4 ms·

By 1989, NASA estimated such a trip would come to half a trillion dollars I admit the idea of going to Mars is very exciting, but honestly, is this where we wa

By 1989, NASA estimated such a trip would come to half a trillion dollars I admit the idea of going to Mars is very exciting, but honestly, is this where we want to be spending our money?

dougp 17y ago
It will more then pay for itself with increased interest in engineering and science. But besides that the US is throwing trillions at all kinds of unpopular things. I would much rather it be mars.
BigZaphod 17y ago
They wouldn't just burn the money as rocket fuel - that money would be used to create jobs and buy materials. From Wikipedia: "At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities." That's some serious movement of money there.
randallsquared 17y ago
I loathe the "stimulus", but if our taxes are to be spent in such sums anyway, I think that the result should make a difference. Replace all high emissions cars with electrics or hybrids. Pay off all mortgages in the country, while passing an amendment that forbids the Feds from ever doing it again (otherwise, the possibility that they'll do it again will distort the market even more than it would anyway). Set up prizes for all kinds of space or research goals, like landing on the moon, landing on Mars, first private individual on the moon, first full GWhr beamed from a solar power satellite, first tonne of machinable superconducter at room temperature, first, tenth, and thousandth tonne returned to earth from an asteroid, etc. This has the added bonus that tax money is only spent if someone makes it. Or something else. But something that matters, rather than just paying people to do a little more of what they're already doing, here or there, where they went to school with the program administrators or whatever.
- eru 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
rbanffy 17y ago
I would just like to point out this is what NASA estimates it needs for doing the job. I find that number quite implausible. NASA should focus on developing one thing and only one thing: easy access to space. Call it Ares, Shuttle-C or Big Dumb Booster. NASA should also be given enough money to develop more than one family: the shuttle-C like thing that was shown a couple days ago seems quite wasteful compared do Ares I when all you want to do is to ferry 6 guys to LEO and doesn't lift as much cargo as Ares V, and could use some added power from the 5 segment SRBs that are part of Ares V, but can be operational much sooner than either Ares. Versatility and commonality are key here - you have to be able to assemble the best vehicle for your mission with common building blocks. It seems to me that NASA is also committed to do things the best way imaginable when good enough should suffice. Maybe half a trillion dollars is what you need to fly a perfect, optimal, elegant spaceship made from all the most exotic lightest materials they can imagine, developed with all the latest technologies and a couple brand new ones thrown in. I can bet you can do a lot with much less money if you are willing to go with "good enough to go to Mars and back".

By 1989, NASA estimated such a trip would come to half a trillion dollars I admit the idea of going to Mars is very exciting, but honestly, is this where we want to be spending our money?

dougp 17y ago

It will more then pay for itself with increased interest in engineering and science. But besides that the US is throwing trillions at all kinds of unpopular things. I would much rather it be mars.

BigZaphod 17y ago

They wouldn't just burn the money as rocket fuel - that money would be used to create jobs and buy materials. From Wikipedia: "At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities." That's some serious movement of money there.

randallsquared 17y ago

I loathe the "stimulus", but if our taxes are to be spent in such sums anyway, I think that the result should make a difference. Replace all high emissions cars with electrics or hybrids. Pay off all mortgages in the country, while passing an amendment that forbids the Feds from ever doing it again (otherwise, the possibility that they'll do it again will distort the market even more than it would anyway). Set up prizes for all kinds of space or research goals, like landing on the moon, landing on Mars, first private individual on the moon, first full GWhr beamed from a solar power satellite, first tonne of machinable superconducter at room temperature, first, tenth, and thousandth tonne returned to earth from an asteroid, etc. This has the added bonus that tax money is only spent if someone makes it. Or something else. But something that matters, rather than just paying people to do a little more of what they're already doing, here or there, where they went to school with the program administrators or whatever.

eru 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

rbanffy 17y ago

I would just like to point out this is what NASA estimates it needs for doing the job. I find that number quite implausible. NASA should focus on developing one thing and only one thing: easy access to space. Call it Ares, Shuttle-C or Big Dumb Booster. NASA should also be given enough money to develop more than one family: the shuttle-C like thing that was shown a couple days ago seems quite wasteful compared do Ares I when all you want to do is to ferry 6 guys to LEO and doesn't lift as much cargo as Ares V, and could use some added power from the 5 segment SRBs that are part of Ares V, but can be operational much sooner than either Ares. Versatility and commonality are key here - you have to be able to assemble the best vehicle for your mission with common building blocks. It seems to me that NASA is also committed to do things the best way imaginable when good enough should suffice. Maybe half a trillion dollars is what you need to fly a perfect, optimal, elegant spaceship made from all the most exotic lightest materials they can imagine, developed with all the latest technologies and a couple brand new ones thrown in. I can bet you can do a lot with much less money if you are willing to go with "good enough to go to Mars and back".