Kieth, sadly I agree with your view that lack of flights will only drive costs up and that a govt mars mission would likely cost more than $200 Billion, not that it NEEDS to but that it would, just like ISS. Unfortunately for me, a manned Mars mission is clearly outside my lifetime. I favor any crewed mission scenario outside of LEO. However I claim that a crewed ~9 month NEO mission is better than a return to the moon. Requires less delta V than landing and taking off from the moon and no landing craft R&D expense, which I think you underestimated in today's R&D climate. Returns more new science and addresses the important question of what exactly are NEOs made of? Rocks or rubble piles, etc.
-p (ready to go)
Space/Science » in reply to Re: Good Answers But
Mars, moon or NEO?
The whole thread (46 posts)
- April Popular Science
- Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
- Of course, the majority of Americans also
- Re: Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
- Re: Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
- Re: Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
- Re: Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
- Orlando Sentinel poll results *ARE* online
- Good questions
- "If the dinosaurs had a space program, they'd still be here"
- Re: April Popular Science
- I agree with number four.
- Orlando Sentinal Poll: Majority think manned Mars mission a waste of money
