Mars?

[michaelreader]

Who will land on mars first if not u.s.?

 

[COLGeek]

There have been multiple landings on Mars, just not with humans. Is that what you are asking about?

 

[rustythebailiff]

I think at this point China is the closest to competing with the U.S. in a crewed Mars landing. That said, I think that a human setting foot on Mars is still a long way off. There are a lot of technological hurdles that have to be cleared before we can even think about going there.

 

[michaelreader]

Yes, why?

 

[Wolfshadw]

First off would be survivability. We have to know that humans can survive the journey to and from Mars. I personally believe that the technology exists to facilitate a trip to and from Mars, but I don't believe it's been tested in space (artificial magnetic field).

Next would be survivability (again). We have to know that we can bring people back, safely (unless they volunteer for a suicide mission). This means we have to demonstrate that we can launch and land some sort of functional refueling station on Mars.

Next, we have to demonstrate that we can launch and land a return vehicle that can remotely refuel itself from said refueling station and return to Earth.

We also need to launch and land some type of habitat for our astronauts near the return vehicle and verify it's sustainability. At the very least, we need to source liquid water. We also will probably need to demonstrate the ability to produce oxygen/grow food.

All of this needs to be tested, verified, retested and reverified several times over before any human astronaut straps down in a ship heading towards Mars.

-Wolf sends

 

[michaelreader]

First off would be survivability. We have to know that humans can survive the journey to and from Mars. I personally believe that the technology exists to facilitate a trip to and from Mars, but I don't believe it's been tested in space (artificial magnetic field).

Next would be survivability (again). We have to know that we can bring people back, safely (unless they volunteer for a suicide mission). This means we have to demonstrate that we can launch and land some sort of functional refueling station on Mars.

Next, we have to demonstrate that we can launch and land a return vehicle that can remotely refuel itself from said refueling station and return to Earth.

We also need to launch and land some type of habitat for our astronauts near the return vehicle and verify it's sustainability. At the very least, we need to source liquid water. We also will probably need to demonstrate the ability to produce oxygen/grow food.

All of this needs to be tested, verified, retested and reverified several times over before any human astronaut straps down in a ship heading towards Mars.

-Wolf sends

2037?

 

[Wolfshadw]

2037?

Being optimistic, probably closer to 2137.

-Wolf sends

 

[michaelreader]

Being optimistic, probably closer to 2137.

-Wolf sends

Are you serious?

 

[COLGeek]

Are you serious?

When do you think we can realistically land humans on Mars?

 

[Wolfshadw]

Are you serious?

Yep. Dead serious.

We're not talking about a walk in the park, here. Heck, we're not even talking about a week's vacation to the moon and back.

It takes time, development, testing, and funding to create all the technologies we'd need to get to Mars and back. Sure, we managed to do it back in the 50's/60's to the moon, but now, there is no urgent need to "get there first" and Mars is a whole new Trapper Keeper of problems to solve. I don't see any real reason to devote that much time and resources to what I believe to be inevitable, but likely not in our lifetimes.

-Wolf sends

 

[DanIAm]

"All of this needs to be tested, verified, retested and reverified several times over before any human astronaut straps down in a ship heading towards Mars."

Those caveats means China will get there first and by a long margin, as risk will be viewed differently by them for the national good (flag planting). That in turn, would trigger a different view of acceptable risk by many other nations.

If it was a 60s style rush to the Moon, its a couple of rockets to send a dozen people to the moon. To Mars (by NASA ) in the modern age would be hundreds of billions to a trillion dollars for a dozen people.

With that in mind, The risk is to the rockets, the risk to the astronauts really doesn't matter (much, in the scheme of things, it's a risky business). So, they would do more to take down the risk due to the extremely expensive total launch costs, they won't easily get a replacement launch to make up for a failure. Replacement Astronauts, there will be someone willing to do it even with extreme risk.



But commercial enterprises change things. Technologically, for now, the USA could achieve it before China, Starship is pretty well done - except for the tricky 5%. Which might be unresolvable, or maybe Starship goes uncrewed with Optimus robots next year as indicated by Musk - that is a good litmus test. They lead the industry, but aren't the only players and have set the standard to which others are now trying to attain.

We're on the verge of cheap (in space terms...) mass producable spaceships, with mass tonnage. Mars and the Moon, for so long were viewed as a trip in 1 treacherous ship, without redundancy. A fleet of transport means that there are tons of goods and backup systems, plus back ups of the back ups etc. If there is a ship issue, you abandon it and transfer to the others, maybe the reason it's abandoned is purely for habitation reasons and that it's goods can still make the journey (uncrewed, unlike a wooden ship of old).

Methinks, this paradigm (cheap, fleets, big payload) is the fundamental that makes the difference, it reduces risk and changes it from 3 people at high risk for flag planting (and returning) to a lower risk colonisation possibility.

We can recycle water, air, make food without fields, deal with biological waste etc. We wont be living outdoors on Mars, the surface radiation is a non-issue. There are ways to minimise radiation in flight (including, all the mass of rockets and propellant facing the biggest risk, though its not the only source, Sol), the ISS has a few measures beyond relying on the Ionisphere. It doesn't need to be perfectly safe, it needs to be within certain limits and we accept that there is a risk - a 5% risk of cancer means nothing to many individuals, a 5% risk to population as viewed by a government is different.

We're hung up about the issues. People just upped and got on with it, our ancestors spread across the globe from out of Africa into inhospitable deserts and arctic climates, to rarified mountain air, migrated on 8 month trips (wooden ships from England to Australia), walk past the frozen corpses of other climbers on the way up Everest. 100,000 prospectors went to the Klondike gold rush - I'd personally prefer the risk of getting to and colonising Mars than the conditions in the Klondike back in the day.

 

[michaelreader]

"All of this needs to be tested, verified, retested and reverified several times over before any human astronaut straps down in a ship heading towards Mars."

Those caveats means China will get there first and by a long margin, as risk will be viewed differently by them for the national good (flag planting). That in turn, would trigger a different view of acceptable risk by many other nations.

If it was a 60s style rush to the Moon, its a couple of rockets to send a dozen people to the moon. To Mars (by NASA ) in the modern age would be hundreds of billions to a trillion dollars for a dozen people.

With that in mind, The risk is to the rockets, the risk to the astronauts really doesn't matter (much, in the scheme of things, it's a risky business). So, they would do more to take down the risk due to the extremely expensive total launch costs, they won't easily get a replacement launch to make up for a failure. Replacement Astronauts, there will be someone willing to do it even with extreme risk.



But commercial enterprises change things. Technologically, for now, the USA could achieve it before China, Starship is pretty well done - except for the tricky 5%. Which might be unresolvable, or maybe Starship goes uncrewed with Optimus robots next year as indicated by Musk - that is a good litmus test. They lead the industry, but aren't the only players and have set the standard to which others are now trying to attain.

We're on the verge of cheap (in space terms...) mass producable spaceships, with mass tonnage. Mars and the Moon, for so long were viewed as a trip in 1 treacherous ship, without redundancy. A fleet of transport means that there are tons of goods and backup systems, plus back ups of the back ups etc. If there is a ship issue, you abandon it and transfer to the others, maybe the reason it's abandoned is purely for habitation reasons and that it's goods can still make the journey (uncrewed, unlike a wooden ship of old).

Methinks, this paradigm (cheap, fleets, big payload) is the fundamental that makes the difference, it reduces risk and changes it from 3 people at high risk for flag planting (and returning) to a lower risk colonisation possibility.

We can recycle water, air, make food without fields, deal with biological waste etc. We wont be living outdoors on Mars, the surface radiation is a non-issue. There are ways to minimise radiation in flight (including, all the mass of rockets and propellant facing the biggest risk, though its not the only source, Sol), the ISS has a few measures beyond relying on the Ionisphere. It doesn't need to be perfectly safe, it needs to be within certain limits and we accept that there is a risk - a 5% risk of cancer means nothing to many individuals, a 5% risk to population as viewed by a government is different.

We're hung up about the issues. People just upped and got on with it, our ancestors spread across the globe from out of Africa into inhospitable deserts and arctic climates, to rarified mountain air, migrated on 8 month trips (wooden ships from England to Australia), walk past the frozen corpses of other climbers on the way up Everest. 100,000 prospectors went to the Klondike gold rush - I'd personally prefer the risk of getting to and colonising Mars than the conditions in the Klondike back in the day.

Then why were there rumors that nasa was at 2037?

 

[COLGeek]

NASA has goals. Those are very subject to change.

Resources, priorities, tech maturity, etc all impact those goals.