On 13 Jan, 03:10, Michael Gallagher wrote:

Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? *Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"? *Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

The baleout was necessary for the health of the whole financial
system. A lot of damage has been done but it would have been
infinitely worse without it. I personally think the banks should be
compelled to start lending again under pain of nationalization. When
the economy picks up again a lot a bale out money is coming back.
Obameamight even make a "killing".

However this has nothing really to do with manned spasceflight. It is
a complete red herring to point to other large expenditures.
Politicians see a hight cost ticket, the cost of which is certain to
rise as soon as your Mars spacecraft starts to get built. What is
there to justify such an expenditure except prestige.

Unless there is new thinking that can drastically reduce the cost no
politician of any sanity is going to go (manned) beyonf LEO and up to
LEO only really for international relations.

There seems to me to be little prospect of any genuinely new thinking,
and little preospect of being able to do anything after a hugely
expensive trip to the Moon/Mars. All governments are facing the same
constraints.

Probably just being deep and philosphical about something that isn't
deep and philosophichal at all, but when you figure we've been stuck
in LEO when we hanve't had to be for years -- under one plan we could
have landed on Mars the first time in 1984! -- one has to wonder if
sticker shock is the only road block or if there are other factors.

I think sticker shock + the growth of stickers. Mars will not cost 80
billion but probably more like 240 billion of which very little will
come back.


- Ian Parker