Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost?

[christine16]

Mars?<br /><br /> Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost? The Poll is here, you can Vote or only see the Results <br /><br />What you think?

 

[alokmohan]

When the US was discovered not many thought itwould be worth taking the risk.But we got new avenues,new culture, new society,new rules.In future we may have new economy and culture in Mars.Only the brave and the visionary will have to shift,get all the raw material of Mars at their disposal.Colombus discovered the Americas, Zubrin gives Mars.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost?"<br /><br />Define risk and cost.

 

[kdavis007]

Yes....

 

[jschaef5]

Yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BReif]

Absolutely, yes!

 

[qso1]

I think its worth the risk and cost. I'll provide a definition of risk and cost as I see it. Risk is minimized by how much we are willing to invest in such a mission or missions. How much technological safeguards we can afford help determine a minimal risk but expensive mission. Make no mistake, going to Mars will be difficult and expensive if the history of human space flight is any guide.<br /><br />But it will be worth it, especially if we find evidence of life.<br /><br />Unfortunately our views here at SDC are largely in the minority. The majority of folks will say they support human space exploration until costs are mentioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Aetius]

Yes!<br /><br />However, I don't feel we should send people to Mars until:<br /><br />1. Regular journeys to the Moon help us relearn how to operate human missions in deep space.<br /><br />2. Our robotic probes can dodge the Great Galactic Ghoul at least 90% of the time.<br /><br />Mars is right on the edge of what we humans can do in space. Designing, testing, and building equipment that will be robust enough for Martian surface operations is gonna be tough.

 

[holmec]

Yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Hard to answer without more information. Whether a mission to mars is worth the risk and cost depends on what activities you plan to do there, and what method you use for transport.<br /><br />If it's a nationalistic chest beating mission with minimal science using massively expensive state operated boosters, not worth it. Ditto with the moon.

 

[qso1]

Cost estimates for previous concepts may help. In 1969, the Von Braun plan was a 2 spacecraft to Mars with 12 men each. This plan was estimated to be around $100 B dollars in 1969. That works out to approximately $500 B dollars today. It was a flags n footprints proposal with two mother ships which were equipped with nuclear propulsion TMI stages known as nuclear shuttles. The TMI stages were to be reusable. Stay time on Mars limited to around a month depending on planetary alignments.<br /><br />In the late 1980s, then President Bush proposed going to the moon and mars for around $500 B dollars which would be 1/5th the cost of the original Von Braun plan after inflation is factored in. This plan proposed large spacecraft serviced at space station. Single mother ship rather than 2 as proposed in the Von Braun plan.<br /><br />Then comes Robert Zubrin who proposes continual Mars missions leading to bases under a plan known as "Mars Direct". No nuclear powered mother ship, no mother ship for that matter. Send an unmanned base vehicle out ahead of the crewed base vehicle. The unmanned vehicle lands 2 years before the crew gets there, manufactures propellant partly from mars atmosphere for an earth return vehicle and all that for around $20 B dollars for the initial missions. It also included the ability to rotate crews every two years which greatly increased the stay on mars times.<br /><br />Zubrins plan seemed a little bare bones, NASA modified it into something called "Mars semi-direct" and said it could be done for $50 B dollars.<br /><br />Problem with any estimate is that it is just an estimate. A Zubrin approach is a mars base approach and costs will continue as long as the bases do. Plus there will likely be cost overruns etc.<br /><br />Is it worth it?<br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. But can we afford it might be the more important question. And in a Nation willing to overspend taxpayer money to the tune of $400 B dollars a year, spend money rebuilding a foreign country, I t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"And in a Nation willing to overspend taxpayer money to the tune of $400 B dollars a year, spend money rebuilding a foreign country"<br /><br />You can't afford that either.

 

[gsuschrist]

Agreed. Overspending money in one area justifies overspending in another? Two wrongs make a right?<br /><br />Risks and costs need specific details and not elusive fudgy references. When I read reference to Zubrin then I know realism has evaporated and polyanish cheer leading has supplanted practical issues. <br /> <br />

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />You can't afford that either.<br /><br />Me:<br />Tell that to Washington. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

gsuschrist:<br />Agreed. Overspending money in one area justifies overspending in another? Two wrongs make a right?<br /><br />Me:<br />No, if we cannot afford human space exploration because its too expensive, then we need to prove that argument by eliminating the other much larger wastes of money called deficit and Iraq. Iraq first because that is in part what gave us a deficit.<br /><br />People here don't seem to realize that NASA has been a budget cutting target for three decades...in good times economically (Back to back Reagan Clinton economies) and in not so good times such as now. Yet we can afford to reverse Clinton surplusses and generate huge deficits. We can say cut NASA to feed our poor while NASA is already lower than in its heyday and the only poor were even close to helping is anyone thats not a U.S. citizen.<br /><br />Fudgy references is all one can get if a project never makes it past the conceptual stage. How can anyone really know for sure what it will cost before metal is being cut.<br /><br />If your of the mind Zubrins plan is polyanish, you are probably not too crazy about the NASA mods to Zubrins plan. In which case. I'd have to assume there is no plan that would satisfy you except maybe a pollyanish cheap cost estimate which will wind up proving wildly inaccurate later.<br /><br />And if your against humans to mars period. Nothing I can say will change your mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

"And if your against humans to mars period. Nothing I can say will change your mind"<br /><br />Your non-sequitors are amusing. You certainly will not change my mind about your immaturity.

 

[spayss]

I'm with Guns, Nyal and Gsus. <br /><br />As Buzz aldrin once stated "The devil is in the details. Thousands of details'.<br /><br /> What's the cost? 300 billion? 600 billion? Probably more like a trillion plus.<br /><br />The cost isn't an isolated figure but is in competition with other places to spend it. Ask the grandmother or the soldier or the student or the scientist, etc.<br /><br />Do you want to spend that dollar on state-of the-art equipped classrooms? Medicine for your arthritis? Better armor for your son in Iraq? Paying down the 8 trillion dollar debt. Research into alternative fuels? Cleaner air? A mission to Mars?<br /><br /> Everybody thinks the cost for their own pet project is worth it until the dollar isn't spent elsewhere and it impacts your life with a dead son in Iraq, a child with an incurable disease and so on.<br /><br />The risk is an elusive concept. The risk is not recognizing the enormity of the challenge. A trillion dollars and 50 years of dedication is needed. Any mickey mouse glossing over of the technological challenge will be the big risk. The death nail. NASA goes to Congress and claims they can do this mission in 15 years for a hundred billion and in 5 years goes back with an estimate for another hundred billion and 25 years...and the.... <br /><br /> At a trillion dollars (today's dollars) and 50 years it's worth the financial investment and as importantly, the risk of not puting efforts into dead-end technolgy (a la Shuttle). A successful Mars mission might be completed by the centenary of Apollo 11 in 2069. If we are realistic about it then it might be doable. If we jump the gun with inadequate cost expectations and flounder around (Shuttle lesson) then the first successful Mars mission will be around the end of this century.

 

[qso1]

Last I checked, theres nothing immature about knowing when one is talking with another whos views are already set. I accept that you may be against a human mission to mars.<br /><br />If my impression of your statements is wrong, instead of accusing me of being immature, why not just say one way or the other. It'll save us both a little time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

spayss:<br />Do you want to spend that dollar on state-of the-art equipped classrooms? Medicine for your arthritis? Better armor for your son in Iraq? Paying down the 8 trillion dollar debt. Research into alternative fuels? Cleaner air? A mission to Mars?<br /><br />Me:<br />These are excellent alternate ways to spend money and have been brought up in one form or another since the Apollo days. They are hard to compete with and if were going to direct funds to those efforts, (I can't believe that anyone would think government will make sure all this would happen if NASAs budgets are cut) government should lay out an explicit plan to do so. Then show the funds are being spent on these needs. Anything less makes the idea of cutting NASAs budgets for social needs...a false argument.<br /><br />We may as well give up human space flight. Why? Because we will always have a reason not to do it.<br /><br />Since the post Apollo cuts went into effect after 1973-74. We should already have state of the art classrooms, medicines. Can you, Guns, Nyal, and Gsus tell the rest of us where the billions of already cut NASA dollars went?<br /><br />Maybe if we focused more on peaceful pursuits instead of global adventurism for the sake of oil, American troops wouldn't have to die. Maybe some spinoff from NASA research could point us in the right direction for alternative energy.<br /><br />You, Guns, Nyal, and Gsus really believe the government is going to cut NASA and direct their funds to the causes you mentioned? <br /><br />This isn't about some pet project. In fact, I'll lay down a challenge. Anyone who can cut NASAs budget and show me where the cuts are applied, and that they were applied...I will withdraw my support for NASA human space flight although my only real support is in words.<br /><br />Hmmmm...cutting NASA out completely would blast that 8 trillion dollar debt down to 7.984 T dollars. I'm impressed already. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

spayss:<br /><br />"As Buzz aldrin once stated "The devil is in the details. Thousands of details'. "<br /><br />Yes, and he added that any one of those details not completely thought out was a potential show stopper. The most obscure issue can become a blind tunnel sucking billions of dollars and years of research. The word 'foam' has become a nightmare at NASA. <br /><br />

 

[chidave]

Yes, but I hope it's not a plant a flag and not return again for decades when we do <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Risk? Provided this is not greater than historical missions (2% chance of crew loss) it's worth it.<br /><br />Cost? Provided the program costs over 20 years come in at no more than $200 million curent terms, then it is worthwhile.<br /><br />Flags and footprints? Even the smallest Mars mission (in terms of people and time on the surface) such as most Russian studies involve two people on the surface for 30 days. Even a single mission of this type would teach us more about Mars that the entire Apollo progream taught us about the Moon. While I do not advocate missions of this sort, I would rather see people on Mars this way than not all.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

You betcha! <br /><br />Rae

 

[no_way]

To answer the original question:<br />this depends on the risk and cost, obviously.<br /><br />The estimates from various sources for both of these vary WILDLY<br /><br />with risk of one out of ten chances of reaching the surface or mars for tens of billions of dollars, its definitely not worth it.

 

[bdewoody]

Is owning an automobile worth the risk and cost?<br /><br />Like your question it depends on your point of view.<br /><br />Approximately 40,000 Americans die in traffic accidents every year. The cost of driving/owning a car is higher than the cost of using public transportation.<br /><br />BTW I own a car and wouldn't let anyone take it away from me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>