling me that the whole of Western civilization with it's multitrillion dollar budgets can't afford $14 billion to perform a scientific experiment (fusion reactor)?
Don't talk to me about economics, rockets weren't economical when they were first invented. They only became "commercially viable" after billions had been poured down the drain doing basic research before there was a demand. Had not the military and governments invested in totally wasteful designs, we wouldn't have our spinoffs of GPS, Satellite TV, etc today. That's why today, you don't see startup companies building new launchers or even new Airliners. If not for Boeing or Airbus (or the Russians), we'd not even have jet travel.
The amount of capital needed to develop space hardware, and the inherent risk, makes it unlikely that even large corporations with deep pockets (e.g. Boeing) will take the plunge. Boeing even canceled the Sonic Cruiser, a modest tech modification, on grounds of risk and economic benefit. There's not going to be a Blended-Wing-Body either. I am a die hard capitalist, but there is some science and engineering work that is too big, and with unknown economic benefit, to rely on profit motive for development. Anyone gonna bother building their own high energy TEv particle accelerators?
If there is nothing to create demand for reusable heavy lifting (e.g. BUILDING SOMETHING OUTTHERE), we are going to be stuck with Arianes and Deltas for the next 50 years lofting a few satellites and rovers.
For the cost of the Iraqi war, we could have built a moon base by now, saved thousands of lives, employed hundreds of thousands of engineers, and learned a hell of a lot.
Instead, people with zero vision grope about how a $1billion increase in NASA's budget can't be tolerated and should be used for Social Security or Medicare.
I guess that's what we're becoming. A society of leisure and retirement.
The total cost of the Apollo program was $25 billion. A figure equal to the budget for operating NASA's manned shuttle program for 5 years. It's pretty sad, but today, we couldn't even send an astronaut to orbit the moon, much less land on it.
The whole thing makes me sick. People in favor of robotic exploration (of which I am one), are left to fight over declining budgets, and thus attack the manned programs. To me, the problem is funding for basic science and engineering, which are a strategic resources, both economically and militarily. If we become of a country of McJobs, with even our science and engineering outsourced to China, the downfall of the American empire will have been complete.
Who knows? Maybe our ability to build a moon base and go to mars will make building other space based projects cheaper, such as an effective NEO asteroid/comet defense system. (e.g. being able to build a VASIMR engine, or a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket)
We'll never know if think $1billion is a lot of money, and NASA should stick to launching microprobes on delta rockets.
