1. Introduction

A new corporate partnership was announced in 2008 called Virgle. Virgle was heralded as a partnership between Google and Virgin for an historic goal. As the Virgle website stated, "Earth has issues, and it's time humanity got started on a Plan B. So, starting in 2014, Virgin founder Richard Branson and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will be leading hundreds of users on one of the grandest adventures in human history: Project Virgle, the first permanent human colony on Mars" (Virgle.com 2008).

The Virgle website boasted videos of Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson as well as Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. All of them enthusiastically endorsed the Virgle concept. Google's Brin stated, "We're going to select the very first settlers of the planet Mars." Virgin founder, Sir Richard Branson, added that, "We are looking for volunteers. We believe there are people out there who would like to participate in this grand adventure…" (Virgle.com 2008).

This concept seemed perfectly plausible based on advancements in commercial space flight and the combined resources of both Google and Virgin. It would have been one of the most significant announcements in history if it were not for the fact that Virgle was announced on April 1, 2008 (April Fool‟s Day).

Despite the fact that Virgle was just an extremely well executed hoax, it stimulated some very intriguing questions – most notably – would a corporate partnership or consortium like Virgle really be able to launch a private mission to Mars? There are many people who believe that a private mission to Mars is not only possible, but perhaps the only way that the United States will be able to get there (Joseph 2010). They feel that NASA has become too bureaucratic to develop an affordable human Mars mission; that a human mission would fall victim to a lack of long-term political will in Congress and cannot be carried through multiple Administrations.

However, how would such a mission transpire? There have been numerous proposals over the last fifteen years aimed at stimulating the private sector to engage in Mars exploration. These include creating a massive Mars Prize; the creation of a corporate consortium (like Virgle); tax incentives to stimulate potential "Virgles"; and/or individual billionaires who want to personally make history. All these concepts have advantages and disadvantages, but all are much more plausible today than they were just ten years ago.

Despite the advances in the private sector space industry, the main reason that has prevented government agencies and private entities from mounting such a mission is cost. Until less expensive and more efficient methods are developed, it is unlikely a private entity will be able to launch a successful mission.

2. The Mars Prize

The Mars Prize concept is an extremely ambitious version of a concept that was successful in the early days of aviation. The most commonly cited example was the $25,000 Orteig Prize. This prize was offered in 1919 to the first person to fly solo non-stop from New York to Paris. Several years later in 1927, this prize was won when Charles Lindbergh made his historic flight (Randolph 1990) .

Of course, this was not the first prize for exploration projects. In 1714, the British government offered the Longitude Prize to the first person who could accurately determine longitude, which led to major advances in navigation (Sobel 1996).

The key question is: Can this same concept be applied to space exploration and particularly, exploration of Mars? Over the past couple of decades, estimates for a NASA-run human mission to Mars have ranged anywhere from $150 billion to $1 trillion (Flatow 2009; Zubrin 1996; Day 2004). If this is true, it is highly unlikely that a private mission of any kind will be achievable in the near future. There are many individuals, however, who believe that a human mission to Mars can be accomplished at a dramatically lower cost if a market model is utilized.

In 1994, Robert Zubrin and United States Representative Newt Gingrich came up with the Mars Prize bill that would offer a $20 billion prize to the "first private organization to successfully land a crew on Mars and return them to Earth…" (Zubrin 1996).

At the time, this was quite an innovative concept. The Mars Prize bill predated the X-Prize by two years and few people were taking this type of program seriously. Although Zubrin's 1996 estimate for his Mars Direct plan for sending humans to Mars was $30 billion, he hypothesized that a privately developed mission would be substantially less expensive. Using a market model, it could cost $4 to $6 billion. This estimate was based on using Titan, Atlas, Delta, or Russian Energia launch vehicles. Zubrin's model also predated any of the current commercial launch vehicles that are now in development (Zubrin 1996).

Gingrich did not actively promote the Mars Prize concept for over a decade, but he also did not abandon a prize based Mars exploration program altogether. In an April 2007 speech, Gingrich proposed a $20 billion prize again which would be tax free. He noted that being tax free is extremely important because Americans do not like paying taxes. He claimed that a tax free $20 billion prize would be psychologically more attractive than a $40 billion prize with taxes. As with the Gingrich-Zubrin concept of 1994, the first team to get to Mars and return safely would win the prize. (Gingrich 2008) It is not surprising that former Speaker Gingrich revived the Mars Prize concept. Two years after the Mars Prize bill was proposed (and essentially died), Peter Diamandis and a group of other visionaries founded the X-Prize which offered a $10 million prize to the first non-government team to successfully launch a human occupied spacecraft into space twice within a two week period. Eight years later this prize was won by Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne, which had been financed by Microsoft co-founded, Paul Allen. In addition, over $100 million was invested in this contest by the various competing teams; $25 million was invested by Paul Allen alone (Brekke 2004).

While this achievement represented only a tiny fraction of the complexity and cost of what a Mars mission would entail, it represented a paradigm shift in what was possible and what individuals and corporations may be willing to invest in. At that moment, a Mars Prize did not appear to be nearly as farfetched. It also inspired the next step for the X-Prize Foundation with the announcement in 2007 of the $30 million Google Lunar X-Prize (Diamandis 2008).

When asked if the Google Lunar X-Prize could lead to Mars related prizes, Tiffany Montague, Director of Google‟s space initiatives stated, "I don't think there is any reason that it wouldn't. I do think that we need to walk before we can run. The preamble to that is demonstrating that we can send rovers successfully to the Moon" (Montague 2010).

Could this concept be applicable to sending humans to Mars? In 2008, X-Prize founder, Peter Diamandis proposed Mega X-prizes including a human mission to Mars. However, in a recent interview, Diamandis stated that it was unlikely there would be a Mega X-Prize geared to a human mission to Mars. "I don't see a Mars Mega-X PRIZE… An incentive prize works when there's a long-term business model and the prize can drive numerous teams to spend the money to play. A private Mars mission is likely a $5B - $10B endeavor and you won't see multiple teams each raising this level…If we ever re-invented launch technology to reduce the cost by 100-fold, then I think a "humans to Mars prize" would make a lot of sense" (Diamandis 2010).

While not likely to reduce launch costs by 100-fold, if SpaceX can deliver on its goal of dramatically reducing launch costs, it may bring a Mars mission down to the level where an X-Prize may be viable. In a September 7, 2010 email interview with the first author (Carberry), Elon Musk said he thought a privately financed mission would only cost $2 billion and that a prize would only have to be $1 billion. He added that it would take "ten years from starting fundraising to landing back on Earth." If Musk is correct, not only would hundreds of individuals in the United States alone have the means to fund such a prize, but hundreds would also be able to fund teams to compete.

3. Stepping Stone Approach

Even if a government agency, wealthy individual(s), or corporate consortium does not present itself in the next few years, the Mars Prize concept is still viable. There are many intermediate technologies, science projects, and processes needed for a Mars mission that can be achieved for far less money than the Mars Prize proposed by Newt Gingrich or even a $1 billion prize that Elon Musk thinks would be sufficient. Although much attention is focused on launch systems, there are other technologies that have the potential of reducing overall launch costs. Technologies like In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) have the potential of dramatically reducing mission mass and costs (Landis 2007). It will also make Mars (and other missions) far more sustainable. Some of these enabling technologies include:

4. Has a Private Mission Already Begun?

One could argue that the private sector effort has already begun. SpaceX was founded partially to advance a private Mars mission. In 2001 and 2002, Elon Musk had plans to send a Mars greenhouse called Oasis to Mars. As Musk investigated the launch options that existed at the time, he was not satisfied with the existing American and Russian options. As a result, SpaceX was created. When asked during an interview if SpaceX was already running a private Mars mission, Musk said, "No, but we are slowly building the elements needed for that mission from internal cash flow. The greenhouse idea is what drove me to understand that rockets are the fundamental thing holding back humanity" (Foorahar 2008).

Despite this statement, Mars is a primary objective of Elon Musk and SpaceX. The mission has changed since 2002, as the SpaceX long-term goal is not just focused on Mars – but it seems quite apparent that Elon Musk and SpaceX is focused on getting humans to Mars. In The Observer, Musk was quite clear about the Mars goal. "One of the long-term goals of SpaceX is, ultimately, to get the price of transporting people and products to Mars to be low enough and with a high enough reliability that if somebody wanted to sell all their belongings and move to a new planet and forge a new civilization, they could do so" (Harris 2010).

Their long-term intentions were made even clearer with the unveiling of drawings of the Falcon XX heavy lift vehicle that would be larger than the Saturn V rocket. According to Tom Markusic, Facility Director of the SpaceX McGregor Rocket Development Center, if the United States decided to direct heavy lift vehicle funding to SpaceX, they could land humans on the surface of Mars between 2020 and 2025 (Harris 2010).

Regardless of whether Space X is "officially" running a private humans to Mars program, if they continue to successfully launch their Falcon 9 rocket and demonstrate that they will be able to safely launch humans into orbit at dramatically reduced cost, this could significantly advance the possibility of a Virgle-like consortium. When asked if such a consortium may be possible in the next one to two decades, Director of Google Space Initiatives Tiffany Montague said, "…there is no reason to assume that it couldn't be a reality. I think each company has to make wise decisions on what the investments are for short and long term, and I can't really speculate on what companies might end up joining the consortium, but I don't think it is improbable that the solution to long-term space exploration should come from the commercial sector" (Montague 2010).

Despite his doubts concerning a mega Mars X-Prize, Peter Diamandis is a strong advocate of a private mission to Mars. "I think privately funded missions are the only way to go to Mars with humans because I think the best way to go is on "one-way" colonization flights and no government will likely sanction such a risk. The timing for this could well be within the next 20 years. It will fall within the hands of a small group of tech billionaires who view such missions as the way to leave their mark on humanity" (Diamandis 2010).

5. Tax Incentives, Advertising, Selling Science and Samples

In a proposed piece of tax legislation drafted by Joseph Webster (2001) for The Mars Society, called the "Mars Exploration Tax Policy Act of 2001," he proposed:

This bill proposed that in addition to the tax incentives, competing companies could earn revenue by selling media rights, sponsorships, excess payload and crew space (Webster 2001).

There would also be a wide range of other potential ways to raise funds through a Mars mission. Joseph (2010) proposes what he calls "marketing Mars" and the creation of an independent corporation with a mandate from Congress to sell the exclusive rights to name the Mars landing crafts and to broadcast the landing on Mars. He also proposes selling Mars mineral rights and property rights. However, would this be enough to make the mission profitable (or at least break even)?

Even if such a mission did succeed in profitably landing humans on Mars, what would the sustainability of the profits be? Unless new profit variables present themselves, it would be difficult for a private entity to maintain a profit for more than a few years, unless NASA or other government agencies began to pay the winning consortium for access to launch services, facilities on Mars, and other resources.

6. One Way to Mars

Dramatic reductions of launch costs could go a long way to drive down overall costs. However, another option discussed in the last few years is the "One-Way" option (Schulze-Makuch and Davies, 2010). Traditional mission architectures all assumed that the astronauts would return to Earth. There are a growing number of people who feel that the first mission may very well be a one-way trip (Boston, 2010; Schulze-Makuch and Davies, 2010).

According to Schulze-Makuch and Davies (2010) A human mission to Mars is so hugely expensive that is makes more sense to have one-way human mission to Mars as this would cut the costs several fold and ensure a continuous commitment to the exploration of Mars. They suggest the sending of four astronauts initially, two on each of two space craft, each with a lander and sufficient supplies, to stake a single outpost on Mars. The astronauts would be re-supplied on a periodic basis from Earth until they became increasingly proficient at harvesting and utilizing resources available on Mars. Eventually the outpost would reach self-sufficiency.

This viewpoint is also argued by X-Prize founder Peter Diamandis. "The cost, complexity and risk of round trip missions is too high…Government space mission budgets always get cut and compromised." Diamandis added, "and the science and meaningful long-term infrastructure is what gets cut out. With a one-way mission, you have to make sure you have the long-term infrastructure in place" (Diamandis 2010).

In an NPR interview, Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss echoes this viewpoint, arguing that a one-way mission should be attempted, particularly since it does not require a return vehicle (Flatow 2009). Krauss stated, "From a monetary point of view, we'd save a lot because really, whenever you want to bring people back, you have to send the fuel for the voyage along on the way out… And it's not just a factor of two. It's a huge factor in terms of just the cost of the fuel and the mass of the rocket ship." Krauss states this is not a new idea. "There's a long tradition of that in human history. The explorers didn't necessarily expect to come back. Certainly, colonists and pilgrims never expected to go home" (Flatow 2009).

It should be noted, however, that explorers to the American continent knew that in most cases, there would be a plentiful supply of air, food, and usable space that did not require the cutting edge use of technology. Even with the use of ISRU technology, these basic necessities will be far more tenuous than they were for the early European settlers in America. Krauss also fails to point out that ISRU propellant production can remove or drastically reduce the need for fuel for the return voyage.

Despite the fact that the first people on Mars would face the large possibility of not surviving beyond a few years, there are still apparently many people who would still willingly take the risk. In a Mars Exploration Magazine article, Google's Tiffany Montague was asked if she would go to Mars if she had the chance. She replied, "Oh, hell yes! Not only would I go, I would elbow everyone else out of the way – even if you told me it was a one-way trip. Hopefully you send me with the means to make my own greenhouse, but even if it was going to be a very short abrupt one-way trip, I'd still go and I'd still elbow everyone else out of the way" (Montague 2010). Although the tone of Montague's statement is intended for comedic effect, there is no question that she would go one-way to Mars if given the chance.

The question is not can we mount a private one-way mission to Mars relatively cheaply? The question is whether it is politically and ethically feasible? The United States government would never send a one-way mission. It has become far too risk averse to even consider such a concept.

The question therefore is, would the private sector? Companies and private individuals are very much susceptible to political pressure and public outcry. Once it became known that a consortium or individual was going to send someone on what could be a suicide mission to Mars (even if the person funding the mission was the person making the trip), there would be a massive national and international debate on the topic. While this could have positive aspects, it could also present some very negative consequences, particularly if Congress and other bodies create legal and regulatory roadblocks – this could also hinder other space exploration efforts.

Another problem with a one-way mission to Mars is that there will be the limited direct return from the Mars travelers. There would be nothing so inspiring as Mars explorers returning from their voyages and sharing their first hand accounts with the world. This could be just as inspiring to the population of Earth as any electronic updates they may provide. As with the returning tales of Antarctic, African, and other explorers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, returning Mars explorers will certainly inflame our passion for exploration.

It will probably be more productive to reduce overall costs. In addition to reducing launch costs, the development of technologies such as SEP and ISRU could effectively reduce the cost as much as eliminating the return vehicle – without the perception of a "suicide mission" (Cassady 2010).

7. Current Government Cash Incentives and Prizes

The United States has been cognizant of developments in commercial space and the success of the X-Prize. As a result, NASA created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. COTS provides seed money to commercial space companies to develop cargo services to the International Space Station. Thus far, SpaceX has been the main recipient of these funds, while Rocketplane Kistler and Orbital Sciences have received lesser amounts. (Bergin 2008; Berger 2006) NASA has also created the Centennial Challenges and the Obama administration has proposed major increases in the level of funding for new commercial options.

8. Conclusion

If the United States is going to lead a mission to Mars in the upcoming decades, it will almost certainly be achieved through the use of at least some elements of the new commercial model. However, we have now reached an era where the major question is not whether the private sector has the capacity to get a human mission done, but whether a traditional government program will be able to build enough political momentum to maintain a strong and steady program over more than a decade.

This is not to say that an entirely private program is better than the traditional approach or a public-private hybrid version. On the contrary, the hybrid method is probably the path that stands the best chance of mission success, but it is also subject to far more political turbulence concerning funding and the overall balance and focus of the program. In order to alleviate some of this turbulence, there must be more unity between the traditional and the "new space" companies. NASA and the established aerospace community should not fear or dismiss these new approaches to space exploration. The new space companies, and their advocates, need to recognize that there is strong value in how the traditional space community approaches mission design. Both need to think about new and efficient methods of designing missions, whether by reducing launch costs or embracing technologies like in situ resource utilization.

Even if the United States government does decide to embrace a true hybrid version or aim for Mars in a more traditional fashion, government should still create an environment that could stimulate a major private effort. If a Virgle-like consortium or a group of billionaires start seriously considering the feasibility of a private mission, that would be a good time to create major tax incentives or a tax-free prize as suggested. While NASA should play a substantial role in space exploration in the next few decades, finding ways to empower the private sector to also play a substantial role in exploration should be considered a vital goal of United States space policy.