<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To come back to McCain, if I may venture an opinion, his talk about going to Mars sounds a lot like sweet-talking a certain part of the public to get votes. I am not sure the US can, or should, afford a manned Mars mission today on its own, even if I for one, want to go to Mars too Posted by keermalecI agree, Mcain is looking for the space supporter vote which is fine. Least someone wants our vote.I'm of the opinion that if there were some pressing political reason to go to mars, the government would say money be damned and go. The idea of affordability IMO is relative. When JFK committed the nation to the moon race. There were people who were criticizing the race on cost grounds well before Apollo missions began. Point being, if we as a nation really wanted to send people to mars, we would.Estimates for a fairly conventional mars mission hover around $500 billion which would cover at least a decade. The National debt is over 7 trillion for one year as it grows each year. That being the case, if thats really our concern then we have a few other places government ought to start cutting funds on since there is currently no approved human mars mission plan. <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I agree, to a point. When Kennedy made his Moon in this decade pledge Apollo was well under way. It didn't start in 1961, it started much earlier. Not that it wasn't all simply on paper, but it was pretty well understood it could be done before Kennedy committed to it. The same would hold true for Mars, we have sent a fleet of vehicles to Mars and the technology has existed since the Apollo days to send a manned mission, it's more a matter of why bother. Tang, PC's and other leaps in technology came about from Apollo. So why could we not expect the same from Mars?</p><p>The biggest problem is everyone sits back and expects NASA to lead the way, the problem is they have already lead the way, they have shown it can be done so it is up to the commercial sector to do it, not NASA. The White Knight II might be the first answer. It will take tourists to the edge of Space, but it could also take an upper stage that could reach orbit, if you could take a bunch of upper stages to orbit and assemble them then you have a vehicle to go somewhere else. The problem being it would take a number of flights to assemble a vehicle to the moon, on the scale of the White KnightII, but if each flight is a fraction of an existing launcher then so much the better.</p><p>Not having a clear reference, a White KnightII could put 3-4 people into orbit, if they didn't want to come back. It could, maybe, put a return capsule for that number in orbit, with no passengers, so we are on the fringe of commercial Space. The upper stage is the key, air-dropped at 50,000 feet it would take roughly three times the propellant as a Centaur upper stage has now, to make up the loss of velocity with an eqivelent payload. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>