Is Travel to Mars really out if the question?

[Catastrophe]

Apart from original transportation and maintenance, there will always be consumables.

Just check on what is needed to extract any metal on location and estimate the cost of getting it there, when "there" includes the cost of lift off and interplanetary and interstellar travel.

Before you suggest "local" manufacture, remember that, to begin the process, everything required must exceed the escape velocity of Earth.

I am only asking for facts in place of uninformed guesswork.
How about starting by just providing the cost of starting on the Moon?

Or maybe better still, put off further discussion until all these wonderful new discoveries have been made.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Perhaps some will enjoy what may have been the original plan:

2nd International Congress on Astronautics, 1951
Presented by Dr. Werner Von Braun, age 39.

* 950 trips with spaceships having "three steps" (stages). They would travel to a space platform

* 70 men build 13 spaceships: 10 for traveling to Mars ("orbit to orbit vehicles"); 3 for landing.

* 600 tons of supplies required, excluding the 36,600 tons of fuel used to get to Earth orbit.

* The "landers" would have very large wings due to the thin atmosphere. [Others proposed parachutes, etc.]

* 50 men would land in the three ships.

* Several hundred tons of supplies for the trip.

* Two ships would travel back to Mars orbit, leaving the third which carried no fuel, but more supplies.

* 150 tons of supplies for the landing party.

* ~ 400 days to and from Mars.

* Total time of 2 years, 239 days.

[Taken from "The Real Book (series) -- Space Travel, 1952, Hal Goodwin

 

[Helio]

Since after the great Mars opposition of 1877, Schiaparelli (and Secchi) noted Mars had "canali".

Lowell gets excited about canals on Mars, and builds what he hoped would be the world's greatest observatory, IMO (1896). It was a 24", smaller than the Lick's 36", but it was ~ 3000 feet higher, knowing the altitude would be an advantage. [Other factors, however, may have limited some of their great observing conditions.]

He "confirms" that there are canals on Mars, which helped spur great excitement. HG Wells "War of the Worlds" had surfaced about this time. It was in book form in 1898.

The ice caps also indicated a water world possibility.

Surface feature changes suggested clouds.

This optimism faded, especially after a few probes finally got to Mars.

But, more and more, we are finding some evidence for subsurface water, plus strong evidence for large bodies of water that were there long ago.

As the book notes, such a space trip would be "very hard and dangerous". But I sure hope we don't get apathetic about it, especially if it is mostly privately funded.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

Apart from original transportation and maintenance, there will always be consumables.

Just check on what is needed to extract any metal on location and estimate the cost of getting it there, when "there" includes the cost of lift off and interplanetary and interstellar travel.

Before you suggest "local" manufacture, remember that, to begin the process, everything required must exceed the escape velocity of Earth.

I am only asking for facts in place of uninformed guesswork.
How about starting by just providing the cost of starting on the Moon?

Or maybe better still, put off further discussion until all these wonderful new discoveries have been made.

Cat

I am only asking for facts in place of uninformed guesswork. How about starting by just providing the cost of starting on the Moon?

Presentable facts are those things which have happened; speculation which might be able to be given is valid only first an agreement is reached on a given time frame and/or project and that there be agreement on whether project is about a onetime project. Which will always have cost that can/will be astronomical.

Moving forward from there if we agree that the smallest usable structure (to be, built on the surface of the moon), say a 350 sq ft enclosure will incur a cost of $15,000 per kilogram for transportation of necessary materials from earth. Then upwards of $1,400,000 for it to be constructed once the material transportation is accounted for. For an aluminum manufacturing facility, we are likely talking about 25 to 30 times that (size/price).

Taking the 30 as our base we are starting at $49,000,000. Then because we are speaking of not building it here on earth. Instead, of the usual 15% extra for unexpected expenditures let’s make it 25% which brings us to $61,250,00. Now we have arrived into purely speculation territory to truthfully move forward. Which I agree is and would be out of my area of expertise. IOW that would take a far greater know of far more variables than I can provide.

Then again without a willingness to move forward from the known to the unknown ...progress seizes.

 

[Catastrophe]

Have you checked the current cost of aluminium? Needs to increase a bit before an extraterrestrial source can be considered?

Google Search

As of March 14, 2025, the current cost per kg of aluminum scrap in the UK ranges from £0.50 to £1.40, depending on the type of scrap and the specific scrap yard.

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

As of March 14, 2025, the current cost per kg of aluminum scrap in the UK ranges from £0.50 to £1.40, depending on the type of scrap and the specific scrap yard.

Cat

I’m more inclined that say that mining/gathering the materials, raw or for smelting(?). Here on earth, shipping it to the moon for processing, then shipping back to earth for consumption. Is a complete waste of time and money.

But if the raw materials were to be, found/discovered, on the moon and or asteroids, which could be; redirected to the moon. And then processed there for the earth consumption or other needs, as may become available/necessary, then we may have a different prospective to look at.

Ah but to dream the impossible dream