So if we can go to Mars

[HombrePequeno]

NASA-ESA Study Shows Mars Direct Affordable
May 24, 2004

A joint study conducted by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) shows that a humans to Mars program based on the Mars Direct mission plan is affordable.

The results of the study are reported in a paper written by Charles Hunt of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama and Michel O. van Pelt of the ESA European Space Research Engineering Centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. According to the Hunt/van Pelt paper, NASA costing models show that the Mars Direct plan could be implemented for a cost of $39.4 billion for all hardware development plus the first mission, with each follow-on mission costing an additional $7 billion, while ESA costing models show Mars Direct costs for development plus first mission as $26.6 billion, with each follow on mission costing $5.2 billion.

While cost estimates for mission designs can never be precise, it is clear from the Hunt/van Pelt led NASA-ESA study that the real cost of a well-planned humans to Mars program can be kept to the range of several tens of billions of dollars, not the many hundreds of billions spuriously claimed by opponents of human Mars exploration.
Source: Mars Society

The shuttle budget is $3.8 billion a year while a Mars mission would be $3.5 billion (once every two years). Excluding the development costs ($39.4 billion spread out over probably 10 years), going to Mars is more economical than just going into orbit and it's a bigger feat. Take out the budget from the ISS and the savings are even greater.

Why aren't we doing this?

 

[Red Dawn]

I'd rather we build an outpost on the Moon

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
The shuttle budget is $3.8 billion a year while a Mars mission would be $3.5 billion (once every two years). Excluding the development costs ($39.4 billion spread out over probably 10 years), going to Mars is more economical than just going into orbit and it's a bigger feat. Take out the budget from the ISS and the savings are even greater.

Why aren't we doing this?

Is there any oil on Mars?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'd rather we build an outpost on the Moon

Either one can be done cheaper than what we're doing now. Both of them provide pluses and both of them are undoubtedly better than what we're doing now which is just sitting in low Earth orbit. The main plus of being in LEO is the microgravity research; that can be done on the way to Mars.

 

[charrison]

Lets save a ton of money and scrap the shuttle.

 

[HombrePequeno]

We'd save a ton of money if we just used the Soyuz. I don't see the point of having a reusable space shuttle when it's a lot less cost effective compared to throw-aways. It'd take about 30 launches a year for the shuttle to actually be cost effective and there's no way that we could do 30 launches a year. We could do 12 max with our current facilities and even that is pushing it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
We'd save a ton of money if we just used the Soyuz. I don't see the point of having a reusable space shuttle when it's a lot less cost effective compared to throw-aways. It'd take about 30 launches a year for the shuttle to actually be cost effective and there's no way that we could do 30 launches a year. We could do 12 max with our current facilities and even that is pushing it.

Yes lets build saturn Vs again and have cheap heavy lift capability.

 

[arsbanned]

The whole "mars" thing is just to deflect from reality.
The reality is we're making more and more enemies right here on Earth.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The whole "mars" thing is just to deflect from reality.
The reality is we're making more and more enemies right here on Earth.

What? That's quite the non sequitur you have there.

 

[Kibbo]

Why is going to mars better than the ISS? What greater benefits can be realized?

The ISS is the first step in creating a permanent off-world settlement, or maybe even a permanent space elevator which would make future space exploration much more efficient. Permanent inhabitatation of space is a much greater goal IMO than just exploration, especially when you consider how much unmanned probes can do in that respect.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Why is going to mars better than the ISS? What greater benefits can be realized?

The ISS is the first step in creating a permanent off-world settlement, or maybe even a permanent space elevator which would make future space exploration much more efficient. Permanent inhabitatation of space is a much greater goal IMO than just exploration, especially when you consider how much unmanned probes can do in that respect.

The ISS has nothing to do with creating a permanent off-world settlement. There's no way it can be self-sufficient. The Mars Direct plan can be a huge stepping stone for having a base off-world.

The ISS also has nothing to do with building a space elevator. That can 100% be done without a space station floating around in LEO. A space elevator would make it a lot more cost effective to do a space station though.

Unmanned probes can't do sh!t compared to what a person can do. People are a lot more versatile than probes and robots. A rover will have pretty much zero chance of finding something like life on Mars. Finding life on Mars would be a huge benefit to figuring out how life itself starts out. Going to Mars has pretty much every benefit the ISS does and then some. Especially the ISS as it currently is. They can only do half a days research up there b/c there are barely enough people up there to keep it up and running.

Oh btw, here's the paper that the article's talking about: Text

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The whole "mars" thing is just to deflect from reality.
The reality is we're making more and more enemies right here on Earth.

What? That's quite the non sequitur you have there.

It's remakably pertinent. Manned visits are decades away and terraforming and colonization are literally centuries away. While exploration is a desirable goal, discussion of exploration outside the scientific community is simply pablum for the masses.

Furthermore, exploration and colonization will be hard pressed to occur as we run out of petroleum products, incite worldwide resentment of America, and spend all our money on other things, such as lining the pockets of CEO's.

Even surpassing that hurdle, the human race will have to overcome it's own inadequacies in social, governmental, and interpersonal issues - all of which will have their effects catastrophically magnified in a hostile environment.

All the more reason that working out those kinks now is even more pressing than the physical act of building a capable craft.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The whole "mars" thing is just to deflect from reality.
The reality is we're making more and more enemies right here on Earth.

What? That's quite the non sequitur you have there.

It's remakably pertinent. Manned visits are decades away and terraforming and colonization are literally centuries away. While exploration is a desirable goal, discussion of exploration outside the scientific community is simply pablum for the masses.

Furthermore, exploration and colonization will be hard pressed to occur as we run out of petroleum products, incite worldwide resentment of America, and spend all our money on other things, such as lining the pockets of CEO's.

Even surpassing that hurdle, the human race will have to overcome it's own inadequacies in social, governmental, and interpersonal issues - all of which will have their effects catastrophically magnified in a hostile environment.

All the more reason that working out those kinks now is even more pressing than the physical act of building a capable craft.

Manned visits don't have to be decades away. We could do it in one decade if we jsut put like $4-5 billion a year towards it. If we kept at that pace colonization would only be several decades away.

What does exploration have to do with running out of petroleum? If we ran out of petrol that wouldn't stop space exploration. Worldwide resentment of America? Are you trying to predict the future or something? There's no way you can tell what world opinion of the US will be 10 years down the road. And if people are pissed at us, who cares? A lot of people don't like China (rightly so) but they're still choosing to explore space.

Should the first settlers of America have turned back because the social problems at home were probably going to be magnified in the hostile environment that was a pre-US continent? Our problems here will never be solved so there's no point in waiting until they are fixed. Also, there's no telling what the situation would be like in a Mars Hab/settlement.

As to arsbanned's post. If what you're saying is his point, he needs to be a little more coherent in making that point. You could replace "Mars" with the words 'international aid and it would still mean basically the same.

 

[Tusce]

Indeed, Hombre, if NASA was devoting $4-5 billion a year towards manned visits, it would only be a decade away. But the point is that they're not. NASA's budget is about $15 billion dollars, less than 0.005% of the national budget. Of that, only about $6 billion is put towards the Science and Technology department.

Frankly, I'd like to see NASA get more government funding (if only because I'm seeking a career in their engineering department.) Just think about all the things NASA has done despite the dismal funding they get. Imagine where we'd be if NASA was getting twice their current fuding, or even three times. But, the truth is that they're not getting much. Until NASA recieves more funding, human colonization of Mars is a pipe dream. It will happen, it'll just be a while, as myusername stated.

And what are we doing talking about funding for space exploration anyway? As much as I look forward to human development in space, we need to worry about fixing the money issue here on Earth before we worry about the money issue in space. The Mars program isn't going anywhere with the deficit we've got.

 

[imported_torgo]

Everyone who says they don't see why we should go to mars or do any space exploration is showing how humans are stagnating. Everyone who says we should only be focusing on problems here at home is showing how short sighted humans are becoming on large issues. Do you only worry about making your house payments and not sending your kids to college?

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[conehead433]

The logistics of having a Moon Base or a manned Mars outpost are absurd. Take a look at the Moon through a telescope and what do you see?... a landscape pockmarked with craters from meteors striking the surface. It would take an incredibly sophisticated network of anti-incoming debris/meteors, etc. to protect such an outpost on the Moon. Building underground would still require a defense system also. Mars having something of an atmosphere would require somewhat less in the way of defenses. So what of value have we found so far on Mars or the Moon? Absolutely nothing. Will having a base on either help preserve huimanity for some time in the future? Probably not. But then again, if G.W. Bush is re-elected as president it might.