When will humans land on Mars?

[DaveS]

Terraforming Mars So tongue in cheek I wonder she can speak!

[Ags]

I didn't expect the topic to be so divisive! However, my question was not "should we go?" but "when will we go?" Half the time I tend towards the idea of not contaminating Mars with Earth microbes astronauts would definitely introduce, but I also feel that it is inevitable we will go regardless. Musk's Starship program is going well, so I think we may see the event in the early 2030s.

[Nik271]

4 minutes ago, Ags said:

I didn't expect the topic to be so divisive! However, my question was not "should we go?" but "when will we go?" Half the time I tend towards the idea of not contaminating Mars with Earth microbes astronauts would definitely introduce, but I also feel that it is inevitable we will go regardless. Musk's Starship program is going well, so I think we may see the event in the early 2030s.

Yeah, fuel the Starship in Earth orbit and send it on a one way trip to Mars with a load of fee-paying passengers and Musk as captain, this certainly has my vote

[Ags]

He is a divisive figure, but he gets results!

[Sunshine]

Not when Elon musk says so.

[HiveIndustries]

3 minutes ago, Ags said:

I didn't expect the topic to be so divisive! However, my question was not "should we go?" but "when will we go?" Half the time I tend towards the idea of not contaminating Mars with Earth microbes astronauts would definitely introduce, but I also feel that it is inevitable we will go regardless. Musk's Starship program is going well, so I think we may see the event in the early 2030s.

Do we know it's a definite? Have we identified any life on our planet that we think could even possibly survive, much less thrive and reproduce on Mars? It would appear unlikely, especially if taking proper precautions (which minus one Tesla, we do) but does the risk need to be absolute 0 to go?

Also if I could snap my fingers and transplant an Earth biosphere on to Mars, "fix" its soil, give it a magnetosphere and increase its density to 1g, I would. I think anyone would. So the contamination argument only goes so far when the obvious thing we want to do is terraform and make it as hospitable to human life as possible. We can talk about that on a species scale and it's a no-brainer imho. There'd be a phase of discovery un-disturbed scientific history and then, "let's move in guys!" since it's likely a lifeless rock like many out there in the galaxy. That's different than me arguing for Musk's vision, just want to point that out.

[Paul M]

I don't know if we ever will colonise but surely there'll be a manned expedition in the next 10 years. Luckily it's a barren lifeless rock with few if any macroscopic surprises left, so there is little there for us to destroy. With that in mind I'm inclined to ask why bother? Other than giving Musk something to do?

If it was a water world with a potential for life I'd say stay away. We don't deserve another chance.

[Craney]

25 minutes ago, Ags said:

He is a divisive figure, but he gets results!

But let's hope he doesn't want to use a submarine....

[Nik271]

9 minutes ago, Craney said:

But let's hope he doesn't want to use a submarine....

Or build a tunnel to Mars. At least the vacuum is free this time   

Edited October 24, 2021 by Nik271

[HiveIndustries]

9 minutes ago, Paul M said:

I don't know if we ever will colonise but surely there'll be a manned expedition in the next 10 years. Luckily it's a barren lifeless rock with few if any macroscopic surprises left, so there is little there for us to destroy. With that in mind I'm inclined to ask why bother? Other than giving Musk something to do?

Hate to beat a dead horse but 10 years is essentially impossible unless something major changes. Ten years is the timetable most people in the industry feel is generous for the sample return from Perseverance which in almost any reality being conceived today is going to need to happen first.

The only reality that has us on the surface of Mars in 10 years, humans, is one where Elon Musk is right about all of his timetables. He's pushed the boundaries beyond his peers but he hasn't exactly been Wernher von Braun in realistically laying out timetables.

Edited October 24, 2021 by HiveIndustries

[HiveIndustries]

Here's a good thing on the sample return with an estimation of 2031. That 2031 should be taken about as definitively as every other space deadline you've heard about in the past 20 years as far as I'm concerned.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/06/mars-ascent-vehicle-update/

^Everyone appears to be in agreement that has to happen first, again, sans Elon suddenly becoming a godlike disruptor he sees himself as instead of just an industry leading one. But even then, rockets are but just one (admittedly extremely large) part of this equation and again, this is all on 2 year orbital windows.

Edited October 24, 2021 by HiveIndustries

[Craney]

Back to the original post....

I'm afraid all the answers are wrong. According to my  Brooke Bond  Card collection  " The Race into Space" ,  and they should know about staring into tea-cups........

we have already been there since  1982....

Edited October 24, 2021 by Craney

[johninderby]

Couldn’t resist posting this. 😁

[Nik271]

I think the cheapest and quickest way is to go outside during Mars opposition and concentrate very hard while staring at it, according to certain Mr. John Carter. He came back several times and wrote about it in the 1920s.  

[dmki]

1 hour ago, HiveIndustries said:

2 hours ago, DaveS said:

A one-way trip isn't a suicide mission if you're setting up a colony, with people expecting to live out their (Long, hopefully) lives there. I doubt the Pilgrim Fathers (What about the mothers? Much more important)  on the Mayflower were expecting (Or even wanted) to return to England.

Your assumption that billionaires want their employees to commit suicide is dangerously close to political.

Musk talks about it openly man, I don't think it's political. The only thing up for debate is the word "suicide" which I, probably like you, would disagree with but certainly worth debating.

We know enough to know there's going to be damage to humans on the way and when you get there and that they're more than likely to shorten life, at least speculatively, coupled with a "one way" trip, whether or not that qualifies as suicide, isn't that fair game?

Dave, you have a point, to describe billionaires as having wet dre4ams about the deaths of their employees is wrong, a more appropriate word would be indifferent. recent times have given lots of examples of this behaver, amazon, tesla and dyson to name a few, where employee well being has been given  a lower priority to achieving their aims be it business expansion, profitability or anything else they might want.

Personally if amazon's founder were to send people to mars does anyone here think he would have any more concern for their well being than he would for his warehouse and delivery staff? is this political, i guess it is but that's only because the old given of the 'duty of care' we have to each other has become a tribal political issue.

As for suicide mission, I would say that any high risk project where the end of mission crew survival was not the first design and project priority would at best be a sacrificial and at worst suicidal mission. I guess this opinion is guided by seeing being careless with your life and suicide being side of the same coin... though i appreciate that many would disagree.

 

[Franklin]

In his excellent book "Guide to the Moon" Sir Patrick Moore wrote in the mid-1970's that he fully expected a manned return to the Moon by the 1990's and possibly even a full scale lunar base!

[HiveIndustries]

11 minutes ago, Franklin said:

In his excellent book "Guide to the Moon" Sir Patrick Moore wrote in the mid-1970's that he fully expected a manned return to the Moon by the 1990's and possibly even a full scale lunar base!

I'm not an astrophysicist nor an aerospace engineer and am limited in how much detail I can go into (it's not as impressive as it sounds, not nearly) but I can tell you with certainty technology has not been the limiting factor. At least I get to talk to people who tell me it wasn't. There's a reason all of this stuff speaks with such confidence about going.

Even propulsive landing was conceived and drawn up during those days, Musk was just the first person to do it. There were plans on the board to land next generation Saturn-Vs propulsively. 

[DaveS]

Unfortunately discussion about why "we" didn't follow up Apollo would break the forum rule about politics.

[Nik271]

23 minutes ago, HiveIndustries said:

conceived and drawn up during those days, Musk was just the first person to do it. There were plans on the board to land next generation Saturn-Vs propulsively. 

Space X is not the first to achieve vertical rocket landing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X This technology is not new, of course making is commercially viable is a first for Space X.

You are completely correct that the technology we currently possess allows us in theory to go to Mars, land people and come back, with several preparation stages.  It just involves such an enormous cost to the economy that nobody has managed to push it through. Also the success of the robotic missions after Apollo showed that as far as scientific data collection is concerned there is no need for human space flight at this stage. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Nik271

[HiveIndustries]

25 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Unfortunately discussion about why "we" didn't follow up Apollo would break the forum rule about politics.

Indeed it would. Nor would it be fruitful, we've seemingly solved the problem of stalled forward momentum.

In terms of quantifying "we" I would point to Virgin as some pretty solid space hardware from the Brits. There's no reason even if Space Ship Two is a commercial failure that your very own eccentric billionaire hasn't hatched a viable way to launch satellites into space. There's a very real and profitable niche for those kinds of payloads even if it's not as sexy and workhorsey as a Falcon 9 or promised Starship. That's just one of a lot of really cool stuff coming from you guys (admittedly the highest profile example).

It would seem we've finally broken the mold on the old ways of doing things. Every country that is trying right now is making great strides.

19 minutes ago, Nik271 said:

Space X is not the first to achieve vertical rocket landing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X This technology is not new, of course making is commercially viable is a first for Space X.

You are completely correct that the technology we currently possess allows us in theory to go to Mars, land people and come back, with several preparation stages.  It just involves such an enormous cost to the economy that nobody has managed to push it through. Also the success of the robotic missions after Apollo showed that as far as scientific data collection is concerned there is no need for human space flight at this stage. 

Oh yeah I always say the one thing Musk has done better than launch rockets is his PR. You don't want to undersell what he's done with landing the F9 because it's truly impressive but at the same time he just took the next step on the shoulders of others when he's successfully convinced the world he's invented something new and fully revolutionized something. The reality is legit somewhere in between.

Without getting too much into politics, from an "informed" American POV the bigger tragedy is with all of the cost overruns during STS we really didn't save any money by not going. Those are just the top line facts, the whys I think would cross the line.

[DaveS]

One problem we Bits have is lack of funds. We come up with some pretty damn good ideas but then either don't fund them enough or else sell them off to the lowest bidder.

I really hope we can break the mold and make something of Skylon, but fear REL are being drip-fed the funds they need. Using an air breathing hydrogen fueled ship could side-step the argument about carbon emissions, while giving a viable SSTO vehicle.

[HiveIndustries]

46 minutes ago, DaveS said:

One problem we Bits have is lack of funds. We come up with some pretty damn good ideas but then either don't fund them enough or else sell them off to the lowest bidder.

I really hope we can break the mold and make something of Skylon, but fear REL are being drip-fed the funds they need. Using an air breathing hydrogen fueled ship could side-step the argument about carbon emissions, while giving a viable SSTO vehicle.

You guys have a baseline physics problem that often dictate the nature of your projects as well as increased associated cost. You're just not close enough to the equator to get the kinds of dV boosts you get by launching east and taking advantage of the Earth's rotation.

This is the very valid reason you guys have looked at seemingly silly solutions involving all manners of planes and exotic engines. Those smaller efficiency gains Americans can ignore are multiplied if you're not starting with the free motion of earth's rotation.

Even the Russians and Chinese have increased difficulty over the Americans in this regard and it's the main reason the ISS and Tianhe (sp?) are not on an equatorial 0 degree orbital inclination (or closer, anyways, not sure where we'd have it if Russia wasn't in, probably a lot closer to 0 degrees but definitely not exact), their rockets would have a very difficult time investing in a costly inclination change to 0 degrees. Frankly I'm not even sure they could do it with Soyuz as designed (and thus the inclination of ISS, the shuttle was capable of launching this direction while taking the dV hit from not launching due-east).

It's the whole reason ESA launches from French Guiana and not say a Spaceport in Italy, it's just that much more free dV.

So what happens is when these complicated solutions don't come to fruition and someone gets around to looking at the cost of these orbital rockets you've looked at over the years, sane penny pinchers go, "Hey, so we got these friends called the Americans who are willing to put literally whatever we want up there at cost or launch anything we want from real estate at 28 degrees north, why are we doing this?" It's hard to blame them for asking the question even if you disagree with the resulting answers/actions/results.

And that in a nutshell is the most non-political way an American can view the British and space

There are a lot of other really complex and honestly very understandable reasons why the UK hasn't had a robust world leading space program but the lack of appropriate real estate in which to pour a significant chunk of your nations GDP into doesn't change and has always had a measurable impact on your choices.

Seriously though, I'd rather be an aerospace engineer interested in space in his mid 20s now than in the 1990s in the UK. So many things you are doing right now and can still be embarking on, especially considering the harder it gets the more obvious it needs to be a team effort. The more CanadArms we have in the world with positive nationalistic science-based discovery, the better and I think even if you dropped every propulsive project you have within your borders, you'd still be great partners in space.

Wow I feel like I need to hug someone.

Edited October 24, 2021 by HiveIndustries

[F15Rules]

7 hours ago, johninderby said:

Irrelevant side note here but Columbus bought maps of the east coast of North America from fisherman in Bristol before setting off. They had been fishing mainly off the coast of Newfoundland for many years and the fishing vilage of Walker Newfoundland was founded in 1491. 

That's fascinating info, John..

How did you get a handle on that??

Dave

[johninderby]

Columbus knew that North America was there but thought he could sail south of it on his way to the far east  Unfortunately for him North America is a lot bigger then he realised. 🙄

Edited October 24, 2021 by johninderby

[Ouroboros]

Nothing like a bit of (partially) revisionist history.