Space colonization will cost more than $300 billion from NASA
Easterbrook, 06- writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The Slate (12/8/06, Gregg, “Moon Baseless,” http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/)
NASA said Monday it can build a moon base for about the $10 billion per year it now spends on the (soon-to-be-retired) space shuttle and the space station. (The agency also says that the international community will soon begin funding the space station, but no nation has agreed to this.) Considering that the space station and shuttle cost about $10 billion per year, a moon base might cost much more. The space station is 200 miles away and only goes up, never comes down. The equipment for a moon base would need to be accelerated to a significantly higher speed than was required for the space station, and that means a lot more fuel and a lot more expense. Moon-base ships will also need lots of fuel to descend to the lunar surface, and some will need still more fuel to blast off again. Remember, launching the fuel is a major expense. The Apollo program spent about $135 billion, in 2006 dollars, to place about 50 usable tons on the lunar surface. Even an austere moon base would need 300 or 400 tons of structure, equipment, fuel, vehicles, and life support—and probably more. Suppose today's technology allows for lunar-rated materiel to be built and placed on the moon at half the cost of the Apollo project. This quickly gets you to a program cost of at least $300 billion to build the moon base.
Space colonization will come from NASA budget
Newitz, 10- Writer and editor for the io9.com (2/1/2010, Annalee, “It’s Time To Get Serious About Colonizing space,” http://io9.com/5461719/its-time-to-get-serious-about-colonizing-space)
Today the Obama Administration unveiled its new budget for NASA, which included a shocker: Plans to return to the Moon have been scrapped. So why are we optimistic? Because Obama's budget rewards science, and lays groundwork for human space colonies. The big news from the budget, which has not yet been approved by Congress, is that it phases out the Constellation Program, which was the Bush Administration's project to send humans back to the Moon in a remake of the Apollo 11 mission. Looked at another way: The budget junks a backward-looking program and funds a brand-new one that will focus on developing new space technologies, exploring the solar system with robots, and pushing humans closer to living of off world. If you're excited about going to space, you shouldn't be disappointed about the Constellation Program. Many have mistaken today's budget news to mean that the US is retreating from space, or that we can no longer afford a space program. In fact, that is untrue. Obama has proposed a budget increase to NASA of $6 billion over five years.Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments. Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said today: One program] funded at $7.8 billion over five years, will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . [Another program] provides $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids. If this budget passes Congress, it would be a major step toward a common-sense approach to space colonization that involves robots and brand-new approaches to human spaceflight. The new budget also earmarks over $3 billion for what Bolden calls "new engines, propellants, materials and combustion processes, ultimately leading to innovative ways of accessing space to go beyond low Earth orbit." An additional $4.9 billion goes to generalized space technology research, and $2 billion goes to satellites that will help observe climate change and other Earth processes. This is a boon to geoscience, and will give us more data than ever on how to predict what will happen as our climate transforms. Again, notice that a lot of this money is going into innovation and funding for the basic sciences that will spawn crazy new technologies for everything from space habitats to terraforming. The idea is to pump money into research so that the next time humans explore space we'll know a hell of a lot more about it and can establish viable communities in orbit, on the Moon, or on other planets.
Links – Weather/Climate Satellites
Weather satellites and climate satellites will cost billions of dollars – will come from the NOAA budget
Jansen, 11- Gannett Washington Bureau (Bart, “Looming gap in weather satellites threatens forecasting,” 6/17, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm PPatel)
Congressional budget cutting will delay the launch of a key weather satellite and hinder tracking of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather, officials warn. The satellite, which had been scheduled to launch in 2016, will be postponed 18 months because of spending cuts and delays. The threat during that gap is that National Weather Service forecasts will become fuzzier, with the paths of hurricanes and tornadoes even less predictable. With more budget cuts looming, further delays are possible — something President Barack Obama alluded to this week. In an interview with NBC's "Today" show Tuesday, the president acknowledged the need to reduce federal debt but said "really important" priorities include ensuring "government functions like food safety or weather satellites are still up there." The satellite at stake is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Joint Polar Satellite System. The program is crucial for weather forecasting because polar satellites circle Earth every 90 minutes, scanning the entire planet twice every day. By flying only 517 miles above the surface, polar satellites give a sharper view than stationary satellites that float 22,300 miles above a specific place. The problem is that expensive polar satellites are built to last five years, although they have fuel for seven. The looming gap would occur after a satellite scheduled for launch in September ends its useful life.NOAA satellites share weather duties with the Defense Department and European satellites. But the one at stake in the current budget debate is responsible for the afternoon orbit, which is more important for weather, while Defense focuses on the morning orbit, which is more important for the military. "There will be a data gap. That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe storm warnings, long-term weather forecasts, search and rescue and good weather forecasts," J0ane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee April 13. A polar satellite detects when ingredients such as moisture and winds look ripe for storms. The weather service then posts "outlooks" warning five to eight days ahead of possible violent storms. On storm day, the service's Storm Prediction Center posts "watches" several hours ahead. Forecasters issued warnings five days ahead of tornadoes that struck Tuscaloosa, Ala., and five other states in April. A barrage of 312 tornadoes swept across the Southeast, killing 321 people. On storm day, forecasters gave warnings averaging 27 minutes before actual touchdowns. Likewise, when a tornado struck Joplin, Mo., killing 151 on May 22, forecasters gave warnings averaging 24 minutes before strikes. "The satellites are an important part of that early warning process," said Christopher Vaccaro, a spokesman for the service. Without the replacement polar satellite, forecasters would have half the information to track the moisture and wind patterns that percolate into violent storms. Lubchenco said without information from the polar satellite, forecasts for a massive storm nicknamed "snowmageddon," which hit Washington in February 2010, would have had the location wrong by 200 to 300 miles and would have underestimated the snowfall by 10 inches. Hurricane tracking would also suffer, she said. "Our severe storm warnings will be seriously degraded," Lubchenco testified April 1 before the House Appropriations subcommittee governing the agency. Lawmakers and scientists lauded the value of the program, which provides forecasts for military troop deployments, ocean search-and-rescue missions and farmers tending crops. "It's important for public safety," said Christine McEntee, executive director of theAmerican Geophysical Union. Cutting the funding "would be penny-wise and pound-foolish." Lubchenco credited the satellites with helping save 295 people in 2010 by helping track rescue beacons aboard ships. "That's saving lives, that's saving money," said Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House panel that oversees NOAA funding. But reduced federal spending threatens all domestic programs. Congress cut spending $38.5 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. House Republicans propose to cut another $30 billion next year. Obama has proposed $5.5 billion for NOAA in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, including a $688 million boost for the polar satellite. But the agency received $4.6 billion this year — $947 million less than requested — and lawmakers warned that a hefty increase was unlikely. The House Appropriations subcommittee is to vote on its budget July 7. "The fiscal crisis facing the nation is real and will require a level of austerity that goes beyond the present budget," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who heads the panel. Another appropriator, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she would fight Republicans for a funding freeze — rather than cuts — to avoid harming programs such as weather satellites. "There are serious cuts being implemented now," Landrieu said. "This senator from Louisiana is willing to try to balance the budget, but I am not willing to do any more reductions without revenues being put on the table."