When will humans land on Mars?

[Ags]

14 hours ago, F15Rules said:

20 hours ago, HiveIndustries said:

As a species we should constantly try and increase our production and consumption of energy

 

I would correct this slightly - we should strive to increase our supply of clean energy and to reduce actual energy usage to a minimum. We don't need megawatt mobile phones, I think all tech works better if it uses as little energy as possible. Less waste heat, longer battery life, safer, etc.

[Stu1smartcookie]

14 minutes ago, Ags said:

We don't need megawatt mobile phones,

We don't need powerful cars or balistic missiles or bananas or telescopes that are shipped half way round the world ! 

Its a bit rich commenting on what we don't need when , without " what we don't need" ie space telescopes and rockets that have actually enhanced technology in development of science and life saving tech in hospitals . i'm sorry but this "clean energy " thing is a complete non starter imo . The wind "didn't blow enough" in the UK last month .. we would all have been in a blackout if we were reliant on wind .  

Sorry , on my soap box ... honestly nothing personal  

 

[etsatlo]

Well, what a depressing bunch a lot some of you turn out to be!

The anti-human undercurrent of wanting to send large portions of humanity with one-way tickets, us not being worthy of another chance as we have spoilt this planet, the limiting of our ambitions to fixing this planet first before exploring others whilst deep down we know that the technology of surviving on another planet might bring to the table is immense, and the anti-capitalist vibe of billionaires being a scourge whilst being the ones advancing the space industry is quite disappointing.

Is going to Mars an objectively good idea? I don't know. Will it do more to inspire generations to come than anything else on the table, give us a back-up population in case of disaster on Earth, provide untold scientific advancement or simply expand our knowledge? Yes.

So whilst a portion of the posters here have an implicit anti-human slant, I say go for it. Move the boundary forwards. Those with the cynical view on the world will be pleased none the less in X years time once it's been completed and of the things we'll learn.

OK rant over.

[Ags]

45 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

We don't need powerful cars or balistic missiles or bananas or telescopes that are shipped half way round the world ! 

 

You misunderstand me. No engineer is going to purposely increase the energy required for a device (unless they are funded by an energy company). The logic of engineering is to use less energy, use less materials and so forth. It's not even a green point, just common sense. In the fifties they thought aliens would pick up our noisy TV broadcasts, but with the advance in technology, the transmissions are much less noisy now. Think of the large communication satellites launched decades ago versus the tiny (trigger warning) starlink satellites launched today. Smaller and lighter is almost always better.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Ags

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

1 hour ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

We don't need powerful cars or balistic missiles or bananas or telescopes that are shipped half way round the world ! 

Its a bit rich commenting on what we don't need when , without " what we don't need" ie space telescopes and rockets that have actually enhanced technology in development of science and life saving tech in hospitals . i'm sorry but this "clean energy " thing is a complete non starter imo . The wind "didn't blow enough" in the UK last month .. we would all have been in a blackout if we were reliant on wind .  

Sorry , on my soap box ... honestly nothing personal  

 

I don't wish to be inflammatory as the thread is probably already on a sticky wicket. However, I vehemently disagree that the shipping of bananas is unnecessary.

 

[johninderby]

7 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

I don't wish to be inflammatory as the thread is probably already on a sticky wicket. However, I vehemently disagree that the shipping of bananas is unnecessary.

 

Here, here 😁

[DaveS]

Regarding one-way trips, "suicide missions" etc, let's look forward maybe 100 years. Assuming we haven't blown ourselves to hell 'n' gone or roasted ourselves to death then there could well be Mars settlements with perhaps 2nd or 3rd generation settlers. Would they *want* to come back to Earth (Which they probably wouldn't regard as "home") with 3 times the gravity? I think they wouldn't.

And remember, not so long ago emigrating to the antipodes was pretty much regarded as a one-way trip. When my cousin and her husband upped sticks and moved to NZ we didn't expect to be seeing her again. Of course, since then air travel has become massively more accessible and they've been back fairly regularly.

[kirkster501]

I don't think humans will ever land on Mars, not in the next 50 years at any rate and possibly never; it would cost trillions of dollars.  I don't think the general population or a US president with an eight year focus will tolerate such profligacy in a time of austerity and environmental concerns here on earth that such an expenditure could partly address.

Edited October 25, 2021 by kirkster501

[Stu1smartcookie]

49 minutes ago, DaveS said:

And remember, not so long ago emigrating to the antipodes was pretty much regarded as a one-way trip

Agree ... what was an impossible trip or reverse trip is now regarded as normal .. ( regarding other long haul destinations ) . Human nature to explore and create and , yes , to destroy makes the impossible , possible . Only the restraints of finance make things seem unlikely where solar system travel is concerned ... oh and cleaning up the space junk that is circling the planet like a galactic waste paper bin . Maybe we can organise a waste collection , ... every other week of course ! 

[mikeDnight]

18 hours ago, Paul M said:

One part of the reason was growing public apathy with Apollo. A bit like someone said about Elvis's death; "Great career move!", Apollo 13 was considered by some as saving public interest in Apollo.

I felt the same with the Shuttle. It was only the tragic accidents that got my attention. And now I've watched hundreds of hours of coverage relating to both shuttle disasters. I guess its the human aspect of spaceflight that interests me. 

That's the trouble with using fuel. What we really need is to back track a hundred and twenty years or so, when Henry Carvour invented Carvourite, the anti gravity paint he used on the retractable shutters on his space sphere that successfully got the British to the Moon 70 years ahead of the Americans. 😆

Edited October 25, 2021 by mikeDnight

[johninderby]

Just reading the Mars One mission project brief. They are estimating the first manned Mars mission at 6 bilion US and further missions at 4 billion US. So while frightfully expensive to most would be easily affordable by the super rich already dabbling in space travel.

Just so long as they don’t open a McDonalds on Mars someday. 🤬🤬🤬

[Stu1smartcookie]

5 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Just so long as they don’t open a McDonalds on Mars someday. 🤬🤬🤬

Other Fast Food outlets are available !  ... although catching cows on mars as they take advantage of minimal gravity would make burgers more expensive ... come to think of it god only knows what they would graze on up there . 

 

[HiveIndustries]

100 years on Mars, I have a hard time really conceiving what we'd build and thus a hard time answering a lot of what you're saying @DaveS. I see two possibilities.

If there's a football sized aggro-dome (window tech advancement!) that immersively makes you feel like you're in a familiar ecosystem, if there's a 10,000 person colony around me with thriving culture, low crime and everyone is invested. I dunno man, I'd buy into that. It's not like you can never go and visit Earth or even move there if you want at that point so you never feel trapped. That's not a bad Martian colonial future.

But, I do think the reality is and I've seen several fictional depictions state this outright, the interest in Mars in at least the short term is solely scientific. Underground, dark it is. That almost resort-like living with purpose I'm talking about doesn't just materialize out of thin air. The forces that drive us will be similar to Antartica and I think that's the best analog we have. Ain't no one looking to colonize Antarctica right now and there isn't exactly a development push for beach housing. Sure the scientific outpost has gotten huge and established and much more pleasant but it's still not a place to start a family, ya know?

So that leaves the question as to what are the driving forces. If we have a terraforming focus and we need men and women over there en masse then the former can happen, but if it's truly about scientific discovery, it'll look like the latter Antartica-like setup. Seeing as science doesn't even agree the former is a good idea, period, or plausible, or feasible, whatever, I think the people from that Mars show are spot on. If Mars happens and has an established colony, it's going to look like a South Pole analog.

Resource draining, what really drives colonialism as we know it, can't happen on Mars. There's not going to be rugged frontiersman-type pushing the envelop because there are no economics behind it. You'd be far better off parking an asteroid in Earth orbit or even mining the moon with the appropriate infrastructure. So maybe we have to stop calling them colonies and start calling it an outpost.

Edited October 25, 2021 by HiveIndustries

[Macavity]

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

Would they *want* to come back to Earth (Which they probably wouldn't regard as "home") with 3 times the gravity? I think they wouldn't.

Good points! Such concepts were discussed in the 60/70s when (interstellar!) space travel was mooted?
I sometimes watch TV programs like "Wanted Down Under" lol. 🙄 The *genuinely* conflicted emotion.

But I lament the current adversarial / sarcastic view re. Space Travel. I'm surprised to see *influential*
(intellectual?) voices supporting the "Do nothing"...  "Until we have sorted out ALL Earthly problems"?
Missing the point re. doing either? One could ask them how long they think their project will take? 🤔

P.S. If you get to light speed, don't Sneer at (Tell!) my "30,000 years Interstellar Ark" to Alpha Cent! 🙃

Edited October 25, 2021 by Macavity

[AstroGee]

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

The super rich already dabbling in space travel.

Yes, this would be a great way to fund this - they need something to spend their piles on. Aviation was reserved for the well off to begin with also. 

The tougher part of colonisation is the continuous commitment to upkeep 

[Lariliss]

‘Starship’ does lots of trials and goes for bald missions.

 

They have the ability to do the technological tests and run enormous missions at the same time.

 

We are in the era when the finest cutting edge technology is mature enough to be bald with missions. Numerous tests, engineering refinements and tests again, all the precautions to eliminate any failure. The projects are confident enough to state the timelines and costs. There are too many uncertainties for the plans to be very precise. There is uncertainty on any new uncertainties to come across even.

 

The technology is on rail to go despite the hindrances. It is kind of a careful Occam's razor, and I believe it will work. As it does for the rest.

I would say, we can only stick with the leaders' plans for a bet.

[AstroGee]

...flying in the rocket would be stressful - probably too much to bare 

and for everyone else the cost would be hair raisingly expensive...

[Guest]

If I went on a lond duration spaceflight. I could put up with lots of hardships for the mission. But you could not pack enough bleach and toilet cleaners for the loos.eew, the state they'd be in after a month. Mind you I always thought that at 62 years old I would see humans on Mars in my life time.

But it's not going to happen until we have engines to propel us to Mars in a month. That seems way into the future.

When it happens I think that humans would then visit most destinations in the Solar System quite rapidly.

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

16 minutes ago, Grumpy Martian said:

If I went on a lond duration spaceflight. I could put up with lots of hardships for the mission. But you could not pack enough bleach and toilet cleaners for the loos.eew, the state they'd be in after a month. Mind you I always thought that at 62 years old I would see humans on Mars in my life time.

But it's not going to happen until we have engines to propel us to Mars in a month. That seems way into the future.

When it happens I think that humans would then visit most destinations in the Solar System quite rapidly.

Vacuum toilets and recycled water bidets. Sign up mate you have it the jackpot.