Moon is part of Mars

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

$55 billion over 10 years sounds like a bargain.  But how much more could be done robotically for the same money over the same period?  My guess is 'quite a lot' (Opportunity's total cost was about $400 million over 15 years). If the $55 billion dollar figure is reasonable, that's the equivalent of just over two hundred Opportunity-type landers.

I've been mulling over this statement since I posted it, and I've decided that it's both a little unfair and arithmetically off.

Obviously, we wouldn't sent two hundred Opportunity-type landers to Mars.  Given that robotic and computer technologies are advancing by leaps and bounds, we'd clearly send better landers.  They'd have greatly improved cameras, 'brains', mobility and power sources.  They'd be less likely to succumb to mechanical failures, less likely to tumble into a ravine.  Naturally enough, this would add to the cost.  Furthermore, it isn't reasonable to expect the new landers to match Opportunity's operational lifetime of 15 years.

So, let's double the cost to $800 million each and halve the lifetime, rounding down.  $800 million over seven years works out to about $114 million per year per lander.  For the (highly optimistic, in my view) price tag of $55 billion to send humans to Mars, we could send almost 70 Opportunity-Plus landers to Mars.

And the number of astronauts and mission specialists put at risk would be nil.

Boru