In order to formulate the budget, we had to establish a timeline for the mission. We decided that the mission should be spread out over a time span of twenty years because it would be more feasible to ask Congress for smaller increments of money over a longer period of time rather than an enormous lump sum. Although this made the budget easier to formulate, the plan forced us to devise a much more elaborate public relations campaign because it will be necessary to maintain both public and congressional interest in the project. The following timeline was devised: Years 1-2: Planning; Years 3-11: Research and Development; Years 12-15: Construction; Years 16-18: Flight; Years 19-20: Analysis. Although not all aspects of the mission will follow the proposed timeline precisely, the timeline serves as a general overview of the project's stages.

We determined the amount of money that should be allocated to each team by primarily analyzing the budget for the Apollo mission. We found that the Apollo mission used approximately 60% of NASA's annual budget in the 1960's. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a mission to Mars, which would be of the same magnitude as Apollo, could also use 60% of NASA's annual budget. With an average budget of $14 billion in the 1990's, we estimated that the mission could take an average of $7 billion a year, or a maximum of $140 billion over 20 years. With this figure in mind, the next task was to divide the funds among the seperate components of the mission. In order to do this, we compared the aspects of the mission to the analogous aspects of Apollo and past Martian exploration missions, and we formulated a proportional cost for that component today. Secondly, we communicated with the teams to determine exactly what their functions included and to obtain a self- estimate of their project's costs. Some assumptions had to be made regarding the mission plans. For example, we assumed that the "to and from vehilce" team would be responsible for purchasing the fuel, and thus should receive the appropriate funding. We also assumed that the environmental team would be responsible for purchasing food and other life- sustaining items necessary for the crew, and that the mission control team would be responsible for the creation of a control center, an around- the- clock staff, and communications panels to oversee the mission. From this assessment of the teams, we determined approximately how much money each team should receive, and the resulting budget is displayed in the graph below.
 

Year	To and From  Vehicle Design	Surface  Transport	Science  Team	Experimental  Design	Budget	Instrument  Design	Mission  Control	Communications  and Software	Navigation	Environment
1	140	140	93	93	46	93	46	93	93	140
2	140	140	93	93	46	93	46	93	93	140
3	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
4	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
5	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
6	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
7	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
8	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
9	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
10	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
11	1000	700	467	467	233	467	233	467	467	700
12	2500	950	587	610	293	595	293	587	587	880
13	2500	950	587	610	293	595	293	587	587	880
14	2500	950	587	610	293	595	293	587	587	880
15	2500	5	587	93	293	595	293	587	587	880
16	4000	5	540	93	20	540	280	540	540	1000
17	5	5	540	93	20	540	280	540	540	1000
18	5	5	540	93	20	540	280	540	540	1000
19	5	5	100	33	5	5	5	5	5	5
20	5	5	100	33	5	5	5	5	5	5

Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Comments and questions to mission2004-students@mit.edu Last updated: 10 December, 2000