Pwnzerfaust
New Member
Arbiter of all things arbitrary
Posts: 41
|
Post by Pwnzerfaust on Mar 27, 2009 22:16:22 GMT -5
Curious when people think the first manned mission to Mars will be. My personal opinion is 15-50 years. What do you you all think, and why?
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 28, 2009 7:17:08 GMT -5
I chose 15-50 years as well. Considering the advancements in space travel that other nations are now making, I could easily see another space race happening. Establishing more facilities in orbit, including for commercial means, a base on the moon for more scientific studies, possibly for experiments that aren't feasible on Earth because of ecological concerns, and later a goal of establishing a foothold on Mars, not only for scientific achievements but for resources as well.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 28, 2009 8:58:33 GMT -5
I went with "within 15 years" for a couple of reasons.
First, and foremost, the next best window of opportunity will be around 2020 or so. I can't remember the exact year and can't locate any information on it, but if memory serves, it was about that time. This will be the next time that Mars and Earth will be at their closest, thus shortening the trip as much as possible. If a manned mission is not done at that time, it will probably be another 15 to 20 years before the next window of opportunity comes along.
Secondly, it's just wishful thinking on my part. It would thrill me no end to see humans set foot on another planet within my lifetime and if it isn't done then, I may not have another chance of seeing it happen. Going to the moon was great, but overcoming the obstacles and expanding out beyond our own planet's sphere would be a major leap in space exploration.
I know the argument has been made that with the advancement in robotic exploration, a manned mission is not necessary, that we can gain all the knowledge we need without risking the lives of humans to go there. But there is something innate within humans to explore first hand. For example, we can look at all the photographs we want of such ancient places as Rome, Athens, Egypt, or geological sites as the Grand Canyon here on Earth. But you just don't have a sense of satisfaction about seeing those places until you've actually been there in person.
And such it is with Mars (and beyond.)
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 28, 2009 9:37:22 GMT -5
I said 50-100 years, firstly because even though we will probably have the technology to send a manned mision to Mars before them, I doubt we'll have the technology to do much more than take photos and gather some rocks.
More to the point I'm extremely pessimistic about society and I fully expect a nice economic and technological dark age to occur in the next 50 years, I certainly expect a slowdown in technology.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 28, 2009 11:35:12 GMT -5
I chose within 15 years. Now if only we could figure out a way to smuggle every fundie on Earth under the launchpad ten seconds before launch...
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 28, 2009 15:51:44 GMT -5
I voted 15-50 years, but considering how little I know about the current state of rocket science, stuff like windows of opportunity Star Cluster mentioned, and etceteras, and how mankind has a terrible track record in predicting the future state of science, it was little more than randomly choosing a number.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 28, 2009 23:12:17 GMT -5
I said 15-50 purely due to wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 28, 2009 23:14:19 GMT -5
I went with 50-100 years. I just don't believe we'll be in a position of great forward movement for at least that long.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 28, 2009 23:45:46 GMT -5
I went with 50-100 years. I just don't believe we'll be in a position of great forward movement for at least that long. I am not voting here. It's way too hard to estimate this. But my personal opinion is that it shouldn't happen any time soon. Or at least any science respecting country should not strive for that. Here are a couple of reasons (solely based on science - I don't care about the size of the penis of the average american, and to whom they want to show it and brag about it) for that. First it is very hard for me to think of any worthwhile scientific discovery or experiment coming from a manned vs unmanned flight to Mars. Testing the psychological damage of it I find cruel. Getting real time control and human adaptability there is highly improbable to lead to more effective mission. So overall there is no scientific benefit coming from a manned mission. Secondly the amount of money diverted to such a mission is exorbitant. Those money are much much better spent in conduction tens of robotic missions to Mars or any of the other experiments that were put on hold in the last 8 years (and yes they were put on hold because of the manned mission to Mars insanity of former president Bush - I have first hand info on that). I admit that I am a bit emotional here After all it directly affects me as I work in the field.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 29, 2009 0:48:56 GMT -5
Wait, is this meaning just the US having a manned mission to Mars? I answered as though it was any country doing such, as the US is hardly the only space capable country, and more keep reaching that capacity. Considering how countries used the last space race as a show of capability and power, I'm sure that a planned manned mission, by any country, will kick-start other countries into also planning manned missions. Even if the US doesn't participate, I'm sure that China, the EU, and likely Russia will still be in competition once one of them makes an actual start to such a mission.
|
|
Pwnzerfaust
New Member
Arbiter of all things arbitrary
Posts: 41
|
Post by Pwnzerfaust on Mar 29, 2009 1:28:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses all, interesting to read. Wait, is this meaning just the US having a manned mission to Mars? I answered as though it was any country doing such, as the US is hardly the only space capable country, and more keep reaching that capacity. Considering how countries used the last space race as a show of capability and power, I'm sure that a planned manned mission, by any country, will kick-start other countries into also planning manned missions. Even if the US doesn't participate, I'm sure that China, the EU, and likely Russia will still be in competition once one of them makes an actual start to such a mission. No, I did not mean only US. I meant any country or corporation or any other entity on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 29, 2009 2:09:38 GMT -5
Are we talking about one where the people get there alive, or just an attempt?
Because the former's not gonna happen, IMO. The distance between the Earth and Mars, even when they're at their very closest, is going to mean a trip of months. Months for any number of things to go wrong. Such as a big-ass solar flare cooking the brave fools that get in the craft that's carrying them to Mars.
Any sort of trip to Mars would basically need to be a joint effort between many nations. Getting there would be obscenely expensive, and I doubt the US has the kind of cash kicking around to get people there, or would be willing to spend it if they do. The EU as a whole has a slightly higher GDP than the US, but they aren't exactly a cohesive entity at this point, so they don't have the finances to do so, either. China comes next, at less than half the GDP of the US. So yeah, it needs to be a group effort to try and get people to Mars.
Honestly, think about the supplies end alone. How much food does an adult human need for the kind of time period we're talking about? Now you need to feed an entire crew. I just don't see it happening. We have the technology to get people there, it's just a question of if we can scrounge up the funding to overcome the amount of resources it would take.
|
|
Pwnzerfaust
New Member
Arbiter of all things arbitrary
Posts: 41
|
Post by Pwnzerfaust on Mar 29, 2009 7:26:45 GMT -5
So are you saying more than 100 years, or never?
True, but with enough supplies it'd be possible, and enough radiation shielding. Supply needs would probably be the biggest issue. In fact, I'd wager that any ship carrying the people would have to be assembled in space, because it'd be too large to successfully escape Earth's gravity well.
As for the solar flare bit, yeah, that'd be an issue, but there's precautions that can be taken against it. Like lead.
Other issues like asteroids or meteors in space would be a problem too.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 29, 2009 9:50:07 GMT -5
Are we talking about one where the people get there alive, or just an attempt? Because the former's not gonna happen, IMO. The distance between the Earth and Mars, even when they're at their very closest, is going to mean a trip of months. Months for any number of things to go wrong. Such as a big-ass solar flare cooking the brave fools that get in the craft that's carrying them to Mars. The distance is a problem at the current time with the rocket technology that is available. However, there is presently work being done on other types of engines that would dramatically shorten the time it takes to make the trip to Mars. One in particular, the Ion Propulsion System (IPS), is the most promising. Not only is it capable of much greater speed than the traditional rocket engines in use today, but it requires far less fuel and is much more efficient to use. With the current engines, the trip to Mars would take 6 months in one direction. The IPS would cut that time in at least half, probably more. Such things as solar flares, meteor strikes, catastrophic failures of some type, all these things are possibilities. They are possibilities even for the astronauts on the ISS or in the space shuttles. Space exploration will always entail a certain amount of risk. Advancements in protective building materials may provide a higher level of protection than we have at this time. But I'd guarantee you that if a manned mission date were to be set, there would be a vast pool of astronauts who would want to be on the list of candidates to be chosen for that mission regardless of the risks. Probably true. Most space ventures are joint efforts now, anyway. Don't forget, we now have the International Space Station in orbit. But as I mentioned, rocket technology is advancing to the point that the cost of getting there could be done at a much lower price than with current technology. And as we've seen, technology has been advancing exponentially over the past 50 years or so. Hopefully, that advancment will continue. These issues have been thought about. The first vessel that would be launched to Mars would be a supply ship. This ship would carry supplies and food for the astronauts while on Mars and for their return trip, meaning they would only need to carry enough food for the trip to Mars. And with the advent of such propulsions systems as I mentioned earlier, making the trip shorter in time, the amount of food required would also less. None of this is saying that a manned trip to Mars is gong to happen anytime soon, if ever. All I'm saying is that technology and planning have addressed many of the "problems" you have mentioned that space programs faced in the past and has moved the possibilities of it happening closer to becoming a reality.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 4, 2009 2:21:48 GMT -5
I think distance is the real problem here. It's actually half again as far from the Earth to Mars as it is from the Sun to the Earth. Or, for comparison, roughly 600 times as far as it is to the moon. Nevertheless I expect it COULD be done in the near future, so I said 15-50 years, but honestly I believe the first step is finding some reason other than the sheer awesome value. It'd be useful if we found huge deposits of some useful or valuable metal, like titanium or platinum, that would tempt a business to take the lead. Sadly, thus far it sounds like it's just pretty much iron dust.
|
|