Latest news with #ApolloProgram
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Science
- Indian Express
Top 5 costliest space missions launched from across the world
From the early moon landings of the 20th century to today's orbiting laboratories and interplanetary probes, each mission has pushed the boundaries along with the budgets. Often, these ambitious space missions carry staggering price tags, reflecting the complexity, scale, and pioneering nature of these ventures. Here are the five most expensive space missions ever launched: 1. International Space Station (ISS) — $150 billion The International Space Station is a multinational space station collaboration between the USA, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada. This figure includes the contributions of various space agencies from around the world, including NASA, Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and CSA. The construction phase took over a decade, beginning in 1998 and concluding in 2011. The space station orbits roughly 250 miles above the Earth's surface and has been continuously inhabited since 2000. According to NASA reports, it was built at $150 billion and cost $3 billion a year — roughly a third of NASA's annual human space flight budget. The space station serves as a hub for scientific research. Orbiting Earth every 90 minutes, the ISS is also a critical testbed for long-duration spaceflight, shaping our understanding of how the human body adapts to space. 2. Space Shuttle Program — $113 billion NASA's Space Shuttle program was the United States' fourth human spaceflight initiative. It relied on reusable spacecraft to carry astronauts and cargo to and from Earth orbit. Over its 30-year run, the program completed 135 missions—beginning with its first launch on April 12, 1981, and concluding with its final landing on July 21, 2011. The five space shuttle fleet—Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour — launched satellites, were instrumental in various missions including the Hubble Space Telescope, and played a central role in building the ISS. According to NASA's website, the life of the shuttle program cost $113.7 billion. 3. The Apollo Program — $25 billion The Apollo Program was born out of the Cold War and US President John F Kennedy's promise to land a man on the Moon — becoming one of the most ambitious missions in human history. As per BBC reports, the total estimated cost of the Apollo programme came to around $25.8 billion. Apollo was a three-part spacecraft — the command module (CM), service module (SM) and the lunar module (LM), according to NASA's website. From 1961 to 1972, NASA developed the Saturn V rocket and a suite of spacecraft that successfully carried astronauts to the lunar surface six times. The most iconic moment came in 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took humanity's first steps on the moon. 4. Hubble Space Telescope — $16 billion The Hubble Space Telescope orbits just above Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of approximately 515 km. Hubble orbits at a speed of 27,000 kph and completes one orbit approximately every 95 minutes. Hubble gets clear images because it's above Earth's atmosphere, not because it travels or flies closer to cosmic objects. It continues to operate alongside its successor, the James Webb telescope. Hubble was launched in 1990 at an estimated cost of 16 billion (adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars). 5. James Webb Space Telescope — $10 billion Built at a cost of $10 billion, the James Webb Space Telescope is said to be the most powerful space observatory. The telescope was on Christmas Day in 2021. The Webb does not orbit around the Earth; however, it orbits the Sun 1.5 million kilometres (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.
Irish Times
05-06-2025
- Automotive
- Irish Times
Driverless cars will take longer to get on to roads than advocates anticipate
The UK government has indicated a delay to at least 2027 for its plans to start rolling out self-driving cars on British roads. Governments, at least those in democratic societies, should stop putting a number on it, particularly as the challenge extends far beyond the technology itself. Think of Apollo 11, indeed the whole Apollo programme. Getting humans to the moon was quite an achievement. There were issues along the way, most notably the Apollo 1 tragedy. The methods both for testing the technology and execution were, however, relatively easy to control. The total number of people at risk remained low because of the nature of the endeavour. Everyone involved, including everyone at risk, was an expert to some degree in the field. The risk factor could be mitigated enormously. Now think about the microwave oven. It was invented in the 1940s, about a decade before the first person went into space. Yet it didn't become a household item before the 1980s, more than a decade after Neil Armstrong took his stroll. READ MORE Every fear, founded or unfounded, about the technology in microwave ovens had to be tested substantially. The end user was rarely going to be an expert and fears had to be allayed. [ Would I use a driverless taxi again? It obeyed traffic signs, stopped for pedestrians and drove cautiously Opens in new window ] There were elements that took years to fix, such as evenly cooking an item. Then there were infrastructure issues including the method of power supply to homes coupled with the increased demand. When you factor all that in, no wonder it took so long. Self-driving cars have managed the moon landing bit. Their problem is the chilled or frozen ready meals part, including telling chilled apart from frozen. For full disclosure, self-driving cars would be quite beneficial to me. I don't drive and have no desire to ever learn. Having a vehicle that just brought me places while I played with my phone oblivious to the world would be fantastic. But having them on actual roads in a regular form is still a matter of fantasy for quite a few reasons. Getting approval for roadworthiness is more than a government, or rather the executive branch of a government, waving a magic wand. In pretty much every functional democracy on earth, there are agencies or departments that focus on rules around transport The technology is the obvious part. It has come an awfully long way. As a feat of engineering it merits real credit. The improvements made in terms of recognition of pedestrians, animals, other vehicles and even inclement weather conditions are considerable compared with when the hype began. The problem is that great isn't good enough. Quite frankly, amazing isn't a high enough standard. When interacting with the public at large, anything short of perfect is a problem. No combination of lidar, radar and camera technology has yet hit a standard that could be considered flawless. The contention in defence of the technology might be that plenty of accidents occur already on our roads due to simple human error. The difference is that there are penalties for making mistakes on the road or being reckless up to and including the option of prison for the offending parties. Putting a robot behind bars isn't really an option – and even less so penalising the person who designed or programmed the robot. Beyond the functional technology, there's an enormous logistical challenge – really a combination of enormous tasks. Across Europe, let alone Ireland, the road system varies substantially – even to the extent of driving on different sides of the road. All of that data needs to be manageable for a driverless vehicle. Solving that includes relying on technology beyond the control of self-driving car makers. GPS is the big one here as gaps in coverage are a real problem that human drivers have to navigate for themselves today. The biggest issue is administrative, however. Getting approval for roadworthiness is more than a government, or rather the executive branch of a government, waving a magic wand. In pretty much every functional democracy on earth, there are agencies or departments that focus on rules around transport. That's the barrier before a taoiseach or prime minister can think of giving a green light. Rightly, those agencies have rigorous standards because their first priority is the safety of everyone on the roads including pedestrians – not just the advance of technological convenience. Their second is optimising the flow of traffic. Self-driving cars have to clear onerous hurdles on both of these which, again, involve macro factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. If this negativity is sounding repetitive, that's rather the point. I've had a selfish interest in this technology succeeding for a long time. In 2017, I was told we'd see regular use by 2020; in 2019 it was promised by 2023. Granted there was a pandemic but all of the makers missed the wider point. Factors they cannot and never will control are inevitably going to slow the process. To be approved, they have to be safe and convenient for everyone. Apollo 11 was never going to get into a pile-up near a toll booth on the M50. It had literally nothing in its path. The very purpose of a self-driving car is to work in a crowded space. Fitting in takes time. Advocates of the technology keep underestimating how much time it will take.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
IBM announces $150B investment in US
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), one of the nation's largest technology employers, is planning to invest $150 billion in the U.S. "over the next five years to fuel the economy and to accelerate its role as the global leader in computing," according to a media release. "We are extremely focused on leveraging American ingenuity and American innovation," IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said Monday during an exclusive interview on "The Claman Countdown." "When I think about artificial intelligence, quantum computing, mainframe computers, this R&D investment coupled with all of the associated manufacturing is going to allow the United States to be at the front of all those three technologies." IBM was founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company, and was renamed in 1924, according to its website. The company says its innovations "enabled the U.S. social security system, the Apollo Program that put a man on the moon, and power businesses in every industry." The company manufactures mainframe high-performance computers in Poughkeepsie, New York, "that are the technology backbone of the American and global economies. More than 70% of the entire world's transactions by value run through the IBM mainframes that are manufactured right here in America." These Companies Have Announced Their Intention To Increase Us Manufacturing Amid Trump's First 100 Days IBM says it "will continue to design, build and assemble quantum computers in America." Read On The Fox Business App The company joins the list of firms investing in America under President Donald Trump. "We really appreciate this administration's focus on American innovation and helping that drive global business," Krishna said. "This investment is money that we are putting down because we believe in the economic opportunity, both here and globally." Last week, IBM released its first-quarter 2025 earnings results, which listed revenue of $14.5 billion. Hyundai's 'First-ever, 3-Row' Ev Under Production At New Georgia Plant IBM's shares have gained 12% so far this year, outperforming the benchmark S&P 500 index, which has declined nearly 9%. The company forecast June-quarter revenue of between $16.40 billion and $16.75 billion, above the analysts' average estimate of $16.33 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG. Click Here To Read More On Fox Business "We remain bullish on the long-term growth opportunities for technology and the global economy. While the macroeconomic environment is fluid, based on what we know today, we are maintaining our full-year expectations for revenue growth and free cash flow," Krishna said in a statement. FOX Business' Milanee Kapadia and Reuters contributed to this report. Original article source: IBM announces $150B investment in US Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Cuts to NASA's budget could derail America's Mars ambitions
In his recent Joint Address to Congress, President Trump reiterated his commitment to space exploration, stating, 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond.' This statement is consistent with the continuous and unbroken presidential support for Mars exploration since the presidency of George W. Bush. Even in the current polarized state of politics in our country, space exploration and science missions have consistently maintained strong bipartisan support — one of the few government policies or programs that has such broad backing. However, if recent reports are true, the president's upcoming 2026 federal budget proposal will make deep cuts to NASA's budget, including a potential 25 percent cut to its overall budget and a 50 percent cut to its science budget. Cuts of this magnitude would not only devastate our nation's space program but also hinder any prospects of sending humans into deep space, including to the Moon and Mars, anytime soon. Former NASA chief scientist Dr. Jim Green, the advisory board chair for our company, Explore Mars, Inc., said this cut would be a 'devastating misstep for the country.' 'NASA science drives innovation, inspires future generations, and strengthens national security,' he added. Green noted that by gutting these programs, we'd be 'ceding leadership in space to other nations and stifling scientific advancements that fuel economic growth. Investing in NASA science is investing in the future of a strong America. We should never give up its soft power capability, ever!' This move would be the antithesis of government efficiency. NASA's science missions have been among the most cost-effective and successful NASA programs since the end of the Apollo Program. Indeed, virtually everything that NASA has discovered about Mars and the rest of the universe (except the Moon and low Earth orbit) has been a result of science missions and programs. These programs include the Hubble Space Telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Voyager probes, all our orbiters and rovers at Mars and dozens of other missions. Continued robotic missions are essential to enable human missions to Mars. This includes understanding resources on the surface of Mars, improving our communication system with Mars (the Deep Space Network) and maintaining our current fleet of orbiters and rovers. Efficiencies undoubtedly can be found at NASA (and every other federal agency). For example, better integration among NASA mission directorates (human exploration, operations, science, etc.) as well as centers is critical. The days when mission architecture, science, human health, and technology development are pursued in isolation at NASA must come to an end. NASA's recently established Moon to Mars Program Office should be given greater authority to integrate NASA mission directorates, NASA centers and partners to create focus and efficiency, streamlining internal bureaucracy within NASA to achieve our Moon and Mars goals as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The NASA budget represents less than half of one percent (a mere 0.3 percent) of the overall federal budget and NASA's Science Mission Directorate accounts for less than one-third of that amount. At such a small portion of the federal budget, such major and arbitrary cuts to NASA's budget would do very little to save money, but they will undercut and decimate one of the most cost-effective programs within the federal government. Chris Carberry is the CEO of Explore Mars, Inc. and the author of 'The Music of Space' and 'Alcohol in Space.' Rick Zucker is the vice president, policy for Explore Mars, Inc. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
13-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Cuts to NASA's budget could derail America's Mars ambitions
In his recent Joint Address to Congress, President Trump reiterated his commitment to space exploration, stating, 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond.' This statement is consistent with the continuous and unbroken presidential support for Mars exploration since the presidency of George W. Bush. Even in the current polarized state of politics in our country, space exploration and science missions have consistently maintained strong bipartisan support — one of the few government policies or programs that has such broad backing. However, if recent reports are true, the president's upcoming 2026 federal budget proposal will make deep cuts to NASA's budget, including a potential 25 percent cut to its overall budget and a 50 percent cut to its science budget. Cuts of this magnitude would not only devastate our nation's space program but also hinder any prospects of sending humans into deep space, including to the Moon and Mars, anytime soon. Former NASA chief scientist Dr. Jim Green, the advisory board chair for our company, Explore Mars, Inc., said this cut would be a 'devastating misstep for the country.' 'NASA science drives innovation, inspires future generations, and strengthens national security,' he added. Green noted that by gutting these programs, we'd be 'ceding leadership in space to other nations and stifling scientific advancements that fuel economic growth. Investing in NASA science is investing in the future of a strong America. We should never give up its soft power capability, ever!' This move would be the antithesis of government efficiency. NASA's science missions have been among the most cost-effective and successful NASA programs since the end of the Apollo Program. Indeed, virtually everything that NASA has discovered about Mars and the rest of the universe (except the Moon and low Earth orbit) has been a result of science missions and programs. These programs include the Hubble Space Telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Voyager probes, all our orbiters and rovers at Mars and dozens of other missions. Continued robotic missions are essential to enable human missions to Mars. This includes understanding resources on the surface of Mars, improving our communication system with Mars (the Deep Space Network) and maintaining our current fleet of orbiters and rovers. Efficiencies undoubtedly can be found at NASA (and every other federal agency). For example, better integration among NASA mission directorates (human exploration, operations, science, etc.) as well as centers is critical. The days when mission architecture, science, human health, and technology development are pursued in isolation at NASA must come to an end. NASA's recently established Moon to Mars Program Office should be given greater authority to integrate NASA mission directorates, NASA centers and partners to create focus and efficiency, streamlining internal bureaucracy within NASA to achieve our Moon and Mars goals as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The NASA budget represents less than half of one percent (a mere 0.3 percent) of the overall federal budget and NASA's Science Mission Directorate accounts for less than one-third of that amount. At such a small portion of the federal budget, such major and arbitrary cuts to NASA's budget would do very little to save money, but they will undercut and decimate one of the most cost-effective programs within the federal government. Chris Carberry is the CEO of Explore Mars, Inc. and the author of 'The Music of Space' and 'Alcohol in Space.' Rick Zucker is the vice president, policy for Explore Mars, Inc.
