Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost?

brellis · Sep 18, 2006

There are different ways to define cost, but the value of money has always been arbitrary, so $50Billion isn't too much just because it's a lot of $$. It is of absolutely no significance to the US bottom line how much we spend, or to borrow a Clintonian verb, "invest" in human spaceflight, especially given the enormous returns. I'm reminded of Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path any time the cost of exploration comes up. One of his concepts is that people shouldn't be doing menial tasks that can be easily performed by machines. Historically, the point of humans advancing our technology has been not only to survive, but to be comfortable and have time to think up new and better ways to live in the future. In the spirit of Mr. Fuller's argument, I'm in favor of a massive unmanned space program to build stations and manufacturing bases throughout the solar system. Let the machines do everything possible to make it comfortable for human spaceflight. We have the technology to start everything in motion today, so why wait? Manned spaceflight is very risky, so perhaps more aspects should be opened up to private enterprise. For that matter, does anyone need government permission to fly away to the moon or mars? How many people would be happy to be on a one-way trip to outer space? But you're right about the cost of the Iraq War. We could use that money in much more productive ways. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

nyarlathotep · Sep 18, 2006

We have the technology to do a manned mars mission today if we'd just get over putting the wetware in the lander and leave it in orbit. Perhaps that's what we should be doing first.

qso1 · Sep 18, 2006

You bring up some really good points on having much of spaceflight be done unmanned. I'd like to see industrialization of low orbit or space and see it done with a combination of unmanned and man tended craft. I like Buckys idea on freeing humanity to do something other than menial tasks. But in the real world, most people look at that as taking jobs away. Countless folks I talk to say they don't know what they'd do if they retire. I like to retire yesterday because I know what I would do. I'm trapped in the workworld. It would take at least a generation of changing mindsets to free minds. Minds that by and large are geared to workworld living. You also pointed out the private industry involvment which I definetely see much promise and potential in doing. brellis: There are different ways to define cost, but the value of money has always been arbitrary, Me: There will be a limit as to what we can realistically spend as long as its taxpayer financed. For something like a human mars mission, the annual NASA budget will have to go up significantly and the vast majority of taxpayers will question the money spent. This is why I emphasize the larger wastes of money. Question those before picking a politically easy target. The wasted deficits negate any benefits that cutting NASA might have many times over. The most ardent space spending critic should be able to see that there is no way to direct money saved from a $17 B annual budget to good causes if each year, $400 B dollars is lost to deficit spending. Some would say we could cut human space flight and ease the deficit. That don't work because whos to say the deficit won't be larger the next year? Deficits have a nasty habit of growing each budget cycle. If there was ever science fiction, the idea of saving money and putting it towards good causes is sci fi at its best....Yeh, like our government will see to it that actually happens. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Sep 18, 2006

That we do. Most of the tech is in place, we just have to develop the vehicles to get us there and back. The only tech that still needs a little work is the feeding of the crew in a practical way but that would be developed once a go ahead was given to go to mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

oscar1 · Sep 18, 2006

I feel confident that we can sort out the food issue, albeit not quite the 'à la carte' variety. One could think of a water tank with eel at the top of the chain. One could think of growing watercress for vitamine C. One could take along pills for trace elements, ultra dry 'biltong' (dried meat) and split peas. So I am sure that the forage issue indeed won't cause a major problem.

qso1 · Sep 19, 2006

I agree. Its just a matter of deciding how we are going to get to mars. That will drive whatever food tech is required. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

christine16 · Sep 19, 2006

the voting just ended you can see results on www.bertran.uni.cc

vulture2 · Sep 25, 2006

The only way to make it worth the risk and cost is to _lower_ the risk and cost. Going to Mars with current technology would be like trying to support a permanent base at the South Pole with dogsleds. It could be done, but it would be a waste of resources and would eventually be abandoned. The money would be better spent first developing the technology that will make human spaceflight practical. That will take longer, and it will be more difficult, but when we are done human spaceflight will be as practical and sustainable as aviation is today.

JonClarke · Sep 25, 2006

What you define as an acceptable risk and cost? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

qso1 · Sep 26, 2006

vulture2: The only way to make it worth the risk and cost is to _lower_ the risk and cost. Going to Mars with current technology would be like trying to support a permanent base at the South Pole with dogsleds. Me: I hope your right. Thats been the thought since the end of Apollo and today, we still don't have that practical technology. IMO, I don't see us going to Mars in the next half century unless a compelling reason, one that captures public imagination sends us there. That to me would be the discovery of microbiological life forms or fossil evidence of life forms on Mars. This would justify a human mission as thats really the only way to be absolutely sure what was discovered is indeed actual living organisms, assuming there are any. Research into the martian exobiology would justify continual presence of humans on Mars. One could actually make a case for confining the vast majority of the work on Mars. The natural environment for study and minimal interplanetary cross contamination risk potential. And the eventual growth of a small mars base to support growing numbers of researchers from all over earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

oscar1 · Sep 26, 2006

'Acceptable risk' is pretty vague I reckon. I had a friend who would throw away anything in her fridge that was even one day past 'sell-by date', yet she got killed driving far too fast and overtaking where she wasn't allowed to and couldn't.

qso1 · Sep 26, 2006

I would define acceptable risk and cost as the following: What will it cost? How long will the program be sustained? If an estimate from traditional NASA contractors is made, the actual costs will probably exceed that by at least 30%. This is the figure we must ask of ourselves...do we want to pay that? As a nation or coalition of nations, how long will we be willing to support a human mars program? Can we as a nation or nations afford it? This will require a complete overhaul of current thinking, mainly the idea that we'd be better off spending the money on social problems. The first step is to know that we won'd save any money for social causes if it is cut. Unless we require our government to show where NASA budget cuts are going and see results such as annual progress reports, visible signs of such progress, and media documentation of progress. Short of that, assuming approval of a mars mission, costs should be held down in part by utilizing private industry/enterprise solutions to the extent possible. The most likely role being LEO access. My own answer. On cost, probably from $50 to $150 billion to the first or maybe second landing. after the 30% is added and depending on the type of mission. Inflations over the next two decades cannot be factored in. If a program start is made around year 2010, a first landing should be possible by 2025. 15 years at $150 B dollars is of course, $10 B dollars average annually added to the NASA budget or almost $30 B dollars added to present budgets. The record 1965 NASA budget would still exceed this figure by $2 B dollars. In addition, the total budget does not necessarily have to reach $10 B dollars annually with proper management. Apollo was estimated in 1961 or 62 to be potentially as high as $40 B dollars. It ended up at $25-26 B dollars (1970 dollars). We can afford it barring a major economic catastrophe. If we have to sacrifice it for the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

JonClarke · Sep 26, 2006

I hope your right. Thats been the thought since the end of Apollo and today, we still don't have that practical technology. There are many areas of technology necessary for a misison to Mars. In which areas to have not have it? IMO, I don't see us going to Mars in the next half century unless a compelling reason, one that captures public imagination sends us there. That to me would be the discovery of microbiological life forms or fossil evidence of life forms on Mars. This is a catch 22 reason. If life would be found then a human misison would be the best way to study it. But, if life were found there would be a vast clamour for humans not to be sent because of the risks of forward contamination, back contamination, and loss of crew through some nasty disease. A single justification is also probably not enough. that is why a broad based research program is more likely to succeed. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Sep 26, 2006

My take on risks and cost for Mars missions. Risk Historically human spaceflight has had a ~2% chance of crew loss per mission. Currently the chance of a crew is ~1%. I suggest for a pioneering misison to Mars the risk for crew loss should not exceed 2% Cost If we assume that it would be a NASA mission I think a reasonable target cost would be to allocate half of the NASA budget. With the present budget that is, what $10 billion per year? Over a 10 year development period that is $100 billion. Incremental costs of $3 billion per mission (all in 2006 $$). Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

qso1 · Sep 26, 2006

We have much of the technology for a mars mission today but vulture2 had mentioned that using current tech would be like going to the south pole in dogsleds. So the practical tech ref was just me saying we don't have what he considers to be the practical tech. JonClarke: This is a catch 22 reason. If life would be found then a human misison would be the best way to study it. But, if life were found there would be a vast clamour for humans not to be sent because of the risks of forward contamination, back contamination, and loss of crew through some nasty disease. Me: Thats for sure. JonClarke: A single justification is also probably not enough. that is why a broad based research program is more likely to succeed. Me: True as well, in fact...studying life on Mars involves the study of the martian biosphere to try and understand how life could sustain itself. disciplines such as meteorology and geology, would be studied to gain a broader understanding of the martian ecosystem. Thinking back to Apollo, the goal was to beat the Russians. But Apollo encompassed more than just that, as such and along the lines of what you mentioned as a broader scope program. Apollo had a science agenda along with a political one. The political one is the one that interests the lay public for the most part. And with Mars, I can envision the news talking about life on mars which would capture the lay publics attention while the equally important ecosystem studies would probably interest those with more than just a passing interest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Sep 26, 2006

Your cost figures are closer to what I had in mind but I deliberately inflated mine to account for potential government contractor inflation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

JonClarke · Sep 27, 2006

ulture2 had mentioned that using current tech would be like going to the south pole in dogsleds And that is the level technology that started the exploration of Antarctica. The achievements of that era - of Scott, Amundsen, Mawson, Shackleton, Byrd, Wilkins and others - laid the basis for more advanced exploration later on. If people had waited until all-weather aircraft, icebreakers, and reliable tracked vehicles were available the exploration of Antarctica would have been delayed by 50 years. Why should we not go to Mars in our life time with the technology available and thereby lay the foundation for more advanced missions later on? To do otherwise is to procrastinate. No matter how advanced the technology we can alsways say in another 10 years we could do it better. Jon . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

bpfeifer · Sep 27, 2006

My answer is yes, but of course you're asking this on a forum populated by space enthusiasts. Try asking the same question on the morning farm report, or of the Latino's who clean your office building... I think there's a more important question - Reguardless of the risk and cost, will human's visit Mars? If you examine the history of human exploration (the Americas, the Arctic, and the Antarctic), is't obvious that we will explore Mars. The question is will it be in our lifetime? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

oscar1 · Sep 27, 2006

You know, Carl Sagan wrote in his very last book (of 1996) that we moved from millions to billions, and that the trillions are already lurking around the corner. During the last two decades it has become around ten times more difficult to start a business in a western country, for the big guys take charge of almost every avenue of production and trade by combining, and also by absorbing most of the pension bucks. Unfortunately, that inflates the offered cost for anything biggish tremendously, especially where public funds are to foot the bill. But did any of you ever see the film 'The Great Race' (Jack Lemon, Tony Curtis, et al/1965/such a race did in fact take place)? Perhaps if a prize of say 10 bio. dollars is offered to the first entity to set foot on Mars, we might see some more activity in the direction of our outer neighbour.

j05h · Sep 27, 2006

> Perhaps if a prize of say 10 bio. dollars is offered to the first entity to set foot on Mars, we might see some more activity in the direction of our outer neighbour. Robert Zubrin, among others, has advocated this solution. It would speed efforts tremendously, because their would be a reason to go. A $10B prize would only be part of it, the media and scientific rights could be equally large. A standing prize could provide the "base" to get enough investment to build the needed systems. Zubrin of course wanted Congress to allocate the prize. The XPrize Foundation would seem to be a more realistic choice, if they were up to the task. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

oscar1 · Sep 27, 2006

Wait a minute, the way you put it sounds like there is only the US. If a pro rata system for 'first choice' of ownership of Marsian real estate is introduced by say a 'G-8 + China agreement', then the prize-kitty, be it a 10 bio. or even a 50 bio. reward, is likely to be pledged in no time, while the participants putting up the prize money will themselves almost certainly want to get involved in the race. Heck, it may even detract them from other things, like contemplating a war somewhere.

JonClarke · Sep 27, 2006

Race prizes were a great incentive in the early history of motoring and aviation. Alcock and Brown's first crossing of the Atlantic and the Smith brothers flight from London to Australia, are good examples. In motoring there was the famous Peking to Paris rally of 1905, recently reenacted with vintage or replica vehicles. All these were done with off the shelf technology. Alcock and Brown and the Smith brothers used military surplus Vimy bombers. The Peking to Paris valley used standard cars. We can't go to Mars using off the shelf technology that an entrant can buy, at least not yet. The X-Prize, while admirable, was technically less demanding than what had been done 40 years before by the Russians and NASA. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

vulture2 · Sep 27, 2006

>>Vulture2 had mentioned that using current tech would be like going to the south pole in dogsleds />>And that is the level technology that started the exploration of Antarctica. An excellent point, Jon, and perfectly true. But Amudsen's mission was classic "Flags and Footprints". No one even returned to the Pole until almost fifty years later, when they came to stay, with safe and practical modern cargo aircraft, thanks in no small part to the mundane but revolutionary work of NASA's predecessor, NACA. If Henry J.E.Reid, perhaps NACA/NASA's most successful leader in terms of providing real benefits to the world, had heard that we built a reusable spacecraft, used it with only minor changes for over twenty years, then abandoned the concept to return to even earlier technology, he would have been aghast! It is like using only the Wright Flyer until 1930 and then concluding heavier-than-air craft are not practical and going back to balloons. COTS is at least an attempt to work toward technology that can finally make human spaceflight practical and safe, as were the X-33, X-34, X-37, and DC-X. I readily admit this is a difficult goal, but I believe it would be of lasting value, and it can surely be achieved within our lifetimes if only we are as confident, and determined, as our predecessors. For some info on Henry Reid and the "original" NASA mission, see http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/sp4305.htm

j05h · Sep 27, 2006

> Wait a minute, the way you put it sounds like there is only the US. There is every reason to think the USA would post a Mars landing prize. National prizes happen all the time. Even private prizes can be national (or even state) specific, America's Space Prize being an example. Could an international prize be posted? Sure. I'm not against it. Whatever works. I agree with Jon above about settling Antarctica and there's no time like now to start w/ Mars. I think you'd be surprised how much hardware is available for Mars/offworld use. There's lots of underwater and mining hardware that is directly applicable. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

christine16 · Sep 27, 2006

hehehe it seems that poll is open couse, couse quite a lot of you asked to do so, you can find it here, Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost? http://bertran.uni.cc/exploring-the-universe/ couse your whish is granted

Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost?

brellis

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

oscar1

Guest

qso1

Guest

christine16

Guest

vulture2

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

qso1

Guest

oscar1

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

oscar1

Guest

j05h

Guest

oscar1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vulture2

Guest

j05h

Guest

christine16

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page