Honest Prediction of Man on Mars Date?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeters_Boy

Guest
<p>I would like to hear from the space exploration experts on this topic:&nbsp; What is your honest prediction of the year that we will put a man on Mars?&nbsp; Not what we want it to be, but what you think it actually will be.</p><p>&nbsp;Thanks!&nbsp; Should be interesting...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em><strong>Now batting, shortstop Derek Jeter</strong></em></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to hear from the space exploration experts on this topic:&nbsp; What is your honest prediction of the year that we will put a man on Mars?&nbsp; Not what we want it to be, but what you think it actually will be.&nbsp;Thanks!&nbsp; Should be interesting... <br />Posted by Jeters_Boy</DIV><br /><br />2028 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to hear from the space exploration experts on this topic:&nbsp; What is your honest prediction of the year that we will put a man on Mars?&nbsp; Not what we want it to be, but what you think it actually will be.&nbsp;Thanks!&nbsp; Should be interesting... <br />Posted by Jeters_Boy</DIV></p><p>2030<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p>Wow.&nbsp; I think these predictions are incredibly optimistic.&nbsp; We are not even going to focus on going to Mars until we have gotten back to the Moon.&nbsp; Let's see when that really happens. Landing a large craft on Mars is MUCH more difficult than landing on either the moon or Earth. </p><p>Now, if you count a mission to Phobos as being "Man on Mars", and if they decide to do that, then you might have a shot 2030.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><font size="2"><strong>I agree generally with the years quoted here also, somewhere within the ball park of 2025 - 2035.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>I'd want us back to the Moon in 10 years. Sadly energy is wasted on so many irrelevant things, that I doubt we'll get to Moon in a decade.</p><p>This is a crying shame for the humanity.</p><p>Even here on this forum we whould be figuring out ways to advance our agenda.&nbsp;</p>
 
H

halcyondays

Guest
I really think you're all far too optimistic.&nbsp; I doubt it will be in the lifetime of anyone alive today, certainly not before 2060.&nbsp; The financial burdens are far too onerous in&nbsp;the light of the long-term prognosis&nbsp;for the US economy.&nbsp;
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really think you're all far too optimistic.&nbsp; I doubt it will be in the lifetime of anyone alive today, certainly not before 2060.&nbsp; The financial burdens are far too onerous in&nbsp;the light of the long-term prognosis&nbsp;for the US economy.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by halcyondays</DIV>I reckon the first man on mars, as things stand now, will get there on an international mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Carrickagh

Guest
<p>Return to Luna (1 - 3 Landing/Surveys&nbsp;but no base): 2033</p><p>Private venture to Phobos/Deimos: 2040 (mixed American and European crew)</p><p>Manned Landing on Mars: 2050-2070 (probably a Russian/European crew&nbsp;or more likely a Chinese)</p><p>**</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

Oldworlder

Guest
<p><font size="2">If I understand it right, it would take about eight months for a manned spacecraft to reach Mars - if using the burning-fuel-type technology currently associated with space travel. Then it's another eight months for a return trip; in addition, consider all the unknowns with the take-off from there.&nbsp;So, I think it will be hard to find volunteers for that type of a mission. First, there must come an engineering&nbsp;breakthrough&nbsp;enabling a much- shorter-duration flight...</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I understand it right, it would take about eight months for a manned spacecraft to reach Mars - if using the burning-fuel-type technology currently associated with space travel. Then it's another eight months for a return trip; in addition, consider all the unknowns with the take-off from there.&nbsp;So, I think it will be hard to find volunteers for that type of a mission. First, there must come an engineering&nbsp;breakthrough&nbsp;enabling a much- shorter-duration flight...&nbsp; <br />Posted by Oldworlder</DIV></p><p>There are many possible profiles.&nbsp; One likely one is 200 days each way and 600 days on the surface, for a 1000 day mission.&nbsp; This can be done with current propulsion technology.&nbsp; No need for more exotic methods.</p><p>Two and a half years away from home is what the early 20th century Antartic explorers did.&nbsp; I don't see why there would be any propblem finding volunteers for such a mission today.&nbsp; You would probably have to beat them off with a stick.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really think you're all far too optimistic.&nbsp; I doubt it will be in the lifetime of anyone alive today, certainly not before 2060.&nbsp; The financial burdens are far too onerous in&nbsp;the light of the long-term prognosis&nbsp;for the US economy.&nbsp; <br />Posted by halcyondays</DIV></p><p>The costs of a sustained program of missions to Mars would not require any more dedicated funding than NASA currently gets.&nbsp; </p><p>As for long term prognosis for the US economy, two things, one the long term prognosis for the US economy means that they can continue to fund space exploration at present or higher levels, should they chose to do so.&nbsp; The same applies to the similarly-sized EU economy and the rapidly growing economies of China and India that should pass the EU and the US this century.&nbsp; Whether all or any of these entities chose to do so is another question entirely to whether they could afford it.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Landing a large craft on Mars is MUCH more difficult than landing on either the moon or Earth. </p><p>Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>In what way?</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>If Constellation continues at a steady rate, then 2030-2040</p><p>If ESA partners decide to fund Mars exploration at the same level as NASA, ditto (especially if Russia joins ESA).</p><p>If the US and ESA pull out but&nbsp;China and/or India increase funding to US levels and their economies continue to grow at present rates 2040-2050</p><p>Ditto for Russia</p><p>If the "robots not people" win, then maybe near the end century. </p><p>If the "let's do it all by private industry" people win, ditto even assuming that private human spaceflight is a success).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In what way?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Hi Jon, I have heard this too: (that the thin atmosphere is much worse than having either a thick atmosphere as on earth or&nbsp; none as on the moon)</p><p><a title="universetoday link"></a>link</p><p>On the other hand, didnt the pheonix make some sort of powered landing? Does it open the way to landing much heavier payloads?</p>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I understand it right, it would take about eight months for a manned spacecraft to reach Mars - if using the burning-fuel-type technology currently associated with space travel. Then it's another eight months for a return trip; in addition, consider all the unknowns with the take-off from there.&nbsp;So, I think it will be hard to find volunteers for that type of a mission. First, there must come an engineering&nbsp;breakthrough&nbsp;enabling a much- shorter-duration flight...&nbsp; <br />Posted by Oldworlder</DIV></p><p>Im sure it would be very very easy finding hundreds of volunteers, and&nbsp;expert&nbsp;ones too! I really wouldnt worry about that.</p><p>(Let me clamber onto my own personal hobby horse for a bit) Personally, better life support interests me far more than better rockets. You could spend billions producing a 10% more efficient rocket. I think there is the real possibility for a lifesupport that could support its crew indefinitely, because that is what the earth is. Does anyone know what proportion of NASA's budget is spent on lifesupport? To me, the payoff seems so much greater than better rockets.</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Jon, I have heard this too: (that the thin atmosphere is much worse than having either a thick atmosphere as on earth or&nbsp; none as on the moon)linkOn the other hand, didnt the pheonix make some sort of powered landing? Does it open the way to landing much heavier payloads? <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>Hi Kevin</p><p>Landing large payloadsis very challenging.&nbsp; But it is possible.&nbsp; Reading through the lines you can see how it could be done.&nbsp; A high lift spacecraft during entry slows down using simple aerobraking.&nbsp; This could either be a biconic or a lifting body.&nbsp; At Mach 3 you use parachutes to slow down to subsonic.&nbsp;&nbsp; Once you have slowed dwon to the parachute's terminal velocity you use rocket thrust and landing legs.&nbsp; As you said, no different to Phoenix in principle (except for the high lift design).</p><p>This has been known for 40 years as a feasible approach. It was disingenuous of that Universe Today article to suggest otherwise.</p><p>A study is only as useful as its assumptions.&nbsp; Manning's papers on the subject (Braun and Manning 2005, Wooster et al. 2007) have several unrealistic assumptions.&nbsp; </p><ul><li>They assume very large masses (over 100 tonnes in some cases!).&nbsp; No Mars mission study in the last 50 years has ever had landing masses this large (and I have at least nodding familiarity with&nbsp;all of them, I think). The real numbers are more like 25-70 tonnes</li><li>They assume low L/D (0.3)&nbsp;entry designs carrying out near ballistic flight paths, and ignore the potential for higher L/D (0.5-1.0) shapes (biconics, ellipsleds, even lifting bodies).</li><li>they assume that parachutes will not be used above Mach 2 when the limit on Mars is Mach 3 with current technology</li></ul><p>Under these circumstances it is not suprising that they conclude it is impossible with present technology.&nbsp; But this is misleading.&nbsp; The media of course loved it and ran with the "landing people on Mars is impossible" angle for all it is worth.</p><p>Larson and Pranke (chapter 10) show that a moderate lift aeroshell (L/D 0.4-0.5) can de-accelerate a 62 tonne lander from a velocity of 3.65 km/2 down to&nbsp;parachuite opening velocities at an altitude of 11.5 km.&nbsp; A single parachute with a diamter of 53.3 m with slow the lander down to 200 m/s by the time an altitud of 8.5 km is reached.&nbsp; At this point the engines are fired and with 719 m/s of dV bring the spacecraft to a soft landing.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
I'd like to see manned visits to near Earth asteroids -- as training for a manned mission to Phobos.&nbsp; Then I'd like to see a manned base on Phobos from which extensive robotic exploration of Mars is conducted -- using the great advantage of real time human-directed remote control.&nbsp; This way, a lot of science could be done on Mars while methods of delivering large payloads to the surface are perfected.&nbsp; <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

killium

Guest
Scientific objectives only will never put a man on mars unless it becomes as easy as going to the corner store. But i bet if China would announce a (serious) project to put poeples on mars in 2030, USA would shift gears and do it before 2029..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Carrickagh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scientific objectives only will never put a man on mars unless it becomes as easy as going to the corner store. But i bet if China would announce a (serious) project to put poeples on mars in 2030, USA would shift gears and do it before 2029..... <br />Posted by killium</DIV><br /><br />That would be an ok strategy...but having spent the last thirty-plus years wanting to see us become a real spacefaring society I would rather not see it happen that way (agin).</p><p>Apollo was sort of a Cold War fluke. Going to Mars that way would allow perhaps one mission, just to prove the point.</p><p>I'd rather see international cooperation. As well as a solid space infrastructure created. I'd also like to see the civilain-side of government out of manned space. </p><p>In the long term it&nbsp;would be better if the private sector or some sort of business or exploratory body with commercial support do this. </p><p>A China-US Mars race would be of interest. I rather suspect the Chinese would get there first.</p><p>***</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CaptainOrso

Guest
If we wait for US government, not until near end of century <strong>(c. 2080 + -)</strong>&nbsp; If civilian, perhaps as early as <strong>2040</strong> depending&nbsp; upon more than 1 company joining together, IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY