Quote:
On 2002-06-03 21:42, cosmicdave wrote:
Over the same period as the Apollo missions (Apollo 1 was launched in 1967) that would be 6 years and that doesnt include the years of budget taken to make the first craft and test it. 6 x $14.3 Billion would equal almost $86 billion. This means that over the same time scale of the Apollo flights, not including any further budget increases within that time, NASA could accumulate over 3 times as much money than they needed for the original Apollo missions. Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.
|
Quote:
On 2002-06-04 00:57, Peter B wrote:
Once again you’ve sidestepped the issue of inflation. So I’m going to explain it for the benefit of you and other people who may happen to read this thread.
... when people talk about the Moon landings costing $25 billion in 1960s money, they’re talking about dollars which bought a lot more then than they do now. Since then, inflation would have cut the purchasing power of most Western currencies by around ¾, or even more. In other words, what you could buy for $25 billion back then would cost you at least $100 billion now.
|
Just thought I would chime in a bit with a link:
Inflation Calculator
As it turns out PeterB estimate is just a bit off. $25 Billion 1967 Dollars would be $131,244,423,118.03 2001 Dollars, according to the link provided.
Hauteden