From Jason's Link

"If one assumes a [space] program will have other reasons to develop a reusable shuttle, a versatile space tug and a universal space station module (all to serve many Earth orbital economic, military and scientific purposes) then even the total costs of developing a Mars expedition become far different from the kind of $100 billion figure which has been common to the literature."

Larry has poo-pooed even a 100 billion price tag. Please note Oberg said far different. We're not just talking about a little under 100 billion. Personally I don't advocate this kind of reasoning. I favor Mars precisely because it can justify the infrastructure which will make other projects like the Moon and NEO's more feasible. The point is he seems to feel the 100 billion is reasonable for the whole shebang and that Mars specific costs are much lower. It is however not clear here whether the he does regard the 100 billion as an accurate total. That interpretation is open to debate, but additional coments below support my interpretation.

This segment is clearer: "People tend to overlook how much of the Apollo costs were associated with building a basic U.S. space capability rather than just going to the moon per se," Sheldon continued. "One might think of a Mars expedition of the type discussed as much closer to the order of magnitude of $10 billion rather than the $25 to $35 billion of Apollo or the $100 billion postulated so often for Mars." This is directly in line with comments I made to Larry recently asking why going to Mars should cost more than the entire Apollo program given the breadth of work it had to do. 10 billion is pretty low compared to the numbers Larry has jeered, but again I think Oberg is limiting this cost to Mars specific costs alone. It should also be noted that the Apollo cost listed here was not adjusted for inflation.

I've also made a point similar to this comment "In the late 1970's, analysts in the British Interplanetary Society, based in London, did their own cost studies for a joint U.S.-European Mars expedition. Engineer Robert Parkinson reported: “Given the right circumstances it is actually cheaper to send men than to try to do the same thing with dozens of robot expeditions.". I'm not sure whethe rit was Larry or someone else I debated that issue with.

This also puts into persepctive the comparisons with Apollo I've tried to make in terms of cost: "These estimates and later ones tried to avoid long-term inflation issues by using a cost unit called "one Apollo," the amount spent during the moon race. One Apollo was equal to $25 billion in 1970, and adjusted for inflation is the equivalent of $56 billion in 1982 and about $100 billion today."

I've also made comments similar to the following in the past with regard to whether or not we can afford a mission to Mars: "The Mars costs can be compared in other ways. As a percentage of contemporary gross national product, Apollo cost 2.8 percent, and the shuttle and a program to send humans to Mars were costed at one-sixth of that. As a per capita expense, both the shuttle and a Mars expedition cost about one-fourth of the expense for Apollo."

Once again you seem to have overlooked all the comments in an article supportive of going to Mars. It doesn't surprise me you missed all the comments Oberg made consistent with past statements I've made.

Regards,
Mark