>>16526579
>If we know *how* we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money),
You are manifestly uninformed.

>The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars. Adding Project Gemini and the robotic lunar program, both of which enabled Apollo, the U.S. spent a total of $28 billion ($280 billion adjusted). Spending peaked in 1966, three years before the first Moon landing. The total amount spent on NASA during this period was $49.4 billion ($482 billion adjusted).
>https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

All-in-all, it cost nearly a half trillion dollars in today's money, five times more than what's been spent on Artemis to date ($93 million). and twenty times more than your ridiculously incorrect estimate.

>>16526607
>Incidentally, SLS wasn't designed for Moon missions, and obviously wouldn't be any good for it (hence the need for the HLS program, to launch a lunar lander separately from SLS.)
You too are manifestly uninformed. The SLS has a TLI capacity of 46 metric tonnes in its Block 2 configuration...the original Apollo capsule, service module and LEM totaled 44 tonnes.

The Block 1 has a significantly smaller TLI payload of 27 tonnes, but that's because the program's goals were built around the addition of a new reusable "LEM", the HLS, which is supposed to be provided by either SpaceX or Blue Origin on a separate flight. And it's obviously "good" for Moon missions because it completed Artemis I with no issues, post-launch. Your understanding of the SLS and its role is exactly backwards.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

If we know *how* we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money), why don't we do it again? I don't mean using old tech, I'm…

If we know how we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money), why don't we do it again? I don't mean using old tech, I'm…