Answer · confidence: partial
What did Apollo teams think a Mars trip would cost, and what changed?
Research question: What did the Apollo-era teams conclude about the cost and feasibility of a Mars trip, and what changed afterward?
The records do not directly report what Apollo-era teams concluded about the cost or feasibility of a Mars trip; the 2025 article gives no Apollo-era findings 1. The closest comparison is a 1990 proposal that put its total Mars program at $105 billion against the $96 billion development cost of Apollo 8. Around 1991, Mars Direct was offered as a simpler alternative to the conventional plan because it requires no on-orbit assembly or orbital rendezvous 510. Later, NASA's Design Reference Architecture 5.0 in 2010 set a new baseline and offered chemical propulsion as an alternative to nuclear thermal propulsion 69. By 2025, crewed Mars missions were expected to slip to the 2040s, the mission was likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and former astronaut John Grunsfeld said the country could not afford it under the proposed budgets 124, so the newest fact is about a year old as of October 2026.
Checked 2026-10-20. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this questionSources
[1] supported
The article gives no Apollo-era findings; it states that a human Mars mission is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars spread over several years.
"A human mission to Mars is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars spread over a number of years"Trump’s Cuts Threaten NASA Plans for Astronauts on Mars
[2] supported
Under current plans, crewed Mars missions were expected to be delayed until the 2040s because of technological and budget limitations.
"decades, but both technological and budget limitations mean that probably will not happen until the 2040s under current plans."Trump’s Cuts Threaten NASA Plans for Astronauts on Mars
[3] supported
In late May 2025 the White House proposed about US$1 billion for 2026 Mars plans, including new spacesuit research and an astronaut landing system, as part of an effort to accelerate the timeline.
"On 30 May, the White House proposed to spend some US$1 billion in 2026 on Mars plans, including research into new spacesuits and an astronaut landing system."Trump’s Cuts Threaten NASA Plans for Astronauts on Mars
[4] supported
Former NASA astronaut John Grunsfeld said that under the proposed budgets the country could not afford to send people to Mars.
"“Right now, with the budgets that are proposed, we can’t afford to send people to Mars,” says John Grunsfeld"Trump’s Cuts Threaten NASA Plans for Astronauts on Mars
[5] supported
The document says the conventional Earth-orbital assembly/Mars orbital rendezvous plan, which dominated most recent analysis, is largely unsatisfying against SEI coherency requirements.
"is shown to be largely unsatisfied by the conventional Earth-orbital assembly/Mars orbital rendezvous mission plan that has dominated most recent analysis."Mars direct - A simple, robust, and cost effective architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative (1991)
[6] supported
NASA's Design Reference Architecture 5.0 set a new baseline for crewed Mars missions.
"With the release of the Design Reference Architecture 5.0, NASA established a new baseline for crewed missions to Mars."A Value Proposition Analysis of Propulsion Options for Crewed Mars Missions (2010)
[7] supported
The alternative Mars Direct plan needs two launches of a heavy-lift booster for each four-person mission: one to deliver an unfueled Earth Return Vehicle that makes its own propellant, and one to deliver the crew.
"In the Mars Direct plan two launches of a heavy lift booster optimized for Earth escape are required to support each 4 person mission."Mars direct - A simple, robust, and cost effective architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative (1991)
[8] supported
The proposal's total Mars mission program cost is estimated at $105 billion, which the authors compare against the $96 billion development cost of the Apollo Program.
"Tn summary the total program cost, shown in Figure V-2, is $105 Billion. This compares to $96 Bilion development cost for the Apollo Program."NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 19900016711: Terrapin technologies manned Mars mission proposal (1990)
[9] documented
The main change in DRA 5.0 was offering chemical propulsion as an alternative to the nuclear thermal propulsion baseline of earlier versions for trans-Mars injection and Mars orbit insertion.
"The most notable change in this iteration is the chemical propulsion option for the trans-Mars injection and Mars orbit insertion mission phases as an alternative to the baseline nuclear thermal propulsion option in previous versions."A Value Proposition Analysis of Propulsion Options for Crewed Mars Missions (2010)
[10] supported
Mars Direct requires no on-orbit assembly or orbital rendezvous in any phase of the mission, which is the main contrast with the conventional plan.
"No onorbit assembly or orbital rendezvous is required in any phase of the mission,"Mars direct - A simple, robust, and cost effective architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative (1991)
[11] supported
The cost analysis notes that STS launch costs had been subsidized, and NASA policy had changed to favor expendable launch vehicles unless crew participation is essential.
"STS costs were subsidized at the time the paper was written, and NASA policy has changed to utilize expendable vehicles unless crew participation is essential."NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 19900016711: Terrapin technologies manned Mars mission proposal (1990)
[12] supported
Early in the program, chemical propulsion needs less funding, and its higher launch costs do not outweigh its development savings.
"In the early stages of the program, chemical propulsion requires less funding and the increased launch costs do not overwhelm the development savings."A Value Proposition Analysis of Propulsion Options for Crewed Mars Missions (2010)
[13] documented
Over a three-mission program, a nuclear thermal transfer vehicle was found to have a low likelihood of being the more cost-effective option, given the uncertainty at that stage.
"The results of the analysis indicate that over the course of a three mission program a nuclear thermal transfer vehicle has a low likelihood of being the more cost-effective option given the uncertainty at this stage."A Value Proposition Analysis of Propulsion Options for Crewed Mars Missions (2010)