Gregg Easterbrook gives a little history of the Biosphere venture, and how Columbia University has finally ended its affiliation with it. But in the process, he makes a glib comment about the affordability of a Mars mission:

It seems certain that as the space shuttle debate continues, some prominent person will advocate the bold new adventure of a trip to Mars. When someone advocates that, this blog will demolish the idea in detail. Here's a quick preview. Last week the Wall Street Journal ran a letter to the editor blithely asserting that colonization of Mars could be accomplished "easily and cheaply." The Russian rocket manufacturer Energia recently estimated that the hardware for a stripped-down manned mission to Mars would weigh a minimum of 600 tons in low-earth orbit. At current space shuttle prices, it costs $15 billion to place 600 tons in low-earth orbit. That's just the initial launch cost for a stripped-down high-risk flight with a couple of people--spaceship and supplies are extra.

Sorry, Gregg, this does not compute. Why would you take the word of Energia for the mass of a Mars mission, and then make the insane assumption that it would be delivered with a Shuttle (probably the most expensive launch system on the planet, and one to soon go out of business, one way or another)?

If you're going to go with Russian quotes, use Russian launch prices. Of course, any rational person, contemplating fifteen billion dollars in launch costs, might consider spending that money instead on reducing launch costs...

If this is a taste of his ability to "demolish in detail", color me underwhelmed. Whether one agrees with the claims made for Mars Direct or not, to make the argument quoted without reference to it or its variants strikes me as uninformed.

Mr. Easterbrook is very good at sounding informed to the general public, since he is more informed than the general public. The problem is, there are other people much better informed, but they don't get the soapbox that he does.

What a joker. If you want 600 tons in LEO, it's easy enough to spend:

$1 billion -- to re-start the Energia production line.
$200 million X five 120-ton Energia launches
------------
= $2 billion

Actually, I've heard from some good sources that these things would actually cost half as much, but I figured I'd throw in a multiple to account for graft. Still, the comparison with the Shuttle is ridiculous.

There must be a special place in hell reserved for people who claim that it's too expensive to launch anything into space, based on how much the Shuttle costs (John Pike is still leading the queue, however).

Oh, and his take on Biosphere II was wildly over-simplified.

Actually, Carl Sagan used to do the same thing--to claim that it was ridiculous to talk about space colonization, because the Shuttle cost so much.

Yeah, Sagan's take on a number of things was a bit askew. For example, in "Pale Blue Dot" he claims that we should learn how to deflect asteroids away from Earth, because that might give rouge nations the ability to deflect into Earth. Never mind that targeting a particular spot on Earth would be orders of magnitude more difficult than simply brushing an asteroid away. Never mind that the intended target -- and the rest of the world -- would undoubtedly have years to decades of forwarning. Never mind that -- if there's a big one out there with our name on it -- the fate of all multi-cellular life might pivot upon this silly bit of paranoia...

So, Sagan was a nifty guy, but he definitely had his problems.

...he claims that we should learn how to deflect asteroids away from Earth, because that might give rouge nations the ability to deflect into Earth.

You mean like the "Red" Chinese? ;-)

> Actually, Carl Sagan used to do the same
> thing--to claim that it was ridiculous to talk
> about space colonization, because the Shuttle
> cost so much.

If you refer to his opposition to Gerry K. O'Neill's fantasies, he was undoubtedly correct. The launch strategies proposed in the 1970s would have been wildly unrealistic.
---
Interestingly, it seems the other great pipe dream of the 1970s (solar power from space) is becoming more realistic now. Not because launch costs have gotten significantly cheaper, but because of advances in automation, power conversion efficiency and lightweight materials. This means future solar power satellites probably will be a lot smaller, lighter and not require the armies of astronaut construction workers envisioned by Peter Glaser & co. 30 years ago. Maybe the advent of some unforeseen "disruptive technology" (self replicating nanomachines, perhaps) totally will change the rules of the game...

MARCU$

If you refer to his opposition to Gerry K. O'Neill's fantasies, he was undoubtedly correct. The launch strategies proposed in the 1970s would have been wildly unrealistic.

If he was addressing that specifically, he didn't say. I just know that I read a piece by him in the mid-eighties in which he "proved" that it would not be possible to move large numbers of people off the planet because Shuttle was so expensive. Surprisingly, in some ways, he had a paltry imagination.

I don't remember the mass that Mars direct was suppose to require, but I believe $2 billion for each single launch of a some new system is what Zubrin had suggested (to avoid the question of rendevous and assembly in orbit.)

In any case, it's certainly affordable.

Maybe the advent of some unforeseen "disruptive technology" (self replicating nanomachines, perhaps) totally will change the rules of the game

While these will make space travel easier they probably wouldn't be needed for pace based power. Even in the UK PV cells on your roof are basically enough to power a house with a battery pack through most of the year. If you could "grow" cells over a range of surfaces you can reduce the total depdance on other means by an incredible amount. As I recal Drexler suggested PV cells on roads.