NASA and ESA pen Mars agreement , page 1

The union will start with a European-led orbiter in 2016, and continue with surface rovers in 2018, and then perhaps a network of landers in 2018. The ultimate aim is a mission to return Mars rock and soils to Earth labs.

Their broad vision would encompass the following launch opportunities:

* 2016: A European-led orbiter to study trace gases, including methane, in Mars' atmosphere. The mission would also put a static meteorological station on the surface. Critically, Europe would handle the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of this station - a capability it has yet to demonstrate.
* 2018: European and American rovers would be despatched to Mars. The US would do the EDL.
* 2020: "Under consideration" is a network of landers focused on geophysics and the environment.

Source

Why, why, why, why, whyyyyy!?

For the billions this will cost, NASA and ESA could send people to Mars, or at least be well on their way toward that goal! But no, again they want to spend all that money and invest a decade in experiments that would literally take an astronaut an hour or so to accomplish. It seems to me that they're trying to make work for these scientists, labs and contractors, nothing more. Why else would we be doing these ridiculous exercises when we have the technology to send people there to do all those experiments and countless others in a tiny fraction of the time?

I'm beginning to hope that Russia, China and India start to do some posturing to those ends, maybe light a fire under NASA/ESA's ass so they get back on track.

reply to post by DataWraith

---

Just doing one joint probe wouldn't cost enough money, or wouldn't give enough people busy work.

If you would've asked me in 1999, what year people would set foot on the Mars, or even the moon; I would've been astounded if it was later than 2010-2015. Now NASA is talking 2045-2050, I'll be an old man by then

reply to post by optimus primal

---

If we move at a pace similar to the moon landings, we'll probably arrive on Mars for the first time around 2045-2050 as predicted by NASA, go back 3 or 4 more times gathering rock samples and then around 2110 we'll start considering a permanent presence there... which won't actually pan out until 2150.

The private sector is a lot more promising, but they need some serious funding to make a trip to Mars happen. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on Russia laying the first foot prints on Mars as it stands. They've made no secret of their aspirations to colonize the solar system, while NASA is content with orbiting space stations and robotic probes.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

---

Which makes you wonder: why is america giving up the space race before it's really gotten anywhere?

reply to post by optimus primal

---

Well, space exploration and technology is really an investment in the future, it doesn't offer an immediate payout, whereas things like war are resources do. Going to Mars won't make anyone money right off the bat, the technology will need to be proven over time. After it's safety is established and it starts to become inappeasable for us normal people and investors to get to Mars, thats when there will be money to be made. You have to spend money to make money and right now it doesn't seem like anyone wants to spend it. NASA and ESA are content spending the bare minimum to keep people in their jobs and not rock the boat.

This is of course barring any sort of conspiratorial discussion

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

---

A manned mission to Mars would be HUGELY more expensive than robotic missions. Cost estimates for a Manned Mars range quite a bit, but about $100 or $200 billion seems to be the going estimates. Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan is thought to be about $60 Billion, but that cost covers getting there and walking around (a bit like Apollo), and does not include the infrastructure needed for detailed exploration and science.

Even if we consider the cost of a manned Mars mission to be at the extreme low-end of the estimates -- say $75 Billion -- that's still exponentially greater than a robotic mission. For example, the twin-rovers that are now on Mars cost less than $1 Billion, even with the 5-year extension to the program (the original 90-day mission was $850 Million). The Mars Science Lab being built right now is considered to be the most expensive robotic mission to date, and its budget is "only" $2 Billion.

Considering these known costs for past robotic missions and estimates for a future manned mission, one manned Mission would cost as much as 30 to 50 robotic missions. Under this new joint-venture, Europe is only giving about $1.5 Billion dollars, which would barely cover the cost of one robotic mission (let alone 30), and would only cover about 2% of even the cheapest manned mission estimated cost.

I agree that going to Mars would be worth it in the long run. Humans explore -- it's what we do. Plus the science and engineering culture required to get to Mars would be a boost to American and world productivity. However, even if all the money from this new NASA/ESA joint venture were instead put toward a manned mission, that would barely scratch the surface of the total manned mission costs.


[edit on 11/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Newfound "super-Earth"
  Posted 11 days ago with 56 member flags

Enceladus Backlit by Saturn
  Posted 5 days ago with 50 member flags

Mysterious Signal From Outer Space - Is Someone Trying To Contact Us?
  Posted 14 days ago with 29 member flags

Toronto teens send Lego man into space: video
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags

Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
  Posted 3 days ago with 26 member flags

Amazing new photo of Earth. The Blue Marble 2012
  Posted 15 days ago with 22 member flags

Stunning close view of Mercury
  Posted 3 days ago with 20 member flags

NASA Probe Captures 1st Video of Moon\'s Far Side
  Posted 12 days ago with 19 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: