RE: from 6 billion to 500 million: how?

From: John Marlow (
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 21:54:40 MST

I dunno about your own personal financial situation--but five bil a
year sounds like lots and lots and lots of money to me. And,
apparently, to everyone else--as no one's breaking their neck to
spend it. It oughtta be done; that's just common sense--but then pols
were never big on that anyway, and corps need to make a profit. So
here we sit, waiting on The Comet (or whatever)...


On 6 Feb 2001, at 3:41, Josh Martin wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > []On Behalf Of John Marlow
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:53 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: from 6 billion to 500 million: how?
> >
> >
> > Could be. Point was that it ain't gonna be cheap to get to Mars
> > before nano. Buy or punch your own, it's going to cost "lots and lots
> > and lots of money." I'll stand by that.
> > :)
> >
> > jm
> >
> Just curious:
> What is your "design reference" for this statement? Are you imagining a
> built-in-orbit, fuel-for-both-legs-of-the-trip type of mission, or are you
> open to less orthodox methods. I think you reference Bush Sr.'s failed 500
> billion smackers plan. If you think that is the only way to get to Mars,
> I'll tell you why you're wrong. The Mars Direct plan calls for 50 billion
> over ten years. That's 5 billion a year, a small percentage of NASA's
> budget. Granted, this is to establish a scientific base, not a colony, but
> its a beginning, and its how it will happen. What do you expect, the
> world's governments will just go, "Hey! Let's build an autonomous, fully
> functional colony on another planet, which will be of absolutely no use to
> us, right now! And let's blow a whole bunch of money doing it!" Reducto ad
> absurdum is only so useful. Sometimes you have to argue from the actual
> situation. ;)
> Josh

John Marlow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:36 MDT