After Mars, how long until the next planet?

[FishInferno]

Mars has long been known to be the next step into the cosmos, but what about after Mars? Obviously we want to eventually conquer the whole solar system, but how long will it be in-between the first landing on Mars to the first expeditions to other planets?

Lats say we get o Mars by 2030, as SpaceX hopes. I would suggest focusing all of our efforts on establishing a colony for at least ten years since Mars is the only place in the near-term where we could actually colonize. I would see the next planets visited by 2045-2050. We have several options:

Venus, closer/easier to reach than other planets but there isn't much you can do there (high pressure/temperature and stuff).

Ceres, a little farther than Venus, probably not the best place to colonize due to low gravity.

Jupiter/Saturn, Could investigate Europa/Titan to see if life exists, but not as easy by far as Venus or Ceres.

Uranus/Neptune/Pluto, Not much there, really, but we should go there eventually.

Interstellar, whoa, lets not get ahead of ourselves.

(These are all listed in the order that I think we should do them, but that's just my opinion.)

What do you think? How long should we focus on Mars before expanding further, and where should we go next?

[Reddragon]

I don't see too much potential in Venus. I'd say focusing on the Jupiter and Saturn systems after Mars are the obvious next steps. Also, don't forget about asteroids!

[xenomorph555]

After we put a human on Mars there won't be any further human exploration to new places for decades. All resources will go to Mars and Lunar colonisation. Whether that's a good thing, I don't know.

[Frida Space]

Speculating on when we willl land on Mars is almost impossible, as we don't know how economy/technology/politics etc will evolve in the next years, so speculating on when we will conquer another planet/body in the solar system is straight impossible. However, I guess we could speculate on where we will go after Mars. To me, the most obvious choice would be Jupiter's moons, however they'd be an incredible feat (DeltaV-wise, radiation-wise etc).

On when we will explore Jupiter's moons (but as I said it's impossible to say, really), I'd say at least a century. Mars exploration will probably require colonization etc.

[Sampa]

I agree with Xenomorph. Just GETTING to Mars will drain the resources of different nations and that is something that the governments would not be too pleased about. I have a feeling that, until we abandon our chemical rockets, Mars will be the last planet we will explore or colonize.

[AngelLestat]

Venus is better target for colonization and way easy to accomplish a manned mission, so dont be so sure than mars will come first...

We already have the knowledge/technology and maybe budget to a manned venus mission, but we dont have any of those for a mars mission yet

[Bill Phil]

Venus is better target for colonization and way easy to accomplish a manned mission, so dont be so sure than mars will come first...

We already have the knowledge/technology and maybe budget to a manned venus mission, but we dont have any of those for a mars mission yet

We had the technology for a Mars mission in the 80s. We just didn't go.

[Frida Space]

We already have the knowledge/technology and maybe budget to a manned venus mission, but we dont have any of those for a mars mission yet

I always thought that landing a manned mission on Mars was easier than on Venus? I mean, just making them survive inside Venus' atmosphere would be crazy, I guess.

[Karriz]

We'll certainly visit Mars well before Venus. Floating cities are a cool idea but way in the future.

I'm not saying that we'll build cities on Mars either within the next 50 years. Just science bases more likely, where scientists stay for a few years at a time.

After Mars, asteroid belt would be logically the next place to go, and most likely reachable using similar hardware. Maybe not interesting enough given the longer transit times though.

Jupiter will probably take some more development in technology to get to safely. Maybe we'll visit Callisto in late 21st century?

[AngelLestat]

We had the technology for a Mars mission in the 80s. We just didn't go.

we did not know how to do Supersonic Retropropulsion in the 80th, you can land in mars using that, but not in a efficient way or with a good budget.

Is not the same to land 1 tone robot than 50 tons manned.

I always thought that landing a manned mission on Mars was easier than on Venus? I mean, just making them survive inside Venus' atmosphere would be crazy, I guess.

Yeah but is not the surface the most interesting of venus.. Its clouds, the place more similar to earth in the solar system.

But even landing on the surface of venus is much easier than mars, you dont even need parachutes, the atmosphere is so dense than a probe survive the landing with without parachute deploy due a malfunction. I guess there is a 75% of success in venus mission vs a 50% on mars mission.

[Vanamonde]

Let's please not turn this thread into yet another Venus colonization discussion.

[AngelLestat]

We'll certainly visit Mars well before Venus. Floating cities are a cool idea but way in the future.

But we dont need to have cities in the first mission dont you?

Just a blimp is enoght.. we can do that, at least since the the 19th century

- - - Updated - - -

Let's please not turn this thread into yet another Venus colonization discussion.

I will not, I am leaving.. But why I cant be in disagree with the topic assumption?

It would be fine if I start a topic about... what would be the next planet for a manned visit after venus?

[Guest]

After Mars? Ceres or Callisto, IMO, mainly because of the prospect of liquid water. Callisto might be a bit harsher on the delta-V requirements but would be more habitable because of Jupiter's magnetic field. Both would take a working VASIMR sort of drive to be practical targets, though.

[Karriz]

But we dont need to have cities in the first mission dont you?

Just a blimp is enoght.. we can do that, at least since the the 19th century

I agree, but the blimp may as well be unmanned.

[Bill Phil]

After Mars? Ceres or Callisto, IMO, mainly because of the prospect of liquid water. Callisto might be a bit harsher on the delta-V requirements but would be more habitable because of Jupiter's magnetic field. Both would take a working VASIMR sort of drive to be practical targets, though.

More habitable...?

It's far away from Jupiter's radiation belts. That's a good thing.

[Guest]

More habitable...?

It's far away from Jupiter's radiation belts. That's a good thing.

Indeed, but it's also within Jupiter's magnetic field, which is a good thing. That's something Ceres lacks.

E: Also worth noting that once (if, for the skeptical) we have a long-term foothold on the moon and Mars we'll probably start expanding much more freely rather than taking little steps to one planet at a time. The great thing about both of those bodies is they give us plenty of practical experience regarding living in space from rather comfortable vistas.

Edited March 31, 2015 by regex

[lajoswinkler]

After Mars? Ceres or Callisto, IMO, mainly because of the prospect of liquid water. Callisto might be a bit harsher on the delta-V requirements but would be more habitable because of Jupiter's magnetic field. Both would take a working VASIMR sort of drive to be practical targets, though.

Jupiter's belt radiation is worse than what Sun offers at that distance. All Galilean satellites are therefore much less habitable than Ceres in the terms of ionizing ray exposure.

[magnemoe]

I always thought that landing a manned mission on Mars was easier than on Venus? I mean, just making them survive inside Venus' atmosphere would be crazy, I guess.

Yes, one major downside with Venus is that the surface kills you, it also kill any robot.

dV from getting back from Venus is also high. In short it would be cheaper to transport stuff in than getting it from the surface.

It will be Mars and asteroids, my guess is that an asteroid mission will come first, faster and no need for lander.

After this we will see an Jupiter or Saturn mission. Saturn is longer but don't have the radiation problems.

Both would be simpler than an manned Venus mission.

[Guest]

Jupiter's belt radiation is worse than what Sun offers at that distance. All Galilean satellites are therefore much less habitable than Ceres in the terms of ionizing ray exposure.

I see now, my mistake, I hadn't really dug that deep into it. Callisto would be a great place for exploring Jupiter specifically but not really as a logical "next-step".

Well then, Ceres after Mars and the moon.

[juanml82]

After Mars? Nothing. It's just not economical until we can leave Earth with something that's not a chemical rocket, and all alternatives to chemical rockets are either too dangerous, insane or require ridiculous mega-engineering projects.

The world isn't a Western. If there is no economic incentive to colonize something, that something will remain uncolonized. I could see a manned interstellar mission happening before permanent colonies in the Jovian moons.

[Bill Phil]

After Mars? Nothing. It's just not economical until we can leave Earth with something that's not a chemical rocket, and all alternatives to chemical rockets are either too dangerous, insane or require ridiculous mega-engineering projects.

The world isn't a Western. If there is no economic incentive to colonize something, that something will remain uncolonized. I could see a manned interstellar mission happening before permanent colonies in the Jovian moons.

Chemical is OK for just a landing. But full blown colonization of anywhere needs something with a bit more oomph. Maybe Q-thrusters could help out. If they're doable.

[Renegrade]

Mars? Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'd be truly astonished if we returned to the Moon. Remember, the glass isn't half full, it's more like two thirds empty and it just sprung a leak. juanml82's analysis is correct - there's no space oil or space gold for us up there that would net a positive return.

Which sadly reminds me of the alt-text for xkcd #893..

“The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there’s no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.â€Â

-- Randall Munroe ( https://xkcd.com/893/ )

..I'm pretty sure we'll end up being one of these one-planet graves. Just compare KSP sales vs. Shoot People With Slightly Different Guns 5: Shooting in a Slightly Different Way 2...

[GreenWolf]

I have actually thought long and hard about this as part of the world building for a hard sci-fi project I've been working on. And I would say that NEOs would be a better choice than Mars or the Main Asteroid belt, if we're just talking economics here.

Of course, I fully expect a massive mining base in (16) Psyche, since the thing is basically a giant chunk of nickel-iron around a core of platinum group metals.

[lajoswinkler]

After Mars? Nothing. It's just not economical until we can leave Earth with something that's not a chemical rocket, and all alternatives to chemical rockets are either too dangerous, insane or require ridiculous mega-engineering projects.

The world isn't a Western. If there is no economic incentive to colonize something, that something will remain uncolonized. I could see a manned interstellar mission happening before permanent colonies in the Jovian moons.

Nuclear thermal engines are not too dangerous, insane or ridiculously expensive. The technology exists, but I'm also quite convinced we won't be going anywhere after Mars for a long, long time.

[mardlamock]

The asteroid belt, mars colonies will get some supplies from them, and the earth will get other resources.