Realistic Manned Mars mission by any nation - WHEN?

[hypersonic]

Hi there,
With NASA plodding along gradually to return men/ women to the moon, 45 - 50 years after we were last there.
When (by any nation or organisation either private or government run), might there be a realistic time-frame for a manned mission to mars.

I personally thinks it's pretty sad that an entire generation of people will have been skipped, certainly at retirement age/ dead by the time we get to go to mars.
When we return to the moon, we'll be covering old ground initially ..
I wasn't born when Armstrong stepped on the moon, but i'll be in my mid 40's by the time we return (if NASA stay on track).

Pathetic pace really! .. When it only took a decade to get there in the first place. (And having to create many new techologies in the process to achieve the goal, thus having to start from 'scratch' more than we would have to now.)

But because the last space race was primarily for political gain, with the 'spirit of advenure' about tenth on the list of importance..
I'll be what? - in my 60s+ maybe even 70s when we finally go to Mars!??? - Crap really. A whole generation skipped.

So are there any target dates planned by any government, or organisation?

Cheers.

 

[Woo482]

I would say another 50+ years until we have humans on mars

 

[RisingFury]

I don't think there are any target dates for Mars... some say 2030, but I don't think we'll go there till at least 2040. We'll probably need a vessel constructed in orbit and at least partially reusable for any meaningful manned Mars program...

 

[hypersonic]

Crap isn't it!!
thats pretty much TWO GENERATIONS skipped! since going to the moon.
I'm nearly 40, so if i had a kid now, they'll be my age my the time we'd be going to Mars (the upper end of the astronaught age range)
If i'd had my kids in my early 30's they'd be in their 50's themselves. - & if had in my 20's (only the 90s!) - My kids would be retirement age themselves!
Shockingly slow & crap progress really.

 

[garyw]

Lobby your MP if you feel that strongly about it.

A manned Mars expedition is way out of the budget of most countries and with the current economic climate it's even more out of reach.

 

[Hielor]

The problem is that space isn't really a priority for the vast majority of people out there. In a democratic country, any representative that wanted to spend "huge" amounts of money to go to another planet would be ignored as a crackpot, and their constituents would fire them the next chance they got.

People see no benefit in it for themselves, so they don't want it. They'd rather have a $300 "economic stimulus check" so they can go buy a new DVR, when the sum total of all of those checks would fund NASA at their current budget for several years.

Or how about the war in Iraq, or the financial bailout (which many large companies have proven that they know how to enjoy)? Either of those has cost more in a few short years (in the case of the war) or in one fell swoop (the "bailout") than the entirety of the money that NASA has gotten in it's 50+ year history.

Until people can be convinced that they personally can benefit from people on Mars, the current slow pace will continue.

 

[Artlav]

Unfortunately, no one of them who "rule" like to see much further than their noses.
Not just Mars, we could have reached the stars by now, or certainly be on the way. The technology for it exists for over half a century, yet no one want to put things together that does not show any immediate "profit".

Where are the atomic rockets? Why is it that nuclear power is all but unused and underdeveloped?

Why the brilliant inventors have to sell their souls to the devil in face of dictators to try to reach the stars? Wernher Von Braun rockets, Gerald Bull and his space gun, atomic bomb for the world war 2, ICBM's of the cold war. While the World rots in peace, there will be no space flight beyond bobbling in low Earth orbit, and even that can cease at any time.

Everyone is scared of ghosts now flying out of TV's and internet, ghosts that inhabited their heads for the last few thousand years.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The problem is that space exploration advocates find themselves today in shoes of Columbus who borrowed lots of money from Queen Isabella and other stakeholders promising the riches of India in return, and sailed across the ocean only to find a huge, hostile and empty Antarctica-like continent in place where Americas must have been (and no passage to India whatsoever).

No gold, no tobacco, no potatoes or corn to bring back to justify the trip, not even syphilis.

That's quite an unfvourable position for obtaining another loan for one's exploration efforts.

To sum it up, a Mars mission today is just as realistic and pointful as an Antarctic mission carried out by the 15th century's Portuguese would be.

 

[RisingFury]

Nicely put, Tiger

@Artlav:
I'm a strong supporter of nuclear research for peaceful purposes, such as power generation, but I think nuclear powered ships that produce radioactive waste, such as Orion would cause too much damage to Earth at launch and ejection. Even if you come up with the cleanest possible bomb, there will still be some fallout after each bomb. And each of the Orion class vessels would carry thousands of them... I don't think that's acceptable.

Clean nuclear technology, that produces no radioactive waste are the way to go, I think.

 

[willy88]

I personally think that before we start exploring Mars (with fleshies), should have some settlements on the Moon. Just my opinion.

 

[barcode]

Nicely put, Tiger

@Artlav:
I'm a strong supporter of nuclear research for peaceful purposes, such as power generation, but I think nuclear powered ships that produce radioactive waste, such as Orion would cause too much damage to Earth at launch and ejection. Even if you come up with the cleanest possible bomb, there will still be some fallout after each bomb. And each of the Orion class vessels would carry thousands of them... I don't think that's acceptable.

Clean nuclear technology, that produces no radioactive waste are the way to go, I think.

Using nuclear engines to launch nuclear powered ships would be a bad idea, but there's no reason they can't be safely used outside of a planet's atmosphere.

 

[Eagle]

Using nuclear engines to launch nuclear powered ships would be a bad idea, but there's no reason they can't be safely used outside of a planet's atmosphere.

Except for the fact that the EM blast disables satellites.

 

[RisingFury]

Yea, they'd only come in handy once you're away enough for Earth to not do any damage...

I think our best bet for large scale space travel is fusion power. There's an abundance of hydrogen in interstellar space. We'd only have to load our ship with enough to leave the solar system.

 

[hypersonic]

It is staggering isn't it that the money thrown at the iraq war for example would fund a 20bln space program 20 times over!! - or even a 100Bln space program more than 3 times over!!! - I'm sure invading another soverign country based on a lie ,was done in the public interest of the man on the street who voted them into power.

How about a wealthy individual stepping up to the plate, if governments are too busy squandering our tax revenues on wars & bailing out banks?

Mr Gates for example could probably single handedly fund an entire space program & still have change left over. - He cant take it with him when he croaks, so why not!?

;-)

 

[Suzy]

Energiya has had plans for a Mars mission up on their site for a few years

 

[SiberianTiger]

Energiya has had plans for a Mars mission up on their site for a few years

Let's see what comes out of their flying solid jet tripod spaceship design first...