When do you think humans will land on Mars?

[Pipcard]

I'm expecting early-mid 2030s unless SpaceX becomes successful with their Mars colonization plan (slim chance in my opinion). And I don't believe Mars One will ever work.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Pipcard

[xenomorph555]

I believe that a manned landing has a 70% chance of happening in the 2030-35 with 30% to 2025-30.

I cannot predict who it will be or how, too many variables.

[MBobrik]

after the next war. and a few centuries to millennia of rebuilding the civilization.

[Frozen_Heart]

after the next war. and a few centuries to millennia of rebuilding the civilization.

Found the pessimist...

[Nibb31]

I don't think an expedition to Mars is likely in the next 50 years. Beyond that, we're in science fiction territory, so anything goes...

[jwenting]

When there's political gain to be made from funding the project, which will be after the next war as 2 or more powers struggle for hegemony.

IOW similar to the moon race of the 1960s.

And that's assuming that next war won't be a strategic nuclear one, in which case it will be several centuries later after they've done rebuilding from the stone age rubble the survivors are left with.

[snip]

Edited April 21, 2021 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Bill Phil]

jwenting said:

When there's political gain to be made from funding the project, which will be after the next war as 2 or more powers struggle for hegemony.

IOW similar to the moon race of the 1960s.

And that's assuming that next war won't be a strategic nuclear one, in which case it will be several centuries later after they've done rebuilding from the stone age rubble the survivors are left with.

A nuclear war probably won't fling is to the Stone Age. More likely something similar to the Middle Ages. With pockets of advanced technology.

Op: Probably in the 2100s at worst, ad the 2040s at best.

[SargeRho]

I hope in the mid-late 2020s. Probably in the 2030s tho.

[Nuke]

Found the pessimist...

not yet you didnt. if we were to blow ourselves back to the stone age we will have a lot less energy available to build it back up, that we had last time. and you have to do all this in a ravaged climate. it might take a few more ice ages to put things right, and a few million years for geology to produce more oil. then if out species is still alive we can make the same mistakes again and be in the same boat were in now. no mars colony for you.

A nuclear war probably won't fling is to the Stone Age. More likely something similar to the Middle Ages. With pockets of advanced technology.

Op: Probably in the 2100s at worst, ad the 2040s at best.

i figure it will be a lot like the battletech universe. sans battlemechs and a few other things of course.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Nuke

[Starman4308]

Not for the forseeable future. Present orbital launch technology is incredibly expensive, and the incentives to go to Mars are just about nil. Unmanned probes can do 90% of the science at a tiny fraction of the cost. Realistically, any manned Mars mission must depend on the development of reliable man-rated systems with much lower to-orbit costs than present launch vehicles.

We could​ do it with current technology, with probably 10-20 years of development time, but nobody's going to fork over the money for it.

[King Arthur]

If I'm being very optimistic, maybe sometime in the 2100s or 2200s.

I don't see us having the will to fork over the time and money to do something that has no practical nor economical gain for the forseeable future.

So I vote for 2040 or later.

[kerbiloid]

Mars flight is first of all a political perfomance, so it anyways will be a hot media theme.

Therefore, the problem is not to send somebody with a flag to Mars (that probably was possible even in 70s), but to keep this a flourish theme, not a funeral one.

When on ISS you can easily return an ill or wounded person to Earth at any moment in a half of hour.

When on Moon  you need about three days. Is critical if a heavy wound, but appropriate in most other cases.

When on Mars  you need months to evacuate the harmed one or to send a help.

Yet no humans were living outside a low Earth orbit for months. Radiation and so on.

Yet no durable low-gravity experiments with humans performed. Either Earth gravity, or zero gravity. Absolutely nothing is known about it: is it from medical pov as zero-G, Earth-G, something intermediate or much worse them both.

While the radiation survavibility and protection could be tested on Earth, low-gravity needs at least a wheel orbital station, or lunar station  both enough large to provide year experiments with 5-10 investigators and sozens of mediical staff.

Without it is highly probable to get a multi-month funerals in TV live, which would be enough sad for politicians and space administrators who have sent the ship.

So, I think, until a large Moon base will be established, no Mars flight would happen.

And probably at that time there will be a little more pressing political issues on Earth, so Mars flight would be constantly push away in a vital political agenda.

So, when in, say, 2050s all "dust" will "settle", there would be absolutely new technologies which turn a Mars flight from "let's achieve this!" into "why not to have a Mars flight next week?".

[Pipcard]

So how come people are doubting the expected "mid-2030s" date set by NASA?

And what do you think about the Mars for Less plan?

The MFL plan claims that the barrier to entry for a manned Mars mission can be lowered significantly by avoiding development costs in launch vehicles, particularly heavy lift launch vehicles (HLLVs) that many think are required for human space exploration. While more complex than many other mission proposals, Mars for Less has strong economic arguments, including avoiding launch vehicle development costs, and offering the prospect of an anchor tenant for the currently over-supplied launch vehicle market, which could result in reduced launch costs and incentives to develop reusable launch technology.

Here is what it would look like (uses a dozen Ariane 5 launches). Fewer launches might be involved if the plan used Falcon Heavies.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Pipcard

[MBobrik]

it might take a few more ice ages to put things right, and a few million years for geology to produce more oil.

Have you read "the moth in god's eye" ? Just because we became addicted to oil and coal as energy sources, it does not mean that they are necessary. A civilization having no other choice would simply build its infrastructure to rely on renewable energy only.

[King Arthur]

So how come people are doubting the expected "mid-2030s" date set by NASA?

If I'm being perfectly honest I don't even expect the SLS to fly period, let alone reach Mars in the 2030s.

We launched the Ares I-X back a couple years ago as part of the Constellation program, and despite a successful mission the program was still killed off. I'm not holding my breath for the Orion/SLS just because we had a successful Orion test flight.

In addition, the SLS currently has no planned missions beyond SLS-2/EM-2 which is the only manned Orion mission (coincidentally the first manned flight of Orion?) slated to rendezvous with and investigate an asteroid that would be brought to lunar orbit at an earlier date. We don't have a roadmap for going to Mars (or even the Moon...), there's nowhere near adequate funding to make the SLS worthwhile. What the Orion/SLS is is literally a rocket to nowhere and a money sink.

If NASA gets the proper level of necessary funding and actually lays out a solid, thought-out plan on how to utilize the SLS and ultimately reach Mars I may reconsider my negative outlook on the whole thing. Otherwise though, I don't expect for any of us to land on Mars before the 2100s+ at least, and certainly not by NASA/SLS.

Edited December 7, 2014 by King Arthur

[Ikaneko]

I'll just leave this here:

Hmmmm....

How quickly??

Depends on the agency.

I would say the only two with the drive to land on Mars are the Chinese and NASA, although Roscosmos may also want to, but it is unlikely as they have failed previous unmanned missions. The CNSA have not yet even landed on the moon, so a manned Mars mission would surely be unlikely for another 20-30 years. It's looking even more likely for NASA now, considering the Orion programme.

So now let's consider Orion. It is currently scheduled for its first manned flight in 2021. It will get to an asteroid by 2023. By that quite ambitious timeline, I guess NASA are expecting to have Orion up and running by about 2025, which places Mars at 2026-2030 (launch windows and all that). However, this is just orbital missions at best. Manned landing missions will take a lot longer, so we're looking at another 7-10 years once Orion has completed its first Mars mission to develop the tech for decent orbital infrastructure ( I think NASA would be more careful this time around) so then Mars would be about 2038.

I've probably overlooked a lot of stuff, but this is my estimate.

[Starwaster]

If I'm being perfectly honest I don't even expect the SLS to fly period, let alone reach Mars in the 2030s.

We launched the Ares I-X back a couple years ago as part of the Constellation program, and despite a successful mission the program was still killed off. I'm not holding my breath for the Orion/SLS just because we had a successful Orion test flight.

In addition, the SLS currently has no planned missions beyond SLS-2/EM-2 which is the only manned Orion mission (coincidentally the first manned flight of Orion?) slated to rendezvous with and investigate an asteroid that would be brought to lunar orbit at an earlier date. We don't have a roadmap for going to Mars (or even the Moon...), there's nowhere near adequate funding to make the SLS worthwhile. What the Orion/SLS is is literally a rocket to nowhere and a money sink.

If NASA gets the proper level of necessary funding and actually lays out a solid, thought-out plan on how to utilize the SLS and ultimately reach Mars I may reconsider my negative outlook on the whole thing. Otherwise though, I don't expect for any of us to land on Mars before the 2100s+ at least, and certainly not by NASA/SLS.

One thing that was disheartening for me was to see the timetable for Orion. Lockheed Martin has started work on another. It is not scheduled to fly until 2018. What that says to me is that we're not really serious about this thing after all. I forget the rest of the timetable but there wasn't anything in it to tell me that the US is going to be sending its astronauts into space using its own spacecraft anytime soon.

If you compare Orion's planned flight timetable to Apollo launches, once we started launching, first it was something like 1 a year then we were doing several launches a year just to test things. And finally started sending multiple manned launches a year until we were on the Moon.

If anyone gets us to Mars in my lifetime I expect it will be Elon Musk.

If the Russians or the Chinese get there first... well, I'd LIKE my country to be first but truth is I'll cheer anyone on loudly who puts the first humans on Mars no matter which country it is.

As Tallahassee would say (Zombieland): It's time to nut up or shut up!

[Frozen_Heart]

I personally reckon 2045-2050. And not by NASA. The Orion / SLS is just a political stunt and not really expected to do anything. It may even get cancelled before any manned launches.

China seems pretty serious about space exploration at the moment so they may be the first. They aren't moving that fast but seem consistent.

Spacex also seems serious about it but the funding for the BFR, MCT, and all the Mars equipment may be just too much for them.

[Kaos]

In my opinion it is only a political problem: 10 years after someone decides to hand over the money to perform a mars direct like plan. SpaceX develops some technology for that right now, so it may be 6 years after someone decides to pay for a mars direct like plan, if we wait longer.

To predict the politic point: shortly after some non-western power decides some space plan, which looks more advanced than Apollo might give the USA the motivation to fund Mars Direct.

Summarizing: 2025-2040

[Ikaneko]

I personally reckon 2045-2050. And not by NASA. The Orion / SLS is just a political stunt and not really expected to do anything. It may even get cancelled before any manned launches.

A political stunt?? I think that NASA is incredibly serious about getting Orion up and running. After all, now that they've brought in ESA to provide the service module, it would be political madness to step out. The SLS... I believe we are needing a heavy lifter design that doesn't need to be outsourced from SpaceX and others. After all, if NASA pull out of this, there will be a lot of questions asked within the government about why they are left without even their own launcher for another 6-7 years, and why they haven't met the goals of the Obama administration to develop a viable way to get to Mars. On top of that, it would be the second time in the last decade they'd pulled out of a new project. They've crossed the Rubicon with EFT-1, no backtracks.

[King Arthur]

You just answered yourself why SLS is a political stunt (or as it's sometimes called, the Senate Launch System), as follows:

I think that NASA is incredibly serious about getting Orion up and running.

NASA might be serious, but the US Congress which funds NASA and decides its budget is not.

The SLS... I believe we are needing a heavy lifter design that doesn't need to be outsourced from SpaceX and others. After all, if NASA pull out of this, there will be a lot of questions asked within the government about why they are left without even their own launcher for another 6-7 years,

This is precisely why the SLS is around, because we don't have a NASA-operated launcher or manned space vehicle with the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The US Congress doesn't care where SLS is heading, they simply want rockets so that the jobs that would otherwise be lost by the ending of the Space Shuttle program will be kept and the loss of prestige from not operating manned space vehicles can be recovered. If we were truly serious about going to Mars and beyond we would have a solid timetable and a plan already, rather than "yeah, the next Orion flight is in 4 years' time, also we have these two missions planned but no idea beyond that".

As for lifters that don't need to be outsourced from SpaceX and co., we have the ULA (United Launch Alliance) which pretty much provides the US government with launchers on demand. We are in no short supply of reliable launchers (Atlas V and their RD-180s not withstanding).

They've crossed the Rubicon with EFT-1, no backtracks.

I once again point to the Ares I-X. Successful mission, program still axed. Great as it was, this successful Orion test flight guarantees absolutely nothing.

Don't get me wrong, seeing NASA doing glorious things will be great. But if we Americans were truly serious about what we were doing then we would have picked up the pace by now.

[Kryten]

I once again point to the Ares I-X. Successful mission, program still axed. Great as it was, this successful Orion test flight guarantees absolutely nothing.

They're not really comparable; EFT-1 included a real Orion, and retired a lot of risk, whereas Ares I-X was a cobbled-together Frankenstein of surplus parts that proved absolutely nothing.

[carlpilot]

Orion was originally scheduled to go to the Moon in 2014, and Mars "later".

At the rate NASA and other space agencies are going, we'll reach Mars in about 2040.

-Carlpilot

[Dispatcher]

I think we can learn much in preparation to go to Mars by first establishing at least one base on the Moon. The environments are not the same, but for practical purposes, are similar. One barely has an atmosphere and the other essentially none. Both have lots of pesky dust and exposure to temperature extremes and to radiation (Mars less so with regard to radiation). Each has some water ice (more at the poles) and also surface or near surface deposits of material which could be processed and used for building materials and possibly for energy. The dust and regolith could be used for crop growing studies. Both have lower gravity than Earth. The advantage of a lunar base is largely economical in terms of cost and time scales. Besides, Luna's surface (or orbit) would be a good place from which to launch future Mars missions.

[Nuke]

Have you read "the moth in god's eye" ? Just because we became addicted to oil and coal as energy sources, it does not mean that they are necessary. A civilization having no other choice would simply build its infrastructure to rely on renewable energy only.

no but it is neccisary to bootstrap production to the point where you can produce things like solar cells, wind turbines, hydro plants, and nuclear reactors/fuels. if we ruin things to the point where we need to have another industrial revolution, we might not have the fuels neccisary to move to a more technological society. and it doesnt even need to be oil. it can be any finite resource from coal to nuclear fuels. if we use all the oil and have to use something nastier like coal the next time around, that gives us less time between inustry and climate collapse to move to renewables than we had on the first go round.

i should also point out i was trying to come up with a worst case scenario. i dont think this will actually happen.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Nuke