Mars by 2030

[_Augustus_]

So in the newest promo video for the Martian, a future Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about Ares 1 landing in 2029.

Here are NASA's plans for the Mars lander vehicle:

So do you guys think that we could land on Mars by 2030? Do you think that it would only be possible if one of the next US presidents made some nutty speech like John F. Kennedy?

Post your comments below!

[Bill Phil]

If we wanted to, we could go to Mars by 2020. But we don't want to.

Yes, there are challenges either way, but they aren't insurmountable. We can do it.

We went to the Moon in eight years after significant funding was allocated. And that was the 1960s. It's currently the 2010s, I bet we could go to Mars in 5 years, if we wanted to.

The problem is no one wants to. No one with money.

[Mitchz95]

I don't see the point of spending one month on Mars. If you're going there, you're going there to do science. There's not a lot you can do there in a month that a rover couldn't do for a fraction of the price. I assume the 28-day estimate is for the MDV itself, not the overall mission duration.

The problem is no one wants to. No one with money.

Elon Musk does.

[PB666]

We're at Mars now, got three rovers, two still moving around, got a couple of satellites and we have a little lost beagle somewhere near the northern pole. Someone needs to pull open one of its panels.

You want peeps on mars, no problem, wanna get them off Mars, thats a little more of a problem. Hey but we can peeps on and off Hawaii, and they can get Leyed By the locals!

[Gaarst]

Elon Musk does.

Elon Musk doesn't even have the 163 billion dollars (today's) used for the Apollo program. So, for a Mars program, he doesn't have the money; at this scale only large states (EU, USA, Russia, China and maybe India if they progress really fast) would have the funds, and even then, they might have to unite with others to make it. But in these times of no Cold War and economic crisis, they'll never spend hundreds of billions on a Martian program.

[Rakaydos]

Elon Musk doesn't even have the 163 billion dollars (today's) used for the Apollo program. So, for a Mars program, he doesn't have the money; at this scale only large states (EU, USA, Russia, China and maybe India if they progress really fast) would have the funds, and even then, they might have to unite with others to make it. But in these times of no Cold War and economic crisis, they'll never spend hundreds of billions on a Martian program.

A rocket doesnt have to reach earth's escape velocity to escape earth's gravity either. Elon is using the same technique- letting shrt term gains pay for long term research. Merlin was a NASA study, but SpaceX is using the profit from Falcon 9 (and soon falcon 27- er, I mean falcon heavy) to develope the Raptor engine on his own, no direct taxpayer involvement at all. (Taxpayers are paying for orbit launches and getting them, not R&D that comes out of SpaceX's profit.)

[Nibb31]

I like that lander design. This is the first time I see such a design from NASA. Where did you find it ?

[_Augustus_]

I like that lander design. This is the first time I see such a design from NASA. Where did you find it ?

Space.com, they said it was a new design by NASA.

As you can see it's meant to rendezvous with the crew vehicle in Martian orbit.

They also have a cargo lander design:

[ChrisSpace]

So in the newest promo video for the Martian, a future Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about Ares 1 landing in 2029.

Here are NASA's plans for the Mars lander vehicle:

So do you guys think that we could land on Mars by 2030? Do you think that it would only be possible if one of the next US presidents made some nutty speech like John F. Kennedy?

Post your comments below!

You really need to break this question up into 2 parts: Can anyone land humans on mars by 2030, and can NASA land humans on mars by 2030, if at all. First question is definitely a big yes. Second question is a big no. I'll explain the 2 big reasons why:

1. The only way NASA can get something like this done is with the funding and competition that comes with a space race.

2. There will be no second space race.

If you have seen WaitButWhy's blog on SpaceX you will understand the first point. The space race was never about exploration, or the moon. It was all just about being better than this guy:

Without America feeling 'threatened' by another nation surpassing them in their space capabilities, they think have no reason to continue expensive programs, let alone pour even more money into something like a mars mission. And because nobody else has landed on the moon [citation needed], the US still thinks they are unrivalled in their space capability, even though they are not.

The second point is quite simple to explain: the USSR had better space capabilities at the start of the space race. Today there is no nation that has a higher capability in space than the US did in 1969-1972. Until another nation lands on the moon or beyond, the US will still think of themselves as the most powerful in their space capabilities, hence they will not feel 'threatened' as they did in the 50s and 60s, hence there will be no space race. And Russia has too many things it needs to focus on here on earth, such as a bad economy, to try again. And china is just... slow. It's super heavy launch vehicle is set to have its maiden flight in 2028, by which point SpaceX will have planted it's flag on mars ages ago.

NASA might get bragging rights by helping SpaceX, though.

Elon Musk doesn't even have the 163 billion dollars (today's) used for the Apollo program. So, for a Mars program, he doesn't have the money; at this scale only large states (EU, USA, Russia, China and maybe India if they progress really fast) would have the funds, and even then, they might have to unite with others to make it. But in these times of no Cold War and economic crisis, they'll never spend hundreds of billions on a Martian program.

*FACEPALM*

Okay, wow, where do I begin?

The Apollo program was all done with very primitive technology. Like, so primitive that travelling to the moon had only just become possible ('steampunk space program' fans might disagree with me on that one). There was no reusability, no ISRU, inefficient and expensive fuels were used, the only rocket-building metals were really heavy, and almost all the calculations had to be done manually. It's no wonder it cost a sixth of a trillion dollars! If China or someone did it today, the cost could easily be halved or thrided. And that's not even including the studies and reports that full reusability could take off 90% of the cost! You simply can't compare our situation today with the space cavemen of the 1960s.

SpaceX could easily begin to send people to mars. It would be the single most expensive programme in the company's history, but with full reusability, lightweight materials technology and in-situ fuel producing, it can easily be done. Also remember that SpaceX will be wealthier in the 2020s than it is now.

[Bill Phil]

ISRU still isn't a thing. And it won't be for quite a long time...

[SargeRho]

A prototype for an ISRU plant that converts CO2 and Water into Oxygen and Methane already exists...

[Bill Phil]

A prototype for an ISRU plant that converts CO2 and Water into Oxygen and Methane already exists...

But that's only a prototype of the actual process of using material. What about extracting it? Those systems are not verified for Martian environments, and neither is the ISRU equipment.

ISRU is currently at a very low TRL, and that needs to increase before it's used.

[SargeRho]

Surely we already have means to take in air from the Martian atmosphere? If water can't be extracted on Mars, bring the Hydrogen from Earth. About 5% of the total propellant mass. 15 years is a lot of time. And InSight is going to drill into Mars to see what's under the dust. A device that can extract water, if ice isn't too far under the surface, would not really have to be much bigger than InSight's drill.

Edited August 30, 2015 by SargeRho

[Bill Phil]

Surely we already have means to take in air from the Martian atmosphere? If water can't be extracted on Mars, bring the Hydrogen from Earth. About 5% of the total propellant mass. 15 years is a lot of time. And InSight is going to drill into Mars to see what's under the dust. A device that can extract water, if ice isn't too far under the surface, would not really have to be much bigger than InSight's drill.

I'm not arguing that we can't. The technology is pretty complex. It needs to be very heavily tested before it's relied on consistently.

[Kibble]

I love that lander! <3

[PB666]

If we wanted to, we could go to Mars by 2020. But we don't want to.

Yes, there are challenges either way, but they aren't insurmountable. We can do it.

We went to the Moon in eight years after significant funding was allocated. And that was the 1960s. It's currently the 2010s, I bet we could go to Mars in 5 years, if we wanted to.

The problem is no one wants to. No one with money.

NASA does not cost money, it makes money for the US. You need to get this idea out of your mind, NASA is punished because it is a public spending effort. Yes private space can take over some of NASAs duties (not limiting the critique ESA has a bigger problem). The problem is that private companies need a return on investment of 3 to 5 years maximum. The return on space investments have been great, but they sometimes take 20 years (examples are GPS system) do develop and capitalize on the research and development required. Do you think google maps comes from a private ability, they essentially usurp from the public domain and sell advertisers to help them display it. If you asked a private company to find the heliopause and they would be paid once they did, do you think that would work? lol.

The government gets back every dime and more that they invest in NASA, everyone admits this. We get new advanced technologies that create new sci-tech jobs that bring in new tax revenue cause these jobs are where the consistent incomes are at since 1990. Don't get into your head that NASA successes or failures have anything to do with its funding, Hubble just goes to show how successful their most glaring failure was. Its not that, its not the cost of the SLS, its all about a failed ideology of government.

Its not just NASA. Science institutions around the US are on the brink, departmental budgets have been cut, recut, streamlined, and every science department is being asked to spend more money to comply with new government regulations. But the money is all going to big science, and institutions need to feed money to small science stuff that developes.

I want humans to go to Mars too. I'de love to see a landing mission like that of 1969, but the problem is this, you have to conduct yourself around the US Congress in such a way as to not raise the ire of the Ideologues within our government, they way NASA is doing this is by creating small missions that accomplish alot for the money, but whose single-time capital outlay is small. Mars is to me - A station with a lander, 3 to 5 people, 4 year mission, a station built in space, a station refueled in space, maybe several times. That is not one mission, that is at minimum 5 launch missions, you won't be able to conceal the expenditure from the crazies in Washington for the 15 years or so it would take to start and complete the mission.

Yeah I see the pictures, but even NASA admits these are not comprehensive, that they cannot safely get a fueled lander on the ground yet. so . . . . . .artist concept. . . .great but.

[Bill Phil]

NASA does not cost money, it makes money for the US. You need to get this idea out of your mind, NASA is punished because it is a public spending effort. Yes private space can take over some of NASAs duties (not limiting the critique ESA has a bigger problem). The problem is that private companies need a return on investment of 3 to 5 years maximum. The return on space investments have been great, but they sometimes take 20 years (examples are GPS system) do develop and capitalize on the research and development required. Do you think google maps comes from a private ability, they essentially usurp from the public domain and sell advertisers to help them display it. If you asked a private company to find the heliopause and they would be paid once they did, do you think that would work? lol.

The government gets back every dime and more that they invest in NASA, everyone admits this. We get new advanced technologies that create new sci-tech jobs that bring in new tax revenue cause these jobs are where the consistent incomes are at since 1990. Don't get into your head that NASA successes or failures have anything to do with its funding, Hubble just goes to show how successful their most glaring failure was. Its not that, its not the cost of the SLS, its all about a failed ideology of government.

Its not just NASA. Science institutions around the US are on the brink, departmental budgets have been cut, recut, streamlined, and every science department is being asked to spend more money to comply with new government regulations. But the money is all going to big science, and institutions need to feed money to small science stuff that developes.

I want humans to go to Mars too. I'de love to see a landing mission like that of 1969, but the problem is this, you have to conduct yourself around the US Congress in such a way as to not raise the ire of the Ideologues within our government, they way NASA is doing this is by creating small missions that accomplish alot for the money, but whose single-time capital outlay is small. Mars is to me - A station with a lander, 3 to 5 people, 4 year mission, a station built in space, a station refueled in space, maybe several times. That is not one mission, that is at minimum 5 launch missions, you won't be able to conceal the expenditure from the crazies in Washington for the 15 years or so it would take to start and complete the mission.

Yeah I see the pictures, but even NASA admits these are not comprehensive, that they cannot safely get a fueled lander on the ground yet. so . . . . . .artist concept. . . .great but.

How is this a response to my post? Please tell me, I literally don't see how it is.

NASA doesn't make money for the government. Sure, other entities, but not the government.

[Robotengineer]

They are going to use RL10's?

[PB666]

How is this a response to my post? Please tell me, I literally don't see how it is.

NASA doesn't make money for the government. Sure, other entities, but not the government.

Hmmm, that is even more troubling. Do you understand or have read anything about economics, emergent technologies or multiplyer effects.

First remove the word NASA - that way we don't have do deal with the Moon mission posthumous malaise

Substitute the words Discovery-Technology

Next assume that all discovery-technologies have a pay-off in decades

Then assess the benefit that discovery technologies have at about half of their pay-off period.

So lets say moon mission, and about 1/2 of the papers are finished 25 years later, all will be done 50 years later.

Now then find a private way of doing this. FAIL.

Now find a way to assess the public benefit. \

- Here are the ways

-technology funding - lunar mission space in general - how about the magnets in your Wind-farm, Toyota Prius. Better solar panels - Solar farms.

-science produced - Dark matter, dark energy, how the earth moon system came to be, rising sea levels, falling ground water levels, earthquake science, earthquake prediction.

include side product like sea-floor sensors, ENSO detection, . . . . . . . .

-engineering revolution - changes in the way that engineers themselves trained in space industries change the way they think about building things.

After this you come to the conclusion that NASA has not gotten back the benefit that they have created, and then you realize that the Manned Mars Mission benefit is running right now in your Toyota Prius that gets 50 MPG, plugs into a solar charged charging station and is getting gas at 2$ per gallon when the price should be 5$. Doesn't make sense until you realize that NASA feeds the US economy with wealth, but the US economy only feeds back a tiny fraction of the wealth it helps to create, the Manned Mars Mission is in everyone's bank account screaming to be reinvested for a hefty payback, not alone, but as a composite of publicly funded science.

So then you have to assess how is discovery-technology best funded, and the answer is almost always that public investment early is an absolute requirement and private sector branching off of this can happen later, but still the new big 50 year projects need public funding. So has discovery-technology been a success, it has been an overwhelming success. So is the return of investment being returned to science, about 5% of the product of publicly funded science is being returned. Think about the science driven portion of the economy (computers, smart cars, cell phones, plasma TV) and how much are these technologies paying to science as a portion of their sale price. And then you conclude that the reinvestment is not keeping up with the benefit. Every society in the world that has made a push to develop science and technology has prospered many fold more than the amount of funding put into it.

When you think about WWII you think D-DAY invasion and Hitler in a bunker, but all the while there was another war most everyone in the US is oblivious to. And when you see the pacific war you think Iwojima and marines with knives between their teeth scrambling up the side of mt Surebachi. But there was another war being waged in the US congress by Sen. Harry Trumans war to improve the operational technology; and one of the key areas was submarine technology, and we pushed bad torpedo's and made them better, we added and double the range of surface radar and added anti air-craft tracking and doubled the operational depth of our submarine fleet, all in two years - because he drove the corruption in the defense sector to face its funders. And in the end the hidden war destroyed more tonnage, unknown number of kills than all other forces in the pacific combined. To top that out, the war ended in a technological bang. A punctuation point that said technology is here, and to the losers who ignore it. After the war everyone understood this and we reached the moon with completely inadequate technologies and through training, will and refinement we made them work; there was essentially no difference between the pacific submarine campaign and the race to the Moon in terms of the general strategy to improve the technology to afford the final goal.

And then we turned away and we had ideas about taxation, inflation, religious wars, and censorship of technology through a process known as defunding - and here we are. Greed ate your Mars mission money, give it an emetic and maybe it will cough it up, I doubt it. Then take a look at history and ponder, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Spain, British, Americans. Persians, Arabs, Turks, Israel and you realize there is no look-back, no rescue, that drive that creates empires and malaise that destroys them moves on elsewhere, the wealth is almost always wasted in some form of corruption, and to the efficient go the next big revolution. And the funny thing almost all civilizations realize this before it happens.

No one doubts the long term benefits of NASA or questions the value of its funding; every single appreciated economist argues that science-technology investments are the best investments outside of the education sector. But the funding is only about Debt is, current taxation and promised tax-relief, future entitlements; and then funding stagnates (falling with regard to inflation). This is not different from any past social collapse, the wise see the problem and the greedy take advantage of the social weakness and corruption overwhelms.

And so the corruption is that NASA is not being reinvested with the rewards from the products they have already produced. We live in a world that exist, not a fantasy world were billionaire superheros fund trillion dollar public benefit sectors. This world you live in, they cut military research in many areas almost to zero to fund the Iraq War and the proponents of that war in large part don't want to pay for it. That is the corruption, see it? Science is a slow methodical process, its not one that takes well to being jerked like ISIS staring at a temple pondering whether it should be blown to bits, it requires respect and stability, room to stretch out and explore minutia that the public lacks all interest in.

[Bill Phil]

I am having trouble understanding your train of thought here...

And yet how is this related in any way to my initial comment?

You seem to be making assumptions about me, too.

I know how science works... Trust me. Only now with the huge store of knowledge from the past can we do what we do.

So you're saying that NASA has had a large benefit and is not getting repaid? Its benefit is pretty small. Only in GPS and comm SATs is there any benefit.

Please shorten your posts, too. Seeing a wall of text and reading it can be very difficult to process.

[PB666]

I am having trouble understanding your train of thought here...

And yet how is this related in any way to my initial comment?

You seem to be making assumptions about me, too.

I know how science works... Trust me. Only now with the huge store of knowledge from the past can we do what we do.

So you're saying that NASA has had a large benefit and is not getting repaid? Its benefit is pretty small. Only in GPS and comm SATs is there any benefit.

If this is what you believe then your really don't understand the science or NASA. I see you need links that well help you educate yourself on these matters.

Did you know that the two gravity satellites have discovered differences in the earths crust in California that the ground based seismology and GPS registers missed? Did you know they are reassessing where stressed formed and why it was released the way it was. Fault lines in California do not often follow past trends, this is do to changes in the stress build up and creates particularly dangerous hidden faults, Satellite technology can help to find these hidden faults and beg for improved building standards in these areas, saving billions of dollars and lives and protecting local economies.

Did you know that gravity satellites have discovered were ground water is being lost and how much is lost, informing that state about what drought measures they need to take.

Did you know that the satellite facilitated National Snow and Ice Data Center monitors the loss of arctic ice and reports on how much is lost and how old the ice in the arctic is. Here is the daily update, ships can use the to plot shipping across the arctic ocean saving millions of tons of fuel to go from Europe to Japan. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Did you know that the moon rocks set absolute timing for several events in the history of the early earth, and explain important layering patterns on the earth. There is a shortage of rare-earth minerals, these are the results of early solidification events that heavy metal deposits remain close to the surface, and they tend to reside close to some of the oldest land masses. Finding new reserves is the issue, and space derived theories and technologies may help to find them. These technologies may be critical for fighting global warming.

Did you know that improve hurricane tracking satellites have increased the scope of analysis, from water vapor, infrared, to visible. These aid in determining how much energy that is in a storm and eye-tracking when air-craft are not present? These aid policy makers as to when and where to evacuate, whether they should call for total evacuations or shelter in place, preventing things like what happened in hurricane Rita from reoccurring during hurricane Ike. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Did you know that satellites that track gravity and sea surface temperatures follow ENSO and in ares of the world where NOAA lacks sensors and allows better predictions when ENSO events are going to occur and how severe those events will be.

Did you know that satellites have been used to reassess the process known as subsidence in areas, for example Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project to reassess where 100 and 500 year flood plains are and how best to manage flood water in future floods, without the 1,000,000s of man hours would need to be spent surveying 100s of square miles of land.

Did you know that satellites survey coastal regions for the appearance of toxic algal blooms, that alert local scientist to go to those areas and test areas that need to be restricted from shellfish occupations. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hab/welcome.html

Did you know that it was satellite data monitoring the volcanic eruptions over Iceland that helped FAA and European safety experts to exclude certain jetways as to protect civilians from losses do to multiple engine failures. http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/vaac/index.html, saving the airline industry confidence and billions of dollars.

Did you know that satellites monitor solar flare activity warning public and private agencies about upcoming troubles. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

Did you know that NOAA calls these things products, because, as given your reply that you did not know that they were products.

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/about_satellites.html

Have you every heard of GEWEX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Energy_and_Water_Cycle_Experiment ? Did you know that the JCoS used data from this and other satellite surveys to determine that climate change was a threat multiplier, potentially more dangerous to the US globally than ISIS, Al-queda or Russian nationalism.

Did you know that after major disasters satellites are used to determine the extent of damages and alert both property owners and goverments appropriate responses, speeding up the compensation process (e.g. Hurricane Ike, bolivar peninsula).

Did you know that satellites monitor the loss of coast-line and provide the core of engineers and local governments the best data for strategies to remediate information. Did you know that in Galveston Bay, satellites are being used to help convert dredge back into wetlands improving the ecology of the bay and its ability to bioremediate human waste products. Remediation efforts are seldomly perfect, satellites in concert with ground stations allow researchers to assess how far off their structures and best ways to correct them. This allows researchers a way of sampling evolving wetlands without disturbing them significantly (also preventing risk in terms of accidents).

Did you know that USGS has several satellites that have evolved from NASAs mission. http://eros.usgs.gov/satellite-imagery

NASA may not run these programs now, but once upon a time they ran the first 'trial' mission to see if they worked. So yeah they deserve $credit$ for their product.

And the list goes on and on and on and on. If you don't know this stuff don't put out like you do. Science is not wow and flutter, when you see wow and flutter in science you are looking the wrong direction, science is minutia of research. To get to the moon in apollo 11 took 10 missions 1 of which was a complete failure. But those failures and methodical process bore the success of the modern space age. And behind Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong where 100s of scientist and engineers never credited for their work. Some are still putting out research. You see hundreds of US satellites around the earth, eh? They do something other than looking to see where Sadam Hussien hid his infamous WMDs. Its not what you think.......... its 100s and 1000s of publications on trivial topics that accumulate information over decades. JQ public thinks that science moves like a queen across a chess board; nope, science is a bunch of pawns marching one tiny step at a time toward goals, often 1 step back and 2 step forward. This Mars Mission, to work will require the same methodological approach, its not going to be a one off, at least not in total. Its going to require far less risky missions. And if the public wants to see success, they need to step up and support science.

As for walls of text, what I wrote is nothing compared to the wall of text in the primary literature that I have read that document some of these discoveries in peer-review science journals. Most people have access to Science or Nature, almost everyone has access to Pubmed and can pick up an abstract. Just search on any space or science topic and put satellite and you can pull up dozens of papers on what has been published. But if JQ Public does not want to read walls of text, then maybe they don't deserve a Manned Mars Mission or any other type of manned mission.

Edited August 30, 2015 by PB666

[fredinno]

You really need to break this question up into 2 parts: Can anyone land humans on mars by 2030, and can NASA land humans on mars by 2030, if at all. First question is definitely a big yes. Second question is a big no. I'll explain the 2 big reasons why:

1. The only way NASA can get something like this done is with the funding and competition that comes with a space race.

2. There will be no second space race.

If you have seen WaitButWhy's blog on SpaceX you will understand the first point. The space race was never about exploration, or the moon. It was all just about being better than this guy:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/polandball/images/6/68/NEWPERFECTAVATAR.jpg/revision/latest/zoom-crop/width/240/height/240?cb=20130512212847

Without America feeling 'threatened' by another nation surpassing them in their space capabilities, they think have no reason to continue expensive programs, let alone pour even more money into something like a mars mission. And because nobody else has landed on the moon [citation needed], the US still thinks they are unrivalled in their space capability, even though they are not.

The second point is quite simple to explain: the USSR had better space capabilities at the start of the space race. Today there is no nation that has a higher capability in space than the US did in 1969-1972. Until another nation lands on the moon or beyond, the US will still think of themselves as the most powerful in their space capabilities, hence they will not feel 'threatened' as they did in the 50s and 60s, hence there will be no space race. And Russia has too many things it needs to focus on here on earth, such as a bad economy, to try again. And china is just... slow. It's super heavy launch vehicle is set to have its maiden flight in 2028, by which point SpaceX will have planted it's flag on mars ages ago.

NASA might get bragging rights by helping SpaceX, though.

*FACEPALM*

Okay, wow, where do I begin?

The Apollo program was all done with very primitive technology. Like, so primitive that travelling to the moon had only just become possible ('steampunk space program' fans might disagree with me on that one). There was no reusability, no ISRU, inefficient and expensive fuels were used, the only rocket-building metals were really heavy, and almost all the calculations had to be done manually. It's no wonder it cost a sixth of a trillion dollars! If China or someone did it today, the cost could easily be halved or thrided. And that's not even including the studies and reports that full reusability could take off 90% of the cost! You simply can't compare our situation today with the space cavemen of the 1960s.

SpaceX could easily begin to send people to mars. It would be the single most expensive programme in the company's history, but with full reusability, lightweight materials technology and in-situ fuel producing, it can easily be done. Also remember that SpaceX will be wealthier in the 2020s than it is now.

Still not happening- ISRU needs lots more research to depend a manned mission on it, Apollo program costs still apply for Mars mission- safety standards are higher, for example, and though there are many cost- saving advances in space technology, such as Ion drives, the costs for any manned mars landing is larger than any moon program due to the extra components (HAB for crew), and Delta-V ( moar boosters required.)

something tells me you're drinking too much SpaceX Koolaid.

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad the water is laced with perchlorate..

- - - Updated - - -

NASA does not cost money, it makes money for the US. You need to get this idea out of your mind, NASA is punished because it is a public spending effort. Yes private space can take over some of NASAs duties (not limiting the critique ESA has a bigger problem). The problem is that private companies need a return on investment of 3 to 5 years maximum. The return on space investments have been great, but they sometimes take 20 years (examples are GPS system) do develop and capitalize on the research and development required. Do you think google maps comes from a private ability, they essentially usurp from the public domain and sell advertisers to help them display it. If you asked a private company to find the heliopause and they would be paid once they did, do you think that would work? lol.

The government gets back every dime and more that they invest in NASA, everyone admits this. We get new advanced technologies that create new sci-tech jobs that bring in new tax revenue cause these jobs are where the consistent incomes are at since 1990. Don't get into your head that NASA successes or failures have anything to do with its funding, Hubble just goes to show how successful their most glaring failure was. Its not that, its not the cost of the SLS, its all about a failed ideology of government.

Its not just NASA. Science institutions around the US are on the brink, departmental budgets have been cut, recut, streamlined, and every science department is being asked to spend more money to comply with new government regulations. But the money is all going to big science, and institutions need to feed money to small science stuff that developes.

I want humans to go to Mars too. I'de love to see a landing mission like that of 1969, but the problem is this, you have to conduct yourself around the US Congress in such a way as to not raise the ire of the Ideologues within our government, they way NASA is doing this is by creating small missions that accomplish alot for the money, but whose single-time capital outlay is small. Mars is to me - A station with a lander, 3 to 5 people, 4 year mission, a station built in space, a station refueled in space, maybe several times. That is not one mission, that is at minimum 5 launch missions, you won't be able to conceal the expenditure from the crazies in Washington for the 15 years or so it would take to start and complete the mission.

Yeah I see the pictures, but even NASA admits these are not comprehensive, that they cannot safely get a fueled lander on the ground yet. so . . . . . .artist concept. . . .great but.

I have a feeling NASA will achieve Obama's "mandate" that humans be on Mars by 2030, by a Martian manned Flyby, then say "Good Enough!"

[SargeRho]

Why would they, though? Getting to Phobos is, deltaV-wise, easier than landing on the Moon, for example. Congress might go 'NOPE.', but not NASA.

Edited August 31, 2015 by SargeRho

[NuclearNut]

There are, in all probability, quite a few problems that we would face. These problems include keeping the astronauts sane along the trip, keeping them safe from cosmic radiation, designing a safe, reliable, and proven reactor that will provide them power planetside, designing the NTR to get them there, designing a lander that can stand over a year in cold shutdown and exposed to the elements and then take off again, and last but most certainly not least, getting public support. Going to mars is a lot different and quite a bit harder than going to the moon, that is not to say that it is insurmountable, but it is to say that it is not an easy task solvable with just throwing money at it. Of course you could effectively ignore certain cost and weight aspects if you used a certain peaceful application of nuclear explosives to do that, but the public would most definitely not support that one with the current political climate.

So I think it is less mars by 2030 and more "mars by when the general public gives a darn". Not a kilogram of HEU or a million metric tonnes of kerosene will move without public support.

[Bill Phil]

If this is what you believe then your really don't understand the science or NASA. I see you need links that well help you educate yourself on these matters.

Did you know that the two gravity satellites have discovered differences in the earths crust in California that the ground based seismology and GPS registers missed? Did you know they are reassessing where stressed formed and why it was released the way it was. Fault lines in California do not often follow past trends, this is do to changes in the stress build up and creates particularly dangerous hidden faults, Satellite technology can help to find these hidden faults and beg for improved building standards in these areas, saving billions of dollars and lives and protecting local economies.

Did you know that gravity satellites have discovered were ground water is being lost and how much is lost, informing that state about what drought measures they need to take.

Did you know that the satellite facilitated National Snow and Ice Data Center monitors the loss of arctic ice and reports on how much is lost and how old the ice in the arctic is. Here is the daily update, ships can use the to plot shipping across the arctic ocean saving millions of tons of fuel to go from Europe to Japan. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Did you know that the moon rocks set absolute timing for several events in the history of the early earth, and explain important layering patterns on the earth. There is a shortage of rare-earth minerals, these are the results of early solidification events that heavy metal deposits remain close to the surface, and they tend to reside close to some of the oldest land masses. Finding new reserves is the issue, and space derived theories and technologies may help to find them. These technologies may be critical for fighting global warming.

Did you know that improve hurricane tracking satellites have increased the scope of analysis, from water vapor, infrared, to visible. These aid in determining how much energy that is in a storm and eye-tracking when air-craft are not present? These aid policy makers as to when and where to evacuate, whether they should call for total evacuations or shelter in place, preventing things like what happened in hurricane Rita from reoccurring during hurricane Ike. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Did you know that satellites that track gravity and sea surface temperatures follow ENSO and in ares of the world where NOAA lacks sensors and allows better predictions when ENSO events are going to occur and how severe those events will be.

Did you know that satellites have been used to reassess the process known as subsidence in areas, for example Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project to reassess where 100 and 500 year flood plains are and how best to manage flood water in future floods, without the 1,000,000s of man hours would need to be spent surveying 100s of square miles of land.

Did you know that satellites survey coastal regions for the appearance of toxic algal blooms, that alert local scientist to go to those areas and test areas that need to be restricted from shellfish occupations. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hab/welcome.html

Did you know that it was satellite data monitoring the volcanic eruptions over Iceland that helped FAA and European safety experts to exclude certain jetways as to protect civilians from losses do to multiple engine failures. http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/vaac/index.html, saving the airline industry confidence and billions of dollars.

Did you know that satellites monitor solar flare activity warning public and private agencies about upcoming troubles. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

Did you know that NOAA calls these things products, because, as given your reply that you did not know that they were products.

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/about_satellites.html

Have you every heard of GEWEX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Energy_and_Water_Cycle_Experiment ? Did you know that the JCoS used data from this and other satellite surveys to determine that climate change was a threat multiplier, potentially more dangerous to the US globally than ISIS, Al-queda or Russian nationalism.

Did you know that after major disasters satellites are used to determine the extent of damages and alert both property owners and goverments appropriate responses, speeding up the compensation process (e.g. Hurricane Ike, bolivar peninsula).

Did you know that satellites monitor the loss of coast-line and provide the core of engineers and local governments the best data for strategies to remediate information. Did you know that in Galveston Bay, satellites are being used to help convert dredge back into wetlands improving the ecology of the bay and its ability to bioremediate human waste products. Remediation efforts are seldomly perfect, satellites in concert with ground stations allow researchers to assess how far off their structures and best ways to correct them. This allows researchers a way of sampling evolving wetlands without disturbing them significantly (also preventing risk in terms of accidents).

Did you know that USGS has several satellites that have evolved from NASAs mission. http://eros.usgs.gov/satellite-imagery

NASA may not run these programs now, but once upon a time they ran the first 'trial' mission to see if they worked. So yeah they deserve $credit$ for their product.

And the list goes on and on and on and on. If you don't know this stuff don't put out like you do. Science is not wow and flutter, when you see wow and flutter in science you are looking the wrong direction, science is minutia of research. To get to the moon in apollo 11 took 10 missions 1 of which was a complete failure. But those failures and methodical process bore the success of the modern space age. And behind Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong where 100s of scientist and engineers never credited for their work. Some are still putting out research. You see hundreds of US satellites around the earth, eh? They do something other than looking to see where Sadam Hussien hid his infamous WMDs. Its not what you think.......... its 100s and 1000s of publications on trivial topics that accumulate information over decades. JQ public thinks that science moves like a queen across a chess board; nope, science is a bunch of pawns marching one tiny step at a time toward goals, often 1 step back and 2 step forward. This Mars Mission, to work will require the same methodological approach, its not going to be a one off, at least not in total. Its going to require far less risky missions. And if the public wants to see success, they need to step up and support science.

As for walls of text, what I wrote is nothing compared to the wall of text in the primary literature that I have read that document some of these discoveries in peer-review science journals. Most people have access to Science or Nature, almost everyone has access to Pubmed and can pick up an abstract. Just search on any space or science topic and put satellite and you can pull up dozens of papers on what has been published. But if JQ Public does not want to read walls of text, then maybe they don't deserve a Manned Mars Mission or any other type of manned mission.

What you refer to is knowledge. Maybe I do not know all those things, but science is so slow w process that it took thousands of years for people to take advantage of fire to do mechanical work. Thousands of years.

How are you getting the impression that I think science is "wow and flutter"? I'm not even talking about it in my original post. I'm talking about ability, the ability to go to Mars. Humanity possesses it. But few wish to use it.

Stop making mountains out of molehills, and actually try to respond to one of my comments please. It seems like you're trolling in my mind, and I don't appreciate that.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they, though? Getting to Phobos is, deltaV-wise, easier than landing on the Moon, for example. Congress might go 'NOPE.', but not NASA.

Delta V wise? On which assumptions? It is in a fairly inclined orbit, and depending on your entrance vector, it would take more Delta V to get to Phobos than land on Mars, and it could take less.