We choose to go to the Moon?

"rschmitt23" wrote:

What's crap is the idea that Congress will pony up $500B+ for a manned
Mars
program. That will never happen.

I don't disagree at all with you, here - I totally agree. I also don't
believe anyone supports (or is proposing) the idea of a $500B manned Mars
program.

In another post in this thread, I cited the late Carl Sagan's hope that
international cooperation and cost sharing might make such a project
doable.
I think he's likely correct about this being the way to get the ball
rolling.

I agree here, too, to some extent.

But we desparately need new ideas that will reduce cost and make such a
mission more saleable. During the SEI program (mid-1989 to early 1993),
NASA
got a lot of input from numerous sources regarding manned missions to deep
space. Among the better ones, IMHO, is the "Mars Direct" idea that was
briefed to NASA during the SEI outreach effort by Roger Chamberlain,
Benton
Clark and Bob Zubrin (all then with Martin Denver). To nobody's suprise,
none of the features of Mars Direct made it into the final report of Tom
Stafford's Synthesis Group (a not-invented-here problem at NASA).

However, after the SEI effort collapsed in early 1993, Dan Goldin allowed
some of the folks at JSC to continue low level studies. They became
enamoured with Mars Direct and estimated that the first three missions
(unmanned, manned, unmanned) could be developed and flown for about $58B
(in
today's bucks). Allowing for NASA's usual 50-100% lowballing, a more
reasonable number would be in the $80-120B range. Coincidentally, Apollo
cost about $105B in todays bucks.

So, will Congress buy into something like Mars Direct? Who knows? I like
Bob
Zubrin's enthusiasm, but he didn't help his case last month when he made
an
ass of himself while testifying before John McCain's committee. But if we
can afford $86B to rebuild Iraq, maybe, with a little help from our
international ISS partners, something like Mars Direct could be saleable.

Yes. Also, referring to your Zubrin comments, I spoke with someone the
other day who relayed to me that some Mars Society members here (at least)
are wishing Zubrin would "shut up", for just the reasons you mention.

Jon

rschmitt23 wrote:
snipped

But if we can afford $86B to rebuild Iraq, maybe, with a little help from our international ISS partners, something like Mars Direct could be saleable.

Maybe the US can use the Iraq issue to strike a deal with their allies.
If the latter kick in a significant portion of the cost for a Mars
mission, the US will give them a pass on the cost of rebuilding Iraq.
The allies can avoid what they see as the domestic political fallout
that comes with supporting the US in post war Iraq, while the US and
everyone that contributes, gets to go to Mars in some capacity.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Brian Gaff" wrote in
:

because????

Well, maybe cos Bushykins needs a diversion from his war mongering and
his transparent agenda for making sure oil supplies are kept cheap.

:-)

Cynic? moi?


Cynic - Yes/No/Who cares?

Troll - definitely.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
because????

Well, maybe cos Bushykins needs a diversion from his war mongering and his
transparent agenda for making sure oil supplies are kept cheap.

:-)

Cynic? moi?

Brian

--

It's the wrong goal. Until there is a quantum leap in launch technology, all
other space-based enterprises are premature. The STS was supposed to provide
easy access to LEO but it didn't, so the only sensible thing is to start
over.

We're now looking at doing the *same* space race all over again with just
about the *same* launch vehicles and the *same* objectives. 40 years later.

Patrick

P.S. We coulda had NASP by now.