Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to I Understand ROI And This One Looks Bad At A Glance

First of all, you have to have a realistic projection of costs
Larry J — (archived)

An old trick is, when lacking a number, use a really big one like "hundreds of billions of dollars" instead of trying to determine the true costs. I've seen the "really big number lie" used several times in the past on such things as the cost of missile defense. Until an architecture is defined, until the required technologies are determined, until an analysis is conducted, then any numbers are merely artifacts pulled from someone's anal data store ("pulled out of your ass" in military lingo).

The same argument can be made about alternative mission scenarios like Mars Direct. While Zubrin has some really good ideas, he isn't the be-all and end-all source of all space knowledge. Most of us who've worked in aerospace for a number of years believe his cost projections are laughable.

As for the central question about using lunar resources verses launching from the Earth's surface, you're taking too narrow a view. The resources potentially available from the moon allow all sorts of things beyond a manned mission to Mars.

On the subject of using Martian resources, that's a good idea once you're on Mars. It doesn't get you there. You still need to launch many tons of propellants and consumables from the Earth to make it to Mars in the first place.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (34 posts)