NASA needs a real Apollo budget
NASA administrator Michael Griffin has called his return-to-the-Moon Constellation programme "Apollo on steroids" and this week the media is invited to a retired Lunar Module engineers panel discussion.
It has received little publicity, but many ex-Apollo engineers are helping the companies bidding to win Constellation contracts. Sadly, while NASA and its contractors listen to the Moon generation, Griffin's drug-fuelled Apollo boast is not a reference to its funding.
Griffin's original Constellation budget explanation was equivalent to Apollo's nine-year spend but spread over more than a decade. After losing over $500 million from the agency's 2007 exploration budget Griffin can feel relieved that, at last, Senate and House budget appropriation developments could give NASA what it originally wanted. But the 40-year inflation comparison used for these budget requests is not a realistic guide to what is needed in today's money, as the standard US economists' basket of goods for inflation calculations is not relevant.
Even with the help of 21st century supercomputer productivity, cost inflation for major technology projects has far outstripped growth in the consumer price index. And NASA has already announced $385 million more costs with its "realignment" of Constellation projects.
The politically acceptable funding Griffin can argue for is unlikely to cover the real cost of returning to the Moon, which will be, well, astronomical.
Source: Flight International
