You are not logged in.
well.. first human landing on Mars will happen in about 30 years from now.. if ever.. and when it will, it will be few guys walking around, exploring.. it will cost a lot of money, it will be expensive and pointless (like ISS is right now).. most of exploring is being done with robots right now and humans are not really needed. Just look at mars rovers..
why is that?
well.. it has nothing to do with physics or rockets or propelant.. but it has to do with money.. not that there is to little money (NASA alone has 15 billion to spend each year), but that it doesn't look at Return On Investment.. because.. it is not investing in anything that would RETURN anything.. yes, it does research, but NASA does not get any money in return.. and since there is no pressure to get any return (besides knowlage), there is no investment made..
Let's start with obvious thing.. anything you put into orbit, costs it's weight in gold to do that.. by the way things are done right now, if moon was made of gold it would not be worth it to bring it back.. ok, rocketships are expensive.. they tend to blow up.. you need to build multiple stages.. but, if it is so expensive.. why are there 5 clases of 20 MT to LEO rocketships? With 100 million $ each.. ok, they are from diferent nations an all that politics, nobody want's to be dependant on others, and it costs a lot of money to develop and run space launch systems.. so be it.. and since demand for that expensive rockets just istn't there those that DO need it (telecoms for GEO for example) pay it and pass costs to their customers. And since no corporation is going to spend billions to develop something that will bring results in 30 years from now - no corporation is..
but let us say we make a new corporation.. it would get 15 billion each year to spend on space, but in 50 years from now it should have brought 750+ billion worth of wealth (in todays money) back to earth.. NASA would be kept, but it's mission would became 'to do research'.. this corporation would be totally independent from state, could buy anything anywhere, hire anyone, fire anyone, open centers, close centers.. but.. only money that would count would be money that would come FROM space TO earth..
what would you do with that money to earn back 750 billion?
Offline
If I'd really get a 50 yrs stay of having to come up with ROI...
Invest heavily in research for the elevator for 5-10 years, and then start building it. Despite that recent paper, it still seems feasible, only more (waay more) costly to set up the first one...
If you'd have to come up with a profit more quickly, PGM mining on Luna...
Offline
Build a new orbital space craft (passenger only) and charge tourists 50 million a ride. Invest that cash in a space hotel and charge 100 million per stay. Then slowly bring the costs down as it becomes possible to.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
NASA isn't a buisness and shouldn't ever operate like one.
Space programs are ridiculously expensive but thats a worthwhile cost for the Science they produce and the general sense of wonder for humanity they create. What NASA invests now will be reaped in the future, usually by corporate interests who don't like to make risky investments.
If I had things my way, I would have took all the money that was used on the Iraq war and spent it on getting us to the Moon/Mars.
Offline
I don't know if the U.S. has State Owned Enterprises. They work well enough elsewhere.
Come on to the Future
Offline