One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

smurf975 · 2004-06-24 17:00:29

Good idea but will the American public accept paying $15 billion a year to keep that astronaut alive?
Uh - Mars Direct estimates $7B for each mission subsequent to the first. My estimate is that a re-supply mission every 2 years would probably take about $200M - so $100M even if the colonists can't become mostly self-sufficient. And that's for 10 colonists, so it's about $10M per colonist.
My more optimistic projection is that we'd end up sending another group of colonists along instead of just a re-supply mission. If we do that every 2 years for $8B each time, that'd be $100M/person_yr for the second mission, $67M/person_yr for the 3rd, $50M/person_yr for the 4th, etc.
If we then stopped sending colonists at 40, and just sent $200M supply missions every 2 years, it's only $2.5M/person_yr. Quite a bit below your $15B estimate!

Ok just got the figures of some real numbers not theoretical as Mars Direct.

And this http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-r … tm]website states:

Cost: Approximately $820 million total (for both rovers)
$645 million for design/development + $100 million for the Delta launch vehicle and the launch + $75 million for mission operations

So that’s just 100 million for launching two tiny rovers and 75 for operations.
---

Your $2.5 million sounds good and should be even cheaper then sending a soldier to Iraq and keep him supplied and happy.

TwinBeam · 2004-06-24 19:46:01

So if I decide to live in Antartica, that means the US goverment is obliged to invest $10 a year in me, just so that I can keep my personal believes?

I THINK you're trying to say "why should I have to pay for this" - meaning through your taxes.

Well, I don't think I've said it has to be a government program - but like you, I do assume that we're not going to get a libertarian government any time soon that would shut down all the government programs that *I* don't think I should have to pay for, thereby freeing up money I and others like me could spend on it. So yes, the most realistic way a Mars colony could get paid for is by government.

I'd love it if I could believe that something like the Mars Society could fund a Mars mission out of their own pockets - and maybe with future technologies (blimps to space? space elevators? nanotech?) that might even become possible. But today, no one believes that is going to happen, so no one is willing to toss the $10 or $1000 or whatever into the kitty that they would be willing to donate if there were a real chance and if they knew it wouldn't happen without their personal support. Human nature makes most people think "Why be a sucker? It'll never happen, because everyone thinks like me."

Like it or not, that's the exact sort of thing that our current form of government supposedly does for us - provide services with broad benefits (even if they're as intangible as national pride) that no one will invest in unless the benefits are pretty much guaranteed, but which many or most people would pay for if the benefits were certain.

Besides - I'm mainly looking at this more from a "how do we make it cheaper/better" angle than a "we should be doing this now" angle. I'll be happy if I just see a real trend toward commercial expansion into space any time soon (e.g. the space tug discussion elsewhere in this forum).

So give me a break!

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 04:20:13

No I was not questioning the reason for a mission to Mars but if I should pay for an astronaut that doesn't want to return to Earth as planned.

TwinBeam · 2004-06-25 10:33:10

No I was not questioning the reason for a mission to Mars but if I should pay for an astronaut that doesn't want to return to Earth as planned.

??? But I think I've made it clear that staying would *be* the plan, and colonists would be chosen who are willing to meet the conditions of that plan, and once there they really wouldn't have any other choice but to stay, at least not for quite a long time.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 10:44:40

No I was not questioning the reason for a mission to Mars but if I should pay for an astronaut that doesn't want to return to Earth as planned.
??? But I think I've made it clear that staying would *be* the plan, and colonists would be chosen who are willing to meet the conditions of that plan, and once there they really wouldn't have any other choice but to stay, at least not for quite a long time.

I was originally responding to MarsDog's post:

One Way - No Way !
There has to be an outpost on Mars.
Leave the return decision with the astronaut,
If he wants to come back to Earth with the shipment of rocks.

And I interpreted it as the astronaut deserting and staying on Mars. As I got the idea that it was the plan to send back the astronaut with the rocks.

But well if its planned or an option for the astronaut to stay, then yes why not, but I don't think an outpost will make a big difference compared to what rovers can do.

In the 7 months - 2 years that the astronaut stayed on Mars they should have basically done all that a human can do on Mars without starting a colony. As for me an outpost is not a colony.

MarsDog · 2004-06-25 13:33:09

Continuity is extremely important.
The cost of maintaining a few astronauts on Mars is trivial,
compared to the cost of the trip.
-
For Martian traffic control and news reporting,
Humans are still preferable to robots.
-
The outpost allows for quick expansion into a favorable location.
Just think of the human interest value.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 13:57:56

For Martian traffic control and news reporting,
Humans are still preferable to robots.

You do realize that after a few Apollo missions people hardly watched or followed them. The same things with the space shuttle.

Who says that the news reporting would be interesting to anyone else then a scientists?

And what traffic control?

Continuity is extremely important.

Yep thats why you don't need an outpost (ISS like wast of money).
Go for a colony or not.

If you would draw your outpost on a graph with an Y and X axis. with on one axis the years and on the other things being done. Your plan would be a single dot and so thats not continuity.

The cost of maintaining a few astronauts on Mars is trivial,
compared to the cost of the trip.

That may be and I doubt it. As just launching and maintaining the rovers (which are small and light) cost almost $200 million dollars. But anyway what would the added value be to the space program? Remember we are talking about an outpost like what the ISS is.

The outpost allows for quick expansion into a favorable location.
Just think of the human interest value.

If you are considering an outpost as a colony then yes. But just some guys in a hab (MIR/ISS) doing silly stuf doesn't interest me.

As I think that they will have proven their worths in the initial two years stay on Mars. After 48 months basically they should be able to tell whats on Mars and whats not. Rovers will tell them where its exactly.

However if in the mean time some cheap space flight technology or NASA has drawn up plans for a self sufficient colony then yes let them stay.

If not I rather see that money spend keeping those 4-6 people alive into development of cheap space access.

SpaceNut · 2019-02-19 19:26:01

I was quite surprised when I found this topic as it relates to One man one way suicide mission

needs to be fixed for the artifacts

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-24 17:00:29

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#27 2004-06-24 19:46:01

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#28 2004-06-25 04:20:13

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#29 2004-06-25 10:33:10

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#30 2004-06-25 10:44:40

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#31 2004-06-25 13:33:09

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#32 2004-06-25 13:57:56

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

#33 2019-02-19 19:26:01

Re: One-way ticket - An obvious cost cutting step

Board footer