Does Space Launch System rocket and new Orion craft will have chance to land on th...

[Crush]

In comparison, current support for a manned Mars mission is relatively high -- in polls conducted earlier this year, over half of all Americans believed NASA should either send a manned lander to Mars itself, or play a strong role in aiding a commercial company to do the same thing, and a full 75% of Americans were willing to double NASA's budget for the specific purpose of putting a man on the red planet. In comparison to the tepid support for the Apollo landings, current support for a mission to Mars is relatively high.

Was that before or after they saw an estimate how much of their tax money it would actually cost to send people to Mars? Doubling NASA's budget wouldn't be nearly enough.

Estimates vary wildly. The more optimistic ones put a single mission into some tenth of billions of dollar. But those usually don't account for any R&D or test flights and only for the cost of the final mission itself.

For a complete mars program, we are talking about several hundreds of billions of dollar. When the US would do a mission to mars, it would likely cost every taxpayer over $1000. When you would ask someone "Would you pay $1000 to see Americans on Mars?" I think the approval wouldn't be that high.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Crush

[Nibb31]

Was that before or after they saw an estimate how much of their tax money it would actually cost to send people to Mars? Doubling NASA's budget wouldn't be nearly enough.

Estimates vary wildly. The more optimistic ones put a single mission into some tenth of billions of dollar. But those usually don't account for any R&D or test flights and only for the cost of the final mission itself.

For a complete mars program, we are talking about several hundreds of billions of dollar. When the US would do a mission to mars, it would likely cost every taxpayer over $1000. When you would ask someone "Would you pay $1000 to see Americans on Mars?" I think the approval wouldn't be that high.

The cost of the war in Iraq was over $2 trillion. That amounts to "only" $6000 for every American (not just taxpayers). Yet approval at the time was way above 50%.

[jwenting]

So there you have it! A (very condensed) explanation of the fall of the Roman empire. Rome fell not because of apathy of a lack of ambition -- it fell because a much cooler climate and novel diseases shrank its population, tax revenue, and military size, at the same time as a cooler climate drove waves of barbarian hordes against their border. When they tried to hire foederati to defend themselves, they gradually lost territory (and the money that came with it) until they had only Italy, which was taken by a starving mob of unpaid goths led by a minor Heruli chieftain.

That was part of the reason, yes.

And it's going on again, but that's another story...

But there was apathy as well, combined with inner struggle, strategic overstretch, political scandals, people thinking the empire would go on forever because it was so large and successful while at the same time not doing a thing to keep it going.

And yes, I've studied classical history, learned Latin and a smithering of ancient Greek even. So interesting to see fools start ad-hominem attacks against people they don't and can't know based on a flawed understanding of a statement they don't like.

Don't like being reminded that the US is in decline? Do something about it, rather than shoot the messenger.

[Nibb31]

But there was apathy as well, combined with inner struggle, strategic overstretch, political scandals, people thinking the empire would go on forever because it was so large and successful while at the same time not doing a thing to keep it going.

Which has been true for just about every political entity throughout human history. Nothing special here.

Don't like being reminded that the US is in decline? Do something about it, rather than shoot the messenger.

I don't think the decline of the US is anything to be particularly worried about. Nothing lasts forever, and America isn't a special snowflake. The influence of America's power over the World since the end of WWII hasn't been particularly nice and rosy for most of Humanity. Nature hates emptiness, so when the US loses its influence, something else will take its place. It's no big deal.

[Burke112]

That was part of the reason, yes.

And it's going on again, but that's another story...

But there was apathy as well, combined with inner struggle, strategic overstretch, political scandals, people thinking the empire would go on forever because it was so large and successful while at the same time not doing a thing to keep it going.

And yes, I've studied classical history, learned Latin and a smithering of ancient Greek even. So interesting to see fools start ad-hominem attacks against people they don't and can't know based on a flawed understanding of a statement they don't like.

Don't like being reminded that the US is in decline? Do something about it, rather than shoot the messenger.

Where you get the idea that I'm using ad-hominem attacks is beyond me. I'm making a statement; if you're sensitive to the point that you can't handle people with differing opinions, and you thus feel that anyone with such opinions is personally attacking you, I'd suggest either growing a thicker skin, or just not expressing your opinions, as there will always be people whose opinions differ from your own, and if you are sensitive to the point of not being able to handle differing opinions, the world of debate simply isn't for you.

Yes, the late Roman Empire experienced apathy, political infighting, and political scandles. However, you make the mistake of assuming those features were novel to the late empire, and thus were integral to Rome's decline, instead of features that had been with Rome since the very beginning.

To provide context for your opinions, I'd suggest reading Livy's history of the Roman empire. He expressed his fear that modern (at the time) Roman society was filled with apathy, political strife driven by politicians more concerned with personal gain than common good, and extremely immoral behavior. Just observe the rampant political corruption that occurred during the time period, or ancient Romans' seeming obsession with violent spectacles, or the many scandles that occurred at the time, such as Emperor Augustus' daughter sleeping with half of the Roman Senate, and you'll see that all the apathy, infighting, and scandles you mention were exceedingly common during this time period. In fact, Livy himself stated that he had become "disgusted by the modern world" where such events had become seemingly commonplace, and that he was compiling his history of Rome specifically to give people examples of the good ol' days when Romans exhibited nobler traits.

And what did he find? How "good" were the good ol' days? Well, Livy was apparently quite disappointed, as his studies of Roman history found that the Roman past was filled with just as much apathy, violence, political strife, and scandal as the Roman present. Like you, he believed that these ignoble traits were novel features that were quickly bringing about Rome's demise (keep in mind, he wrote his chronicles one hundred years before Rome reached its peak). However, he found that these traits had been with Romans since day one -- they were nothing new.

I think the concept that the modern world is filled with strife, and that there was a mythic "good ol' days" when everything was great, is based off of a nostalgia from the past, most likely caused by the fact that those making such statements were often children during the "good ol' days", and children view the world through rose-colored glasses. We view the 1950s as the good ol' days here in America, even though the average American of the 1950s lived ten years less than those today, was almost twice as likely to be poor than Americans today, was much less educated than Americans today (half of all Americans didn't even graduate high school in 1950), had an inflation-adjusted median income much lower than today, were less productive than today's workers (average worker productivity has been rising ever since statistical measurement began), paid much higher income taxes than today (Remember when the top marginal rate was 70%?), and had much worse medical care than today (this was a world where heart medication and modern transplant technology didn't exist). This was a world where America was separated by race, where African Americans in the South essentially could not vote, where people whose only crime was to protest peacefully were attacked by dogs and shot with water cannons. Between Sputnik, the Korean War, espionage between the Soviet Union and United States, the massive buildup in nuclear arms, Cold War hostility, and the general fear that nuclear war was imminent, and millions of people would be vaporized in an instant, I can assure you that the 1950s were NOT the "good ol' days."

That's not to say that we don't have problems today. Between climate change, terrorism, and rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, the world today is no more rosy than the 1950s. However, the idea that people have of an idyllic past where everything was peaceful and happy is completely false.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Burke112

[metaphor]

Was that before or after they saw an estimate how much of their tax money it would actually cost to send people to Mars? Doubling NASA's budget wouldn't be nearly enough.

Estimates vary wildly. The more optimistic ones put a single mission into some tenth of billions of dollar. But those usually don't account for any R&D or test flights and only for the cost of the final mission itself.

For a complete mars program, we are talking about several hundreds of billions of dollar. When the US would do a mission to mars, it would likely cost every taxpayer over $1000. When you would ask someone "Would you pay $1000 to see Americans on Mars?" I think the approval wouldn't be that high.

Most estimates of the cost of a Mars landing that don't include a return to the Moon are around $100 billion, including the cost of testing and R&D. Any single mission after that is about $5-$10 billion. For example, this study in 2009 put it at $60 billion. The multiple hundreds of billion dollar plans all include a Moon base and ISRU on the Moon, like George H.W. Bush's plan in 1990.

$100 billion over 20 years is $15 per year per taxpayer in the US. This is about a 30% increase to NASA's current budget. For comparison, that is less than 1% of the military's budget over that same time period (assuming current budgets). It is definitely affordable.

Even if you consider the multiple hundreds of billions of dollars plans including a Moon base, that is still doable if you double NASA's budget.

[Burke112]

Most estimates of the cost of a Mars landing that don't include a return to the Moon are around $100 billion, including the cost of testing and R&D. Any single mission after that is about $5-$10 billion. For example, this study in 2009 put it at $60 billion. The multiple hundreds of billion dollar plans all include a Moon base and ISRU on the Moon, like George H.W. Bush's plan in 1990.

$100 billion over 20 years is $15 per year per taxpayer in the US. This is about a 30% increase to NASA's current budget. For comparison, that is less than 1% of the military's budget over that same time period (assuming current budgets). It is definitely affordable.

Even if you consider the multiple hundreds of billions of dollars plans including a moon base, that is still doable if you double NASA's budget.

AFAIK, the preparations for the Mars mission are currently already budgeted -- those of you who remember the 2012 election will remember the chain e-mail about how "stupid" NASA was for funding studies on Mars food preparation, and Rand Paul's statement about how NASA was using taxpayer money to "pay teenagers to sit on couches eating pizza." Frustrating as those comments were, they do show that the program is receiving funding.

Also, wherever NASA goes on the project, SpaceX appears to be surging forward in their goals by leaps and bounds -- has anyone seen the video of the latest grasshopper test? If/When that is implemented on the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, it could make virtually the whole rocket reusable, and reduce the time/cost required to reuse the parts (i.e. they don't fall to Earth in the middle of nowhere, where they have to be picked up for a relatively high amount of money, or in sea water, which causes corrosion that must be repaired before reuse). Hopefully, they manage to realize Musk's goal of having the rocket reusable within "single digit hours" of the second stage returning to the pad. Potentially, that would mean being able to reuse an entire rocket in just under two days, although that would, of course, rely on there being enough demand to justify that kind of turnaround time. I guess it's a question of getting the price of launch down to the point where the extra demand the lower price generates allows you to accelerate the turnaround time, to in turn reduce the price of launch. Depending on whether you're one of the glass-half-full or glass-half-empty types, you could see that as either a vicious cycle of lowering launch costs (with a lower limit, obviously), or as a dog chasing its tail kind of event that will never come to fruition.

If they get their 140 metric ton Falcon XX operational, that would be very good as well. The combination of the ability to carry large payloads and the ability to launch relatively frequently could allow SpaceX to take advantage of economies of scale, which would definitely reduce launch costs. Also, the Falcon XX would have a payload-to-LEO capability on par with the final version of the SLS, so it would have potential to achieve Musk's goal of getting people to Mars, although whether or not he will be able to get the price down to the $500,000 per seat he has as his goal is a whole 'nother question.

Regardless, the lower launch cost would be very useful for NASA -- because they have contracts with SpaceX to deliver cargo and, by 2017, crew to LEO, lowering the cost of the launch would lower the amount of money NASA must spend per year on putting satellites into orbit and shuttling crew and cargo to the ISS and back, which would in turn allow NASA to devote a larger percentage of its budget to other activities.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Burke112

[kujuman]

Even if a Mars project is "affordable", that doesn't mean it is prudent. Budgeting is about picking which "affordable" projects you fund and which you don't. (Giving a single person in the US $100billion one time is affordable, but it isn't prudent).

There are 3 main issues I see with the American people being ready to accept a trip to Mars

1. No call to action. The public does not believe we're in any sort of space race, so why go to Mars now when we'll be able to do it better in 10 years?

2. The development time frames are waaayyyy too long. You might have public support for a project for the first several years, but then people will grow tired of it, especially if there are no visible products. I suspect this is one of the reasons proposals are to go visit the moon first, to give the public a "we're doing something" milestone. But why waste time going to the moon first? Mission creep will kill a Mars mission.

3. The US has been in a really bad slump for the last 6 years with no end in sight (there've been some really poor policy choices against growth). The public probably isn't willing to support such a project if everyday living is difficult (a national cause might of course be very different, and could bring people together, but you must get over the initial reaction people have).

Lastly, I know a lot of us here would really like to send people to Mars, and even just flags and footsteps would be awesome. But the next question is "Now what?" I bet most of us have had that feeling in stock KSP as well. We like going places, but unless you use mods like kethane or mapping, it's kinda pointless to keep sending missions places. So unless we find out something to do on Mars, there's no real point going more than once, is there? (good, real, science counts as doing something)

Edited July 8, 2013 by kujuman

[Burke112]

Even if a Mars project is "affordable", that doesn't mean it is prudent. Budgeting is about picking which "affordable" projects you fund and which you don't. (Giving a single person in the US $100billion one time is affordable, but it isn't prudent).

There are 3 main issues I see with the American people being ready to accept a trip to Mars

1. No call to action. The public does not believe we're in any sort of space race, so why go to Mars now when we'll be able to do it better in 10 years?

2. The development time frames are waaayyyy too long. You might have public support for a project for the first several years, but then people will grow tired of it, especially if there are no visible products. I suspect this is one of the reasons proposals are to go visit the moon first, to give the public a "we're doing something" milestone. But why waste time going to the moon first? Mission creep will kill a Mars mission.

3. The US has been in a really bad slump for the last 6 years with no end in sight (there've been some really poor policy choices against growth). The public probably isn't willing to support such a project if everyday living is difficult (a national cause might of course be very different, and could bring people together, but you must get over the initial reaction people have).

Lastly, I know a lot of us here would really like to send people to Mars, and even just flags and footsteps would be awesome. But the next question is "Now what?" I bet most of us have had that feeling in stock KSP as well. We like going places, but unless you use mods like kethane or mapping, it's kinda pointless to keep sending missions places. So unless we find out something to do on Mars, there's no real point going more than once, is there? (good, real, science counts as doing something)

I think the problem people have is assuming the public has to come together to support a project for it to actually be completed. As the Apollo program showed, programs can be very successful, even if they are opposed by a large segment of the population, and even if they are very controversial in Congress as Apollo was -- which is why Congress cut NASA's budget very severely every single year starting in 1964 and continuing until the Apollo 11 moon landing. The Apollo program had to manage to survive Congressional budget cuts for the majority of its existence, and the American public certainly did not "come together" to support it. On the contrary, the entire program was viewed by many Americans as a giant waste of money that wouldn't do anything to solve problems on Earth; hence the program's low standing in 1960s public opinion polls.

As far as calls to action... President Obama did call on NASA to send humans to Mars in a highly televised speech, so there is that. I would have liked it if he designed his speech with a bit more of a charismatic flair, though. As far as giving the public visible spectacles to prove progress was being made, that may or may not be the purpose of the asteroid mission. Whether or not that was the purpose, a manned rendezvous with an asteroid (which is an unprecedented event) would do a lot to convince people progress was being made. Also, the early American space program didn't exactly give many Americans confidence that progress was being made -- just look up the Vanguard TV3 launch incident and the political fallout it caused. The media had a field day -- it was nicknamed the "Stayputnik" the "Oopsnik" and the "Flopnik" in national newspapers. The Soviet delegate to the United Nations even joked that the United States might be interested in receiving aid earmarked for undeveloped countries. And it wasn't the only failure -- there were quite a few. One of the jokes that was made in the early 1960s was that American rockets "always blew up." We should obviously remember events such as Apollo 8, Apollo 11, and the countless other successful launches. However, we shouldn't forget the (many) failures and convince ourselves that the American space program involved a continuous string of successful launches that provided sterling examples of progress being made.