Hello there,

I read a little about this but recently heard on the news that there would be a mission by the year 2033, BUT, it is going to cost around 450 billion dollars. That's almost a half a trillion dollars.

The question really comes up as to whether or not this is a good idea, and the practical side of things says it is not a good idea because the planet is so harsh to human life in so many ways. That's a lot of money that could help a lot of people right here on Earth, and after all how many times can we actually spend that kind of money on this kind of trip.

But what do you think?

 

I believe it's a good idea to keep making progress.

The decision to make today is not the go/no-go decision, whether to spend the half trillion or not today for a mission 15 years in the future. It's not as simple as adding up all the estimated future expenses and making a single judgment today whether it's "worth it". Like any project, you learn as you go. The best estimates of both the chance of success and the costs can change quite a lot as new information comes in. You make expenditures as you go, based on the best information you have at that time.

It's quite possible we'd spend $100B over the next decade and decide to pull the plug on the rest, if some unforeseen hurdles show us that it's harder than we think today. It's also possible we'll devise technology that saves a heap of money and makes it look more attractive than ever.

Mankind needs to keep exploring and expanding our sphere. We can't devote all our productivity to exploration, except under the most dire circumstances, but history has shown a great return from investing in exploration. You can't say the same about the redistribution schemes that shuffle around and waste much larger portions of our economy.

 

Good idea as it's 450 billion dollars that won't be directly wasted on military weapons. The money will help a lot of people right here on earth by providing jobs and projects for advanced engineering world-wide.

The practical side of things that are a waste of money here on earth.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/...california-is-taking-longer-and-costing-more/

 

A complete waste. The return would never justify the cost. And the lives would be greatly shortened.....if they survive.

We can't provide the necessary velocity.

We can't provide a secure and safe craft environment.

There is nothing that a man can do on Mars........that a robot can't do.

Edit: Well, I guess a man could do political commentary.

 

There is nothing that a man can do on Mars........that a robot can't do.

They held a competition for an autonomous robot to wander Mars looking for signs of life. The competition was staged on Earth and they failed to find any life.

 

Stupid robot.

 

A complete waste. The return would never justify the cost. And the lives would be greatly shortened.....if they survive.

We can't provide the necessary velocity.

We can't provide a secure and safe craft environment.

There is nothing that a man can do on Mars........that a robot can't do.

Edit: Well, I guess a man could do political commentary.

Hi,

Well dont forget Man can screw up that planet too, what is left of it that is.
Maybe they can terra form it and then have it shift to a new orbit, collide with Earth and form a new moon for Earth. That would be really interesting to see in the night sky

Some interesting and funny comments here.
The one about California's new transportation system sounds interesting, but yeah, the cost these days would be nuts. The maintenance would also cost a lot, and cause some big casualties in the process.

 

Hola MrAl,

A mission to do what, precisely? Collect samples, draw a map, start a sustentable colony, live there forever or come back after x time?

Otherwise your question seems rather undefined, imprecise, open to many interpretations.

 

I think a one way mission to Mars is a great idea. First send all the lawyers, then politicians then all religious fundamentalists. We would end up with true peace on earth!

 

Hello there,

I read a little about this but recently heard on the news that there would be a mission by the year 2033, BUT, it is going to cost around 450 billion dollars. That's almost a half a trillion dollars.

The question really comes up as to whether or not this is a good idea, and the practical side of things says it is not a good idea because the planet is so harsh to human life in so many ways. That's a lot of money that could help a lot of people right here on Earth, and after all how many times can we actually spend that kind of money on this kind of trip.

But what do you think?

$450 billion over 15 years? That's $30 billion a year, or less than 1% of the federal budget. Looked at another way, the federal government spends about $12,000 each year for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. while this would be $100.

As for how many times we can spend that kind of money on this kind of trip, the answer there is that we would only spend that kind of money once. After the first mission, the cost for follow on missions would be drastically reduced. The overwhelming majority of that $450 billion is one-time R&D and NRE.

As for whether it is still a good idea or not, that is a valid question. But it's not all or nothing and the plug can be pulled at any time. Also, don't forget that there will be huge benefits from all that R&D that will benefit lots of people in ways we can't even begin to imagine. It's hard to say how far along we would be on our present tech journey if not for the moon missions and related space-race and arms-race programs of the last half of the 20th century (and, yes, what might have transpired from the alternative uses of those funds, either by the government or by the people that wouldn't have paid quite as much in taxes).

Personally, I think even a brute force approach as saying let's cut government spending across the board by 2% and use half of the savings to go to Mars would be a net win in many ways, even if we don't ever overcome all of the hurdles to actually get there.

 

The US space program created a lot of useful technologies. I'm sure going to Mars will too. There are probably many people that would like to get away from Earth.

Take a look here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...e-should-colonise-other-planets-10058811.html

 

Hi,

Yes there are different views on this that's for sure.

This past Friday night on the Bill Maher [1] show Professor Niel deGrasse Tyson [2] gave his view on this very same topic.

His view stems from evolution in that a space ship is to people as the egg was to mammals: a means to escape from one realm and expand into another, presumably in search of a better life. Bill Maher's response was that process took millions of years and we dont have that much time.

Both of these views make sense. On the one hand, we are trying to get a better life by expanding, but on the other hand we may not have had enough time to experiment and our time is probably more lmiited.
Bill's view is that we should try to make the Earth a better place. Niel's view is that expanding out is just something that life had always done so why stop now. Neil's view however appeared to take into account the ability of man to be able to terraform a planet, which i dont think we can do yet. If we could do that my opinion would change in a heartbeat leaning toward "let's go for it".

Yes we might develop new technology that is useful. We might also kill 8 to 10 people abord a ship that is ill prepared for the journey.

My problem is that there are so many things that can go wrong it looks impossible at present. There are other problems too like long term effects of man in space. We come from Earth and our bodies need a lot of things we have here that we take for granted every day. If we loose just one of those things we die, and it may not be sudden but take years to kill us.

I am all for technology, but i dont think that should be the driving force. I think survival should come first.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

 

There is recent research that indicates radiation exposure, such as that from a Mars expedition, would cause significant brain tissue damage. This includes memory, thinking, etc.
The only preventive measure is lead shielding, which costs too much to be practical at this time.
So a Mars trip is not just a financial problem. It is also a matter of getting there without being brain damaged.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-radiation-be-a-deal-breaker-for-mars-missions/

 

I am always amazed that there are people willing to take on these great adventures, despite the fact many may not consider it a good idea.

I recently watched a shown on Netflix, The Mars Generation. Whether or not the mission actually happens, there are many very excited about the prospect.

 

I'm sure other have different priorities.......but the first problem is gravity. Our bodies are physical mechanical structures........that require a force gradient to work against.

Even if we had suitable radiation shields......by the time we got there... we would be too loopy/loosy to do much.

So....for any craft that has any mission time.......we need a rotating structure. One half of a G might be all that's needed for body maintenance. Why has this not been done? Ask Niel. Niel is nothing but a classroom show off.....and knows nothing of nature. People like Niel are the reason we remain ignorant.

Next... the shielding. We have metal foams......but the shielding should be electrical and physical. The earth uses the solar wind to establish a particle shield around the planet. We might be able to make a small particle shield around a craft. The particle shield might be a mile in diameter. It would also allow easier craft tracking. Also.....the solar wind could be a fuel source.

Next....is the velocity. The first two problems(gravity and shielding) depends on this figure. We have spent and wasted a lot of resources for decades.......on science fiction....instead of engineering. We haven't even built a jumper.....that can go to the moon in a day.

They waste our resources on theoretical problems......instead of solving engineering problems.

You have to remember.......that these people doing this work still believe in a 2D or flat universe.

This is why to this day they believe the planets have elliptical orbits. Ignorant flatlanders.

Acceleration.......first...purge the gut/body of gas.....next....fill sinuses/ears and lungs with liquid. Insert body into liquid cylinder. In this condition/state.......the body in a complete liquid cradle......we can accelerate without damage. Hopefully.

We would know these things if we quit the science fiction and get back to physical science.

 

Yes we might develop new technology that is useful. We might also kill 8 to 10 people abord a ship that is ill prepared for the journey.

Have we really become that risk averse? How many people died on a typical sailing from the Old World to the New? How many graves are along the Oregon Trail? How many bodies are still on Mount Everest?

 

Have we really become that risk averse? How many people died on a typical sailing from the Old World to the New? How many graves are along the Oregon Trail? How many bodies are still on Mount Everest?

Not too mention all those killed on the roads which, for some reason, barely deserve a mention.

 

Not too mention all those killed on the roads which, for some reason, barely deserve a mention.

True. I have often pondered things such as why someone killed at work in the Twin Towers is somehow fundamentally different than someone killed in a car accident returning from lunch. Does one family really grieve or suffer more than the other?

But even still, in this context I draw a distinction because people don't usually undertake a drive to the grocery store as a decision to accept a mortal risk in the attempt to achieve some grand desire. I think a good fraction of those I alluded to weighed that possibility quite seriously before embarking on their journey.

 

Space travel will be a new kind of risk. Hard to equate. With past explorers and migrations.....a fair portion, if not a majority.........were NOT harmed......but prospered and had supposedly....longer and happier lives. Same with automobile drivers.

Space travel today.......harm is a surety. The true risk is gone. Risk is the possibility of loss or injury.

Look at all the time and resources put into staying healthy and recovering from space. And this is in a protective shield of the earth.

This kind of risk , if you want to call it....will have to be analyzed in a different manner. Many sane and dedicated people are willing to risk human health/life for knowledge. It's human nature.

I guess it will depend on how we define the word risk.

Let the robots do the long dreary hazardous work. We're getting good at it.

 

Space travel will be a new kind of risk. Hard to equate. With past explorers and migrations.....a fair portion, if not a majority.........were NOT harmed......but prospered and had supposedly....longer and happier lives. Same with automobile drivers.

The leaders have always had to cross the croc filled river first in any migration.