Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost?

[frodo1008]

The difference (that the negativists don't seem to be aware of) is that the $400 billion to go to Mars is NOT going to be spent in one year! I would be quite shocked to learn that such a flight is going to take anything less than two decades to design and build!<br /><br />It IS a known fact that money spent on high tech projects (which certainly includes the space program) in general eventually comes back with very good interest to the economy. I mean how much was the development of PC's and the internet worth in the long run? What are communication, GPS, and Earth obervation satellites (which took vast amounts of wealth to develop) worth?<br /><br />These developments are worth trillions of dollars today and will only get to be worth more and more as time goes by!<br /><br />Even if Mars itself is somewhat of a bust as a destination, the TECHNOLGY developed to be able to place human beings there will be worth far more than the cost in the long run!<br /><br />The resources of just this solar system itself will eventually be worth literally thousands of times as much as all the current resources of this entire planet!<br /><br />So it would certainly seem to be a VERY worthwhile investment in the future. Besides if we don't at least get the thrust of human industry and civilization and its resultatnt pollution off this Earth in the next one hundred yeas or so, there may not even BE an Earth to live on anyway! <br /><br />Would THAT be worth it for the future of mankind? <br /><br />

 

[scipt]

OK, Put simply... If you told me that i could be the first man to walk on Mars, but that i would die there after one year as no return was planned. I'd do it. I'm only 23. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[christine16]

voting soon be closed, dont hesitate to express your opinion

 

[halman]

I didn't vote in the poll, because it lacks a qualifier; Not at this time.<br /><br />To avoid the same kind of dead-end program that Apollo turned out to be, we need to develop our abilities in a step-by-step fashion. First, we learn how to reach orbit and return in a safe, reliable, manner. Then, we build a space station, where we learn how to live and work in the environment of space. Then, we learn to travel to our nearest neighbor in a safe and reliable manner. Then, we learn how to live and work in the environment we find on our nearest neighbor. Then, we learn how to make the substantially longer trip to our next nearest neigbor, in a safe and reliable manner. This is the step where we go to Mars, and it is several steps away from where we are.<br /><br />To do otherwise, to jump ahead several steps, runs the risk of derailing the whole process, where our success seems so overwhelming that there appears little need to continue the investment. If we, at great expense and difficulty, send a manned mission to Mars, the public will question whether investment in developing a transportation system to the Moon is worthwhile. Without the resources of the Moon, developing Mars will be considerably more expensive, because everything will have to be brought up out of the Earth's gravity well. Because of the great expense, and the long lead time before the investment is likely to pay off, investment in developing Mars dwindles, until there is insufficient money available to do anything meaningful.<br /><br />Investing in space exploration means commiting enough resources that development and growth occur continuously. Otherwise, we end up building things that have no use, like the space shuttle in the early 1980's. Instead of spending the money to build a space station, the United States sat on it's laurels, flying the shuttle on make-work missions. Now that the money is finally available to build a space station, the Space Shuttle is nearing the end of its life <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Apollo was not a technological dead end. The technology, experience, infrastructure and knowledge formed much of the basis for the Shuttle program and is now the base from which we will return to the Moon.<br /><br />Lunar voyaging ceased because of the lack of political will or, if you prefer, because Apollo achieved its goals. If you want long term missions to Mars you need long term goals. <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>

 

[j05h]

> If you want long term missions to Mars you need long term goals. <br /><br />That was my reasoning behind the "Private Mars Mission" thread- the only long-term goals available are commercial and personal. I also have to disgree Halman about his incremental development comments. This ony assumes one organization pursuing this over-arching, step-by-step project. If multiple organizations pursue different goals (such as a Phobos fuel station instead of building on Luna) then parallel development does occur. An individual with very deep pockets could fund a Mars fly-by right now. It'd cost several Billion and might be suicide, but is technically possible. All of these efforts are worth it, IMHO.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"...the only long-term goals available are commercial and personal."<br /><br />Unfortunately it's going to be many decades before personal goals will get people to Mars. There is also no commodity on Mars that would presentlu justify exploration.<br /><br />Fortunately there is another option. Scientific research.<br />Scientific agendas have shown time after time the ability to support long term (decadal to century scale) billion dollar endevours without immediate financial return. Examples include deep space astronomy (~200 years +), deep ocean research (150 years +), Antarctic exploration (100 years +), and space exploration beyond earth orbit (40 years +). provided mars exploration is not linked to short term political or social goals (e.g. space races) I don't see why societies that spend billions annual on the research and exploration programs listed above cannot equally sustain Mars exploration.<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>

 

[rfoshaug]

We don't know the risks yet, and we don't know the costs.<br /><br />How could we possibly vote on whether it's worth the risk and cost? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[oscar1]

Scientific research/interest is one good reason indeed. Also, I would think, would a sizable colony on Mars considerably reduce the risk of humanity being wiped out by any one of the scala of Damoclesian swords (real or imagined) hoovering over us. And as a bonus, the value of 'L' in Drake's equation could then be increased substantially.

 

[qso1]

We have a very good idea of the risks and costs. Problem is, in a risk and cost averse society, one that balks at spending $17 B annually on NASA while not saying much about $400 billion deficits or $200 billion dollar annual spending on rebuilding Iraq, it won't matter what the risks or costs are.<br /><br />That is unless someone comes along, some organization comes along and claims it can be done for a few mil. <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>

 

[j05h]

> Unfortunately it's going to be many decades before personal goals will get people to Mars. There is also no commodity on Mars that would presentlu justify exploration. <br /><br />With the various Billionaires tossing money into private space efforts, I'd have to disagree with you. It's starting slow but gaining speed. Elon Musk has been very up-front about building SpaceX into a Mars-bound organization. <br /><br />I do take your point about sustained science , but don't want to see Mars become another Antarctica. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[brazilian_and_proud]

yes it is<br /><br />There can be no vulnerability without risk; there can be no community without vulnerability; there can be no peace, and ultimately no life, without community. M. Scott Peck

 

[olivebird111]

lol tell that to washington,<br />remember tha bush is busy fighting a war 10,000 miles away that he dont know about.. remember the such high gas prices in the U.S.A by that i mean my state california. remember that we still need to improve disease research and cancer and food shortage for the poor, well the US is a place with little bunch of poor but we still need to think about other countries. We have to think about how to stop all the animal from extinction, saving the earth from a wildest natural disaster like hurricane and storm, what about global warming? and the billions of dollars that congress take for just launching one mission?? will all the people and the government risk this? they got tons of problems on their hands already, and we are not doing much. I personally like space and i would say 100% yes to space missions but if you say that to washington i doubt if they even listen to you.

 

[olivebird111]

lol tell that to washington,<br />remember tha bush is busy fighting a war 10,000 miles away that he dont know about.. remember the such high gas prices in the U.S.A by that i mean my state california. remember that we still need to improve disease research and cancer and food shortage for the poor, well the US is a place with little bunch of poor but we still need to think about other countries. We have to think about how to stop all the animal from extinction, saving the earth from a wildest natural disaster like hurricane and storm, what about global warming? and the billions of dollars that congress take for just launching one mission?? will all the people and the government risk this? they got tons of problems on their hands already, and we are not doing much. I personally like space and i would say 100% yes to space missions but if you say that to washington i doubt if they even listen to you. <br /><br />100% yes to space travel, medical research, helping the poor, research natural disasters and preventing them, saving the animals and planet from global warming, no more useless fighting in the world...

 

[christine16]

It's your last chance to vote, couse soon poll would be closed

 

[alokmohan]

It will give rise to new world ,new civilisation.

 

[qso1]

It appears you support human spaceflight and you are quite correct in that Washington will probably laugh at the idea of going to Mars if put to the actual test. I don't even expect VSE to make it past the 2009 Presidential Administration, certainly not the Mars part. However, the arguments presented here have already IMO, been shown to not work, heres why.<br /><br />olivebird111:<br />remember that we still need to improve disease research and cancer and food shortage for the poor, well the US is a place with little bunch of poor but we still need to think about other countries.<br /><br />Me:<br />That won't happen even if human spaceflight were eliminated tomorrow. In fact, this idea has been inadvertantly tested. After 1973-74, NASA budgets dropped from 2 to 4% GDP to the present 1% GDP. An approximate 50% savings since those cuts took effect. No reported improvements in elimination of disease or poverty as a result of the cuts that I'm aware of. Even during the six year hiatus between the ASTP and shuttles first flight. No directly traceable improvement in curing disease or ending poverty. New diseases have actually come about, AIDs and Legionaires are the examples that come to mind. Some older diseases thought to have been eliminated, such as TB, saw a researgence and poverty, no major reductions there. Certainly not the kind of reduction one should see as the result of eliminating NASA. That is, if one believes eliminating human spaceflight is the answer to social problems.<br /><br />There were even the back to back Reagan/Clinton economic booms, why weren't the poor taken care of then? Why wasn't disease cured then?<br /><br />Cutting or eliminating human spaceflight will not do a thing to help those problems unless government is held to a promise of showing these cuts in action. That is, show the supporters of human spaceflight what they are sacrificing human spaceflight for. Show us that the approx. $6 billion spent on space flight is going to various social probl <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>

 

[alokmohan]

Mars has ample scope of trade.Terrafoming mars is possible.It is long term process no doubt.At one point of time we will not have enough space on earth to reside.Get prepared for that day and go to mars.

 

[oscar1]

There is more arithmetic one can apply in favour, if one would incorporate the fact that a good portion of the costs flow back into the economy, directly via jobs (even including the garbage collector), and indirectly via taxes. This is in fact so much the case, that whenever there is a project financed internationally, immediately the bickering about who (which country) gets what job to do starts. In addition to that, we have been collecting funds and goods for poor people in for instance Africa for more than a century now, and the Swiss don't divulge; a Mars mission would at least give us something to show for our money.

 

[qso1]

alokmohan:<br />Get prepared for that day and go to mars.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'll be gone well beyond Mars by the time all the trade and terraforming are taking place, but it is as you mentioned, a long term process. Especially terraforming which I would say could take at least a couple centuries. <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]

Years ago there was a study done that suggested we get $7.00 back for every $1.00 spent on NASA. We need more of that kind of research.<br /><br />But one has to figure, if people are still making the argument that we could spend NASA funds on problems here on Earth. They simply havn't done their homework when you consider the far larger targets out there and the fact NASA budgets have been somewhat stagnant for decades, especially after inflation is factored in. Part of the reason is that media tends to focus on the cost of human spaceflight. Mentioning costs or how expensive each time a report is done. <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>

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />Few people have any idea what the world would be like today if the Apollo program had never been. That is because few people are aware of the revolution which took place in electronics a few years after the Apollo program was cancled. Because the computations needed for the Apollo mission had to be done on the spacecraft at certain points in the mission, NASA requested a simple computer which would not require hundreds of amperes merely to keep the tubes warm. The response was the microprocessor, a computer on a single chip. Without the need for such a huge change in the way computers were built, the microprocessor would probably still not have been created. Who could imagine that nearly every home in the United States would have a computer of its own by the year 2000?<br /><br />The revolution in electronics resulting from microprocessors made possible such devices as the CD player, the cellular phone, and handheld Global Positioning System receivers. Automobiles now commonly have at least one computer onboard, which controls the electronic fuel injection as well as the ignition timing. All of these devices have resulted in huge new markets being created, which in turn has generated vast amounts of wealth. Many of the improvements in productivity seen during the 1990's are a result of computers being adopted to new uses.<br /><br />People trying to deal with the world's problems begrudge every single dollar which does not flow into their effort, without realizing that some spending makes more money available for the cause that they champion. They see only the outlays of government funds, without following those dollars through the economy. Many people also see manned space exploration as a form of scientific research, nothing more. They perhaps do not believe that humans will ever live somewhere else, and therefore cannot appreciate that manned spaceflight will ultimately lead to colonies on Mars, mines on the Moon, and the sphere of human act <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Couldnt agree more, well stated case for human space flight.<br /><br />The only reason I don't bring it up more myself is that critics of HSF will find alternate reasons for why such things came about. That was the main reason I focused on the argument itself. There are plenty of well meaning people who are under the impression we spend vast sums of money on HSF because they hear billions mentioned. And to be sure, it costs billions. But money cut from NASA simply will not find its way to the causes championed by critics. If it did, we'd have already been able to show this. No doubt if the 50% cuts had actually been used to remedy social ills, the critics would have wasted no time in telling us so. I've not seen a single report of money saved from the NASA cuts of the 1970s going to any social causes.<br /><br />That of course, does not even begin to address where we should be taking money from if were in such desperate shape...the billions and billions (To paraphrase Sagan) from Iraq spending or other past government follies such as the S&L scandal. <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]

>"Few people have any idea what the world would be like today if the Apollo program had never been. "<br /><br />Yeah, just imagine a world without Tang, Velcro, transistors, op amps and IC's.<br /><br />Sigh. Marjorie Merriweather Post, Georges de Mestral, Sherman Fairchild, Jack Kilby and William Shockley must be spinning in their graves.