why the hell have we not gotten to mars yet

[alpha tech]

it's been 40 years ago since we last left the moon why haven't we got to Mars yet. Come on NASA where did that desire to spread out amongst the stars go. Besides the stupid space shuttle we haven't made an accomplishment in manned spaceflight in 40 years

[peadar1987]

Because Mars is expensive and difficult. We could do it if we threw enough money at it, but the payoff for that expenditure is pretty small. Our robotic technology has improved to the point where we can do just as much science with probes for a fraction of the cost and risk. Sadly, we live in a world of limited budgets.

Would I like to see us land a human on Mars? Of course! Would I give up all the amazing things we've learned from unmanned probes to do it? Probably not.

Edited March 10, 2016 by peadar1987

[Spaceception]

7 minutes ago, alpha tech said:

it's been 40 years ago since we last left the moon why haven't we got to Mars yet. Come on NASA where did that desire to spread out amongst the stars go. Besides the stupid space shuttle we haven't made an accomplishment in manned spaceflight in 40 years

This thread may interest you

 

[Spaceception]

Also @alpha tech Make sure you read this article

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

[Tex_NL]

Why no permanent colony on the moon?
Why not to Mars?
Why no nuclear fusion?
Why still fossil fuel?

One word: MONEY!
In the end everything comes down to money. As long as there are cheaper alternatives and as long people are not willing to spend the extra cash nothing will be done.

[HebaruSan]

We choose not to go to Mars in this century and not to do the other things, not because they are hard, but because they are expensive.

[problemecium]

I can't say I like the tone of the OP, but yes, good question. We can rattle off lots of technical, historical, and political reasons it hasn't happened, but none of them really count as an excuse.

At least we haven't had a 1000-year dark age intervene again... yet.

[sevenperforce]

59 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

We choose not to go to Mars in this century and not to do the other things, not because they are hard, but because they are expensive.

Here is a less expensive option that may interest you...

[NuclearNut]

Because there was no political will to use orion or other nuclear rocket systems.

[KerikBalm]

Unless I am personally going, I have little interest in manned spaceflight.

I'd rather have a robot take a peek under the ice of Europa or Enceladus... or in the hydrocarbon lakes of Titan... or the lava tunnels and spider geysers or mars.

We could basically get all of the above done with robots for the same cost as one manned mission that probably won't tell us anything new.

[Spaceception]

29 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Unless I am personally going, I have little interest in manned spaceflight.

I'd rather have a robot take a peek under the ice of Europa or Enceladus... or in the hydrocarbon lakes of Titan... or the lava tunnels and spider geysers or mars.

We could basically get all of the above done with robots for the same cost as one manned mission that probably won't tell us anything new.

Yeah, IMO, these days, manned missions are only good for colonization

[GoSlash27]

Politics.

 The only reason Apollo happened was because the American public wanted to beat the Soviets in the space race. They have zero interest in spending the kind of money it would take to put humans on Mars.

Best,
-Slashy

[Frybert]

Why would we have?

[SinBad]

Also consider that any big space project like mars or large moon bases would take more than 3 years to 'pay off' politically. With the life span of a politician being 4 years, most are unwilling to push through big budget (which are unpopular with voters) projects unless the pr will get them back into office. Also there is no garanthe that the next guy in office wouldnt cancel the project as a cost saving measure (which voters like).

Edited March 10, 2016 by SinBad
spelling

[Raven Industries]

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Yeah, IMO, these days, manned missions are only good for colonization

That and to recruit a new generation of engineers and scientists.

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, KerbalSaver said:

That and to recruit a new generation of engineers and scientists.

That too.

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, parameciumkid said:

I can't say I like the tone of the OP, but yes, good question. We can rattle off lots of technical, historical, and political reasons it hasn't happened, but none of them really count as an excuse.

At least we haven't had a 1000-year dark age intervene again... yet.

That wasn't quite "dark." There just wasn't enough money to invest in science.

[tater]

I agree with slash up to a point. He's right that the Space Race was entirely about the Cold War. Not science, not exploration, just politics. While I agree once won, the electorate didn't want the money spent at the rate it had been, it's been pretty flat since, and NASA could have done Mars with what it was given---if it had the choice to spend money as it pleased. That's not how it works, though.

[crubs]

If you haven't seen this yet.  If the Soviets had beaten the US, we'd probably have landed on Mars to have one-upped them by now.

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Because Mars is expensive and difficult. We could do it if we threw enough money at it, but the payoff for that expenditure is pretty small. Our robotic technology has improved to the point where we can do just as much science with probes for a fraction of the cost and risk. Sadly, we live in a world of limited budgets.

Would I like to see us land a human on Mars? Of course! Would I give up all the amazing things we've learned from unmanned probes to do it? Probably not.

Well, robotic probes are difficult to fund manned-scale exploration with in comparison to human systems, which are a lot more politically liked. So there's that.

10 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Also @alpha tech Make sure you read this article

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

That one was put under a lot of skepticism, because it's really more like the fantasies of a SpaceX Fanboy than cold, hard reality. How likely is it that more and more people will want to go to a literal desert once it has been gone to once without a real economic reason?

6 hours ago, NuclearNut said:

Because there was no political will to use orion or other nuclear rocket systems.

Nukes are not needed for Mars- SEP does just fine.

2 hours ago, SinBad said:

Also consider that any big space project like mars or large moon bases would take more than 3 years to 'pay off' politically. With the life span of a politician being 4 years, most are unwilling to push through big budget (which are unpopular with voters) projects unless the pr will get them back into office. Also there is no garanthe that the next guy in office wouldnt cancel the project as a cost saving measure (which voters like).

Nah, it's more like 8-9 years- even Mars Direct was something similar in terms of timespan.

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

That one was put under a lot of skepticism, because it's really more like the fantasies of a SpaceX Fanboy than cold, hard reality. How likely is it that more and more people will want to go to a literal desert once it has been gone to once without a real economic reason?

Well, he was asked by Elon Musk himself, so he probably got to see stuff we haven't, and if you read the Tesla post, he mentions he saw a Model 3 design, plus, what he posted could just be the most optimistic outcome, and the one Nibb pointed out was the least optimistic, if it's going to happen, it'll likely be in the middle of the 2 extremes.

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Well, he was asked by Elon Musk himself, so he probably got to see stuff we haven't, and if you read the Tesla post, he mentions he saw a Model 3 design, plus, what he posted could just be the most optimistic outcome, and the one Nibb pointed out was the least optimistic, if it's going to happen, it'll likely be in the middle of the 2 extremes.

Elon is an optimistic person that you always need to take stuff with a grain of salt with, like Zubrin. Seriously, look at the original Falcon 1/5/9/9H plans.

[PB666]

12 hours ago, alpha tech said:

it's been 40 years ago since we last left the moon why haven't we got to Mars yet. Come on NASA where did that desire to spread out amongst the stars go. Besides the stupid space shuttle we haven't made an accomplishment in manned spaceflight in 40 years

This looks a bit like troll bait. Ill bite anyway.

1. Moon is 400,000 km and Mars, along the transfer is around 1000 times as far.
2. The minimum efficient transfer time is around 8 months
3. Landing heavy stuff on mars is challenging.
4. The fuel required to regain orbit is very heavy if human is the cargo.
5. Quick land and transfer windows that are not sci-fi (including anything that elon musk has to offer) do not come promptly after good earth to mars. Efficient trips take more than 2 years.
6. Humans have this thing about need to be fed, watered, change their diapers, supplied oxygen, deplete carbon dioxide, warmed, and protected from all kinds of perilous things in space.
7. Human flybys offer little advantage, the goal has to be land or bust.
 

 

[GDJ]

[snip]

Seriously, The moon missions were funded at a huge deficit due to political will and fear of communism. Politics in that era was so paranoid over the USSR that everybody that wasn't communist would do absolutely anything to keep ahead of them.

Now....everybody is too broke to do anything....except squabble over resources.

[mikegarrison]

What would people do on Mars if they went? It's a long way to go to just look around and leave again.