Posted on 09/24/2022 3:06:14 PM PDT by Reno89519
“....some analysts estimate the true figure of the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is much higher: up to $40 billion in security assistance, or $110 million a day over the last year....”
U.S. MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE GROWS TO HISTORIC PROPORTIONS — ALONG WITH RISKS
https://archive.ph/surJG#selection-495.0-495.77
Bloated House $40 Billion Ukraine Aid Package Puts Americans Last
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/bloated-house-40-billion-ukraine-aid-package-puts-americans-last
FYI, the Russian military budget for 2022 is roughly $65 billion. The Russian military budget for 2021 was $66 billion.
Watch this video if you can. From Tim Dodd of Everyday Astronaut. A bit old but still useful. Only 49 minutes long.
SLS VS Starship: Why does SLS still exist?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY&t=231s
Right now, the SLS shouldn't even exist. It exists mainly because of politics.
slap a Ukraine sticker on it and vwalla!
You win.
Good point. They were not even aware of the Gramsican long march through the institutions.
I’m pretty sure the Federal Gov sent more than this to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Same 20 year timeframe.
Not defending Artemis but its very difficult to design a man rated rocket with a Moon-Mars heavy lift capacity.
I do think if Musk had had access to NASA resources, he could have built the same Artemis rocket for 50% less.
yes i know all about what clinton did for $$$$, that helped china
The nugget of the problem right there. Additionally there are military projects that were done under "black" budgets that cannot be made public for various reasons that would make this much simpler if that technology could be used. One part of the government isn't even allowed to talk to the other part.
Civilian programs and agencies would be gobsmacked if they knew what their military (and classified contractors) have been up to for the past 40 years or so.
So, the poor little Superpower, Russia, is now whining about the unfairness of Ukraine receiving aid from other sources...
Most of the arguments in favor or Russia have been made on the basis of might makes right.
Now that it is becoming plain that Russia is not so mighty, suddenly it is unfair.
Nobody but you and other propaganda peddlers are even remotely arguing fairness or unfairness.
What is being argued by many of us, since apparently you have just glossed over those mentions, is the sheer amount of US taxpayer money, military hardware, etc. being spent to support the most corrupt government in Europe while our own country implodes.
It’s quite apparent that to you NEOCONs such an implosion is secondary to supporting Ukraine. Sh*t right out of the Europe and UK stuck on stupid playbook where ‘We will gladly freeze to support Ukraine!’ signs are being posted everywhere.
Idiocy knows no bounds.
Other than wasting money?
SpaceX
“ The fully reusable rocket could have a per flight cost of $2-5 million for its 150 ton capacity.”
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/11/spacex-superheavy-starship-size-payload-and-cost-details.html
SLS
“ The initial 322-foot SLS “block 1” version can lift 95 tons of payload and propellant to low-Earth orbit and can send 27 tons on to the moon. It is the only rocket in the world that can boost that much material to the moon in a single flight and it is the only heavy lifter that is already “human rated.”
Future block 1B and 2 variants, the former using a more powerful four-engine Exploration Upper Stage and the latter using both the EUS and more powerful boosters, will stand more than 350 feet tall and be capable of lifting between 38 and 47 tons of payload to the moon.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-moon-rocket-artemis-mission/#app
But to SpaceX, again
“ SpaceX says the 394-foot-tall 30-foot-wide rocket will be able to deliver 100 tons or more to the moon, twice the capability of even the SLS Block 2. But the Super Heavy-Starship can’t do it in a single flight. Multiple launches of Starship tankers will be required to refuel moon-bound ships before they leave Earth orbit and a major delay or launch mishap could have significant consequences.”
So today we have Artemis, and SpaceX will soon make the business case of replacing Artemis. Getting certified for manned flight is no small feat. I work in the industry. Whoever wins, America wins.
Artemis will get us moving; and if/when SpaceX takes over, good on them
Its NOT human rated.
It hasn't even flown before. All attempts to fly it have failed or been abandoned.
But the Super Heavy-Starship can't do it in a single flight.
Yes it can with refueling during the single flight.
Not to mention it may not even need refueling to the moon, but just for Mars.
We will see.
Medium to long term, I'm backing SpaceX super heavy over the vastly overpriced Artemis.
Wait and see. If Elon can deliver, SpaceX is going to dominate our space efforts probably throughout the rest of our lifetime. If not, we have Artemis - warts and all. I have worked directly on Artemis for the last decade; and there are some great success stories (ie boosters) and adding the 5th section meant adding significant weight to the structure.
We are also developing BOLE’ which is a carbon composite replacement that will be cheaper, and stronger than existing. We are currently preparing flight sets for Artemis 4; with Artemis 2&3 sitting in storage at KSC. We are not recovering boosters, so they are dropping without parachutes. Don’t be fishing where they land, as they are going to be coming on hot and fast. We are funded up through Artemis 8; at which time we convert to BOLE.
So we will see how fast Elon can deliver on the design. If it were easy, we would have flown Sea Dragon a decade ago
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.