the cost will exceed 2 trillion dollars.
So, what's your source for this? Cause thus far, the largest NASA estimate I've seen has been about $450bn, and that's for one of their most ambitious manned mission proposals. They have others mission plans which are far more modest and economical. So, again, link?
As I explained above Without the money and proper propulsion these will remain pipedreams.
Again, I'll need some reliable evidence of the totally outrageous figure you've mentioned, but as far as propulsion systems go: The technology we have is
proper. Sure, it would be great if someone invented the mythical "space drive", but it hardly makes sense to delay in anticipation of a technology that might not emerge for centuries, if ever. That's the pipe dream.
Thankfully, waiting for a quantum leap in propulsion isn't at all necessary, as the consensus among experts in the aerospace industry is that standard chemical rockets that we are building now are
perfectly adequate for the job.
So, please explain why should we listen to you when the experts almost universally disagree with you?
The figure for 2 trillion is correct.Have you heard of cost over runs?
Just about EVERY single HIGH PRESTIGE project has always had cost over runs.Just look at the International Space Station cost over runs.
The cost over run were phenomenal.
By the time this project gets of the ground,which i seriously doubt,the cost will be conservatively at least 2 trillion.
Lower costs are being quoted to get funding then of course once it gets under way the price will skyrocket.
No politician in his right mind is going to vote for a $2 trillion Mars mission.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME LOOK AT ALL THE PREVIOUS HIGH PRESTIGE PROJECTS.
Find out the estimated quoted figures at the start and actual cost at the end.