When are we going to Mars??

[cuddlyrocket]

The $1 trillion estimate comes from updating for inflation the cost of the Mars mission proposed in 1989. This plan included doubling the size of the yet to be built Freedom Space Station, use it as an orbital dry dock for building a massive spaceship fully equipped with all fuel and provisions, additional orbital support stations for fuel storage and work crew living space, and a permanent lunar base to support the project, and was costed at $450 billion at the time!<br /><br />Nowadays derided as a 'Battlestar Galactica' approach, the plan was obsolete when the Mars Direct and similar missions were proposed, where the cost is vastly reduced by 'in-situ resource utilisation' - that is, using the Martian atmosphere to manufacture propellant.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when the VSE was proposed some journalist googled 'Mars mission' and found the obsolete plan and reported it as the current cost after adjusting for inflation (being, as most journalists are, ignorant of these matters). Succeeding journalists now find the $1 trillion figure when <i>they</i> google.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Unfortunately, when the VSE was proposed some journalist googled 'Mars mission' and found the obsolete plan and reported it as the current cost after adjusting for inflation (being, as most journalists are, ignorant of these matters). Succeeding journalists now find the $1 trillion figure when they google. <br />----------<br />About the same as the $100 billion figure for the ISS costs, that is quoted all the time, although most of the journalists haven't got a clue where this comes from and that the costs up to now for the ISS have been about $27 billion for NASA.

 

[quasar2]

hi, astronaut23, glad to see you back. i don`t live in Raleigh anyomre. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fatal291]

I love Battlestar Galactica <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[qso1]

no_way:<br />My question is, if people ask about Mars, why does everyone start talking about NASA budget ?<br /><br />Me:<br />Two space agencies on this planet have demonstrated the ability to do a wide range of human operations in space. NASA and the Russian Space Agency (RSA). So here in the U.S. NASA comes to mind.<br /><br />Most private companies are not able to finance such a venture. If they could, they would have by now. The companies that could, usually built there business on something other than space so they are not going to take their profits and plow them back into an effort not related to their product.<br /><br />Until another entity demonstrates an ability to not only just put a person in space, but put up the habs and gain operational experience...NASA and the RSA equal space for now where human activity and unmanned mars mission experience is concerned. <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]

mithridates:<br />and most other countries with space agencies are able to do the same things NASA can with much less money anyway.<br /><br />Me:<br />If this is true, why haven't these countries demonstrated this?<br /><br />mithridates:<br />I really think there's an odd fixation with NASA, and not nearly enough awareness of the world as a whole when it comes to space.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your right about the world awareness thing. However, the NASA fixation you mention is there because NASA, and the RSA remain the only agencies who have demonstrated human operational ability in space that would be required for undertaking a mars mission. <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]

<font color="yellow">Me: If this is true, why haven't these countries demonstrated this? </font><br /><br />Beyond the alleged international prestige, there is minimal economic value in floating humans around in space. Perhaps there is room for some commercial materials science, but the costs are simply too enormous once government inefficiencies are involved. <br /><br />Other countries have quite rationally invested their very limited capital in launchers, commsats, earth observation, and cheaper unmanned probes.

 

[qso1]

Which is my point. The other posts seem to imply that these countries can send humans to Mars anytime they wish. The fact is, nobody has demonstrated the ability to send humans to Mars in part due to the cost barriers currently in place whether deliberate or not. In addition to that are technical hurdles yet to be overcome.<br /><br />NASA and the RSA are the only two agencies in the world who have demonstrated enough operational experience with humans in space to be considered serious contenders for sending humans to mars.<br /><br />The other countries do have the potential for being capable of sending humans to mars as evidenced by their experience with unmanned spaceflight. But potential is one thing, demonstrated ability is another and demonstrated ability is the reason NASA is mentioned in conjunction with sending humans to mars.<br /><br />In fact...even the RSA has not really quite got the humans beyond earth orbit thing down as evidenced by their failure to land man on the moon. Their unmanned mars probe failures indicate they have some work ahead of them in getting humans to mars as well.<br /><br />BTW, I've been using RSA to describe the Russian Space Agency which I believe has since changed names but I cannot recall what they call their space agency now. <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>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Most private companies are not able to finance such a venture. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Microsoft, a certain "private company" has a 50 billion in cash reserve. That is just the surplus cash that they do have.<br />There are a lot of companies that could finance a trip to mars, especially if you dont go about it the most expensive way possible, like your favorite government space agency tends to do.

 

[qso1]

Keep in mind, thats the reason I mentioned most companies are not able to finance such ventures, key word most.<br /><br />But where Microsoft is concerned, you are correct. Microsoft does have the cash to finance such a mission or at least the first stages of a mars program. Microsoft, as would any corporation, will not spend cash reserves on anything other than its core business unless it wishes to branch off into another potentially profitable venture.<br /><br />Hopefully, one of the start up space companies will eventually finance all or part of a mars program in conjunction, or if possible and necessary...independant of NASA. <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]

No, NASA have merely shown that they are irresponsible handlers of capital. Every single one of their manned sojourns has had dubious scientific and economic merit.

 

[mithridates]

I think for most of them the answer is quite obvious:<br /><br />Argentina: founded in 1996, still too new.<br />Brazil: not too bad for South America.<br />Canada: underfunded.<br />India: just starting to get going.<br />Japan: too much fixation on using local technology, I think.<br />Mexico: will be starting this year.<br /><br />Etc. etc. Out of the list here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_agency<br /><br />A number of countries were part of the USSR until just a bit over a decade ago, and never had the chance to make their own space program. Other nations like Poland have spent their entire time getting ready to join the EU, and thus both haven't had the desire to make a space agency, and can contribute to the ESA after joining anyway if they wish so there was no need to try to set anything up on their own beforehand.<br /><br />I'm certainly no expert but it looks to me like a lot of countries are just on the cusp of making their own contributions. I'd like to see more countries like Turkey in there too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"No, NASA have merely shown that they are irresponsible handlers of capital. Every single one of their manned sojourns has had dubious scientific and economic merit."<br /><br />Not correct.<br /><br />Apollo completely changed our understandiung of the Moon and collected data far beyond the ability of any unmanned missions, both in quantitity and type. The results of the Apollo missions provide the foundation to planetary science.<br /><br />Skylab completely changed ourt understanding of the Sun, discovering aspects of solar behaviour such as coronal mass ejections that previous unmanned missions had not. Not only was this of fundamental scientific importance, it was also of great economic importance because of the impact of CMEs on communications.<br /><br />I and my colleagues use SRTM data every day at work to inform land management decisions involving natural hazard mitigation, groundater flow systems, and compilation of national physiogrographic regions. The SRTM data is of immense economic value.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

NOTE TO ALL<br /><br />moderator Mode on<br /><br />This is not to degenerate into yet another mindless NASA bashing or anti-human space flight thread. The OP asked the reasonmable question of when to people think we will go to Mars. Let's keep to that. <br /><br />If you want to bash NASA or human space flight, start your own thread.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />Moderator mode off <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Rubbish. It would have been an order of magnitude cheaper to launch SRTM without the 100T of deadweight it was attached to. Ditto with removing the ATM from Apollo.

 

[qso1]

Seems to me your basically against human spaceflight and no argument will change that. But the only question left would be, if you eliminate human spaceflight, how would you ensure the money wouldn't be wasted somewhere else?<br /><br />As for Mars...one of the biggest contributions that can be made by a human mars mission is the ability of humans to seek out potential microbiological life forms. Robots could do this but like the Viking missions, robot data will always be open to interpretation by those on the ground.<br /><br />A human expedition could set up an outpost or base to study microbiological life forms if found. Will it be expensive, yes and thats regardless of what entity does it. Though I think the private sector has more incentive for making it less expensive overall. <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]

Post deleted by Nyarlathotep

 

[rocketman5000]

Significant amounts of ATMOSPHERE

 

[fatal291]

Yeah i think im going to gear towards being a Geologist, when you find a new planet the first thing you do is see it (possibly the surface) so that seems like the most important job. You can't land somewhere without knowing more about the actual ground. <br /><br /><br />I wish NASA had reps, we have had people from the Marines and NAVY come to our class "not to recruit" yet he took all our names and addresses down (given to him by the school) Why can't NASA do this? Why don't SOMEONE from NASA come to visit schools? I've seen NASA Tv and the farthest the reps have gone seems to be within their own county. Their website is not very helpful at all, all I ever get is "STUDY MATH AND SCIENCE THEN WHEN YOU GRADUATE GO TO A MAJOR COLLEGE" That is really obvious at this point.

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Rubbish. It would have been an order of magnitude cheaper to launch SRTM without the 100T of deadweight it was attached to. Ditto with removing the ATM from Apollo.</i><br /><br />It is irrelevant whether SRTM should have flown unmanned. The fact remains it wasn't. No unmanned misison has provided equivalent coverage that is as widely available. <br /><br />As for the ATM, there were a number of unmanned solar missions before Skylab that failed to discover CMEs. The CME discovery therefore was the consequence of a manned mission.<br /><br />Further, your original statement was <i>Every single one of their manned sojourns has had dubious scientific and economic merit</i>. Whether or not the misisons could have performed unmanned does not change the fact that the SRTM mission and Skylab solar observations had - and continue to have - considerable scientific value.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>If Mars is going to be colonised, the most important boots on the ground will be those worn by mining engineers and geologists. Myself, I just don't see why private efforts would be wasting their time and precious deltav inside a gravity well. What is there on Mars that isn't on Phobos, Deimos and in NEAs?</i><br /><br />Atmospheric CO2, nitrogen, argon and water.<br /><br />Abundant free water as ice<br /><br />Sulphates of magnesium (highly electrolysable for metallic Mg production)<br /><br />Highly differentiated mafic rocks (potential copper, chromium deposits)<br /><br />An active hydrosphere combined with geothermal energy (potential hydrothermal depositsof arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, silver, gold).<br /><br />Gravity (may be neccessary for long term human habitation, certainly very useful for mineral processing.<br /><br />Remember that there is no minable commodity in space that makes economic sense to bring back to earth. Space mining may well be an important activity one day - but in support of space industry, not those of Earth.<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>

 

[dragon04]

I'd like to see a mission to Mars in my lifetime (I'm 46), but unfortunately, I don't think it's a pragmatic possibility.<br /><br />It would be difficult in the extreme to fund parallel programs that have America both establishing a permanent presence on the Moon and doing Mars missions simultaneously.<br /><br />From what I've seen here, most folks aren't in favor of multinational co-operative efforts for either program.<br /><br />Mars is not impossible, but it is impractical at this time given our technology and resources if we desire to pursue a program as ambitious as a manned presence on the Moon. Not to mention our obligations to the ISS.<br /><br />I think that for the next few decades, we will probably focus on a vigorous (and cost effective) robotic effort on Mars. There are a lot of advantages to this. Mars is a long way from home, and there is a much smaller margin of error in completing a successful mission to Mars and back.<br /><br />I personally believe we need to rethink the type of mission profile we pursue when it comes to Mars. I don't think that in practical terms Mars is a "there and back again" mission like the Moon was in the Apollo Era.<br /><br />To me, the approach to Mars is one of getting there, and setting up shop in terms of manned missions. Nobody likes to consider the cost vs. return issues, but when a society undertakes an endeavor to travel tens of millions of miles just to get to a destination, one has to consider the resources expended and what it means to the duration of our presence there.<br /><br />The easiest and most economical way to get men and women to Mars is off the table. We can't environmentally justify building an Orion type craft that uses atomic bombs to launch from Earth's surface, and we can't build one in orbit and transfer the required "propellant" up to space without violating UN Treaty on space based weapons.<br /><br />Perhaps in the meantime, the answer is to develop advanced propulsion systems that greatly reduce the c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Yeah i think im going to gear towards being a Geologist, when you find a new planet the first thing you do is see it (possibly the surface) so that seems like the most important job. You can't land somewhere without knowing more about the actual ground.</i><br /><br />I have been a geologist for 25 years and it's been great. I have been paid to go to some of the most amazing places. It is also, as you say, a dirrectly relevant skill for going to Mars (or anywhere else for that matter).<br /><br />Get a good geology degree and then move on to planetary science. If you can get a couple years experience in the mining and exploration industry first it would be invaluable.<br /><br />The world is critically short of good geologists.<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>

 

[brellis]

hi Jon<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The world is critically short of good geologists. </font>- lots of irony in those words. I always look forward to hearing your geologically-informed comments on Images of Mars, etc.<br /><br />I like this thread -- ask a simple question, and it opens up a wide-ranging discussion. Another angle would be <b><font color="orange">"How</font></b> are we going to Mars?"<br />More specific to the adverb "how":<br /><br />What are the ethical boundaries interacting with a planet that may, in the past, present or future, be home to life of its own? <br /><br />Can we do a better job of stewardship than we have so far on earth? We've already left a few messy campsites on Mars. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />If manned missions are accomplished by private or foreign organizations, do they have to follow rules set forth by government? A private launch could ignore safety standards altogether, take a huge risk and land humans on Mars much more quickly. <br /><br />What are the ethics of a one-way trip? Would a 75-year-old Stephen Hawking consider it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Now those are interesting questions, and are the sort that need to be discussed before we go. They lie at the core of the assumptions people make about space mining, space settlement and terraforming, for example. But also impact on simple issues like waste dispoal approaches. Start a thread!<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>