$75-100 billion-it's worth it (petition for funding for manned Mars exploration included)

On the program "Exploring Space: The Quest for Life", Dr. Adam Brucker claimed that a manned mission to Mars could be organized with today's technology for $75-$100 billion. Considering that the Apollo Program cost $158 billion when adjusted for inflation, I think it's worth it. Furthermore, the Iraq War costs $2 billion/wk. What's up with that? If you are a U.S. citizen, I urge you to sign my petition to Congress in the third link below to fund manned exploration of Mars.

www.pbs.org...
www.boston.com...
www.petitiononline.com...

I don't see the point of sending a manned mission to mars now for that amount of money
when we can send one there in a few decades for a greatly reduced amount of money,
not to mention the probability of keeping a permanent base there at a future date,
rather than just sending a single return trip science mission that can be achieved by
an automated probe for a much reduced cost.

Hrmmm..

Bout about some desalinatipon plants in africa, with pipes coming out and going where poeple can get some clean water.... how about that?

Or hell some desalination plants around the world? Dont they say drinking water is going to be a valuable thing soon?

Alright, Iori, WHY do you think that Mars missions will go down in cost in the next ten years? I would also like to add that humans can do far better science than can automated probes. Heck, they might even break ground on a permanent base.

daRage, I don't think both of these goals are mutually exclusive. America's humanitarian concerns could still be pursued while the Mars mission went on, especially if the Iraq War ends. That would free up a lot of money.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Alright, Iori, WHY do you think that Mars missions will go down in cost in the next ten years?

I did'nt say the next ten years, I said the next few decades, as in 20-40 years.

And because by that time we will already have established a permanent lunar base,
and having a ship launching form the Moon is much more cost effective than
launching it form the Earth, since the larger it is the more power you need to get it into orbit,
however since the Moon's gravity is so much lighter it requires less energy to leave its gravity field.
Another way that would make it cheaper is to launch a set of vehicles, unloaded
from Earth into orbit or Lunar orbit and assemble them, than get resources
from the Moon, which would again require less energy since you don't have
to send all the supplies up.

I would also like to add that humans can do far better science than can automated probes. Heck, they might even break ground on a permanent base.

Which science, exactly, I mean I know there are some things that Humans are just generally
better at than a computer, like for instance a Human may find life where a computer that
had previously been programmed not to see life a certain way might not, but most
science can be done just as good if not better and for a lesser cost by automated
probes and rovers, plus those probes and rovers teach us about the planet so that
when we do go there we're prepared.

And just going there just to plant a flag and collect a few rocks like the Apollo missions
is an idiotic idea, so I'd be hoping that the first Manned Martian mission was the beginning
of a permanent manned Martian base.

Nothing should be worth $100 billion. Although it is, and I can't control that.

Lets wait a few decades for a manned mission. It will be cheaper because technology will be better, and it wont take as long to get there either.

But i agree that we could be using the war money on places like Darfur.

Personally i believe it is worth the cost, and i would see this as a stepping stone into deeper space exploration. The exploration of mars should have happened soon after the moon landing's but didn't for one reason or another, the (very long term) existence of our species will inevitatably depend on our leaving this planet and coloniseing other systems and galaxies so in my eye's the sooner we start on that path the better.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by solidshot]

Originally posted by iori_komei
I don't see the point of sending a manned mission to mars now for that amount of money
when we can send one there in a few decades for a greatly reduced amount of money,

You mean in a few centuries,after we've sorted eachother out?

Originally posted by aylyan
You mean in a few centuries,after we've sorted eachother out?

No, I mean in a few decades, I expect the first manned Mars mission will be between
2030-2050, with a base either already having been set-up, being set-up when the first
people reach Mars or shortly after the first mission, though I expect one of the first two
as it's more economically logical.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Hrmmm..

Bout about some desalinatipon plants in africa, with pipes coming out and going where poeple can get some clean water.... how about that?

Or hell some desalination plants around the world? Dont they say drinking water is going to be a valuable thing soon?

When Africa designs and installs the desalination plants they're on their way to independence.

We need to move off planet now,waiting for everyone to be ready sets us up for a fall.

Originally posted by iori_komei

No, I mean in a few decades, I expect the first manned Mars mission will be between
2030-2050

23 years on our current course..hope you're right