Bush generously funds .002% of Mars mission

[wtmusic]

Had an interesting discussion at the JPL Open House today with an imaging specialist re: the Bush "put a man on Mars" proposal. He estimated it would cost at least $90B/year. The administration's allocation? $200M, or .002% of the *minimum* amount required to actually pull it off. "Very few people in the media sat down with a calculator and did the math," he said. Then, revealing no small amount of frustration: "Being a government employee, I can't really offer an opinion."

Here's a typical report on the actual proposal:

"How easy to be cynical about President Bush's desire to put a man on Mars. How tempting to dismiss it as an election-year gimmick...."

<snip>

"Mr Bush's plan recognises that, as the unchallenged superpower, the United States has a responsibility to carry mankind's loftiest ambitions. It would be nice if those who habitually dismiss the President as selfish and insular would for once acknowledge his largesse."

Largesse? :eyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F01%2F10%2Fdl1001.xml

[Decay]

1. $90B/year?!

Sounds like somebody is trying to rip of taxpayers. ESA estimates are much lower than that. Much, much lower. NASA needs some serious reorganizing.

[wtmusic]

2. What is ESA and where do you get your estimates?

I've heard higher ($140-150B) per shot.

[wuushew]

3. Robert Zubrin believed 50 billion in his 1996 book

The Case for Mars and that was for three launches over several years using current technology.

ESA is the European Space Agency. I hope they or at least the Chinese continue to explore outer space.

[wtmusic]

6. Hmm

Unfortunately Zubrin's experience with space is 7 years of working at Lockheed and a lot of dreaming.

[wuushew]

7. I enjoyed his book

He placed far too much faith in the Newt Gringrich economic incentive model for my tastes but was valid in criticizing Bill Clinton's opposition to nuclear space technology and in his outlining practical ways of producing rocket propellant on Mars.

[Decay]

5. $2.6 billion per year, over 20 years. For three manned missions, not one.

Short excerpt:

"...estimates of the total program costs for three manned missions of about $ 52 billion correspond to relatively modest annual costs of $ 2.6 billion for a 20 year program...."

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEMTG70P4HD_2.html

[wtmusic]

8. Wow

That seems out to lunch (in 2005 dollars it cost $45B to get a man to the moon). Although some aspects of it could be cheaper now, three main points:

1) ESA has never conducted one manned flight on its own.
1) Is funding a 17-year nonessential program realistic?
1) $200M/yr is lip service no matter whose numbers you choose.

[Decay]

9. How about a manned mission for only $9.95?!

Practical Guide to Astral Projection?




http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875421814/qid=1116207554/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-3805571-3101448?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

:patriot:

[johncoby2]

4. think about it. It isnt rocket science

It will cost about $400Billion for a Mars mission.

If we would stop EVERYTHING NASA is doing right now, we would have $16/Billion a year available. So, 20 years from now, we might be able to go to Mars.

But we are not going to stop everyting at the momemt. We will continue with the shuttle program until it is retired, then go into a dormant stage waiting for the new vehicle. Not quite sure what the staffing will be since there will be nothing to do in the way of operations.

What we will be doing with the Space Station is anyones guess.

The plan for NASA is at best, is pie in the sky.

[Decay]

11. $400 Billion is way too much.

It can be done for much less, less than half that amount. Problem with NASA is that the organization is simply far too gargantuan. Every move this organization makes costs billions! Heck, just the planning phase for this project would take $20 billion. I am saying it can be done cheaper, not necessarily by NASA.

[johncoby2]

14. Sorry. That is horseshit.

When Dan Quayle announced a trip to mars in 1989(?) the price tag was around $400 Billion. It died. Quickly.

Now you cant get any NASA person to say how much it will cost, or even hypothetically. They will say NASA is transforming into an exploratory agency and will use the funds that are usually used for shuttle, etc for the mission to mars.

The idea that the private sector can do it cheaper is a myth. The vast MAJORITY of NASA is done by the private sector!

Hell, if the private sector can do it, do it without tax dollars and see how far they will get.

Cost for a trip to the moon (why are we going back?) is about $150Billion.

Needless to say, it sure would be nice if we had international support for going to Mars, as well as money.

[Deja Q]

10. But, damn, Iraq is money well spent. Bush got a gun hangin' on his wall

becuz of Eye-rack. :eyes:

[Zynx]

12. I'm pissed we're spending any money on it right now at all.

It is simply not a priority when the budget is as far out of whack as it is.

[wtmusic]

13. You're right

but the hypocrisy...:grr: