How quickly could we get to Mars if we really wanted to?

[FishInferno]

Title says it all. I currently see a Mars landing happening between 2030-2050. The problem is that we don't have the motivation that drove us to the Moon in under a decade. Sure, NASA is developing Orion, but its next planned flight is in 2018, that's FOUR YEARS in-between test flights.

So my question is how soon could we get to Mars if we went into "60s mode" and did things as fast as we could. I could see a return to the Moon by 2020 and a Mars landing by 2030, with the first human settlement on Mars by 2050.

[Frozen_Heart]

Well if oil was found on Mars we'd be there by the end of the year...

[Bill Phil]

Well... If you want to build a spacecraft in orbit, about 7 years if we started now. With international cooperation of course. A proton could possibly orbit an empty stage with NTRs, and later flights can refuel it. A Soyuz capsule could take people there, and perhaps a rad shield that can be wrapped around it could be used. Then a few Deltas could launch the crew module, although that's not entirely needed, since inflatable habs are on the way.

Most of the time is the Mars lander. If a huge project were to be undertaken it could be done, but it's not likely.

[Motokid600]

If NASA had Apollo equivalent funding starting with what we have now... Ten years. Maybe even less. Took us ten years to land on the moon starting from scratch, so..

[magnemoe]

Well if oil was found on Mars we'd be there by the end of the year...

Oil would be pretty irrelevant outside of refueling. Gold nuggets on the surface would be marginally economical to pick up.

Now take two scenarios, 1) Putin mock Obama, he has to counter, that is an traditional space race.

2) increase the stakes, someone find an alien base, knowledge gained studying it has an huge chance of giving major breakthroughs nobody would dare to be left out.

Still its an decent chance it would be an cooperate effort between major powers as rushing it at all cost will be expensive and risky.

[Mazon Del]

Really the likely kick in the pants for NASA ends up being that as China further overtakes our economy, some new president or whatever will make a big deal about how we are still better than China. He'll hurl out a bunch of 'MURICA!' chants, rile up people and get congress to agree to it by making it a 'YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN 'MURICA OR YOU THINK WE SUCK!' situation. Bam! Budget. Much faster time table.

[CatastrophicFailure]

SpaceX Falcon heavy could theoretically put a Dragon on Mars next year. You didn't say anything about coming back.

[Drunken Hobo]

Well if oil was found on Mars we'd be there by the end of the year...

I don't want to appear as if I'm having a go at you, but I always find that comment to be really irritating and rather trite. Obscene amounts of hydrocarbons have been found on Titan and nobody has suggested invading there. Even if a return mission to Titan would be cheaper than certain military interventions...

[Red Iron Crown]

Next good launch window is in March 2016, with arrival in November. I think if we were sufficiently motivated (i.e. save-the-species type motivation) we could hit that window.

With more reasonable budgets, the 2018 window would be a stretch, but I think the 2020 window might be believable.

[NERVAfan]

If we found aliens on Mars or something, and were willing to accept a lot of risk... yeah, a one-way mission could probably be done in ~4-5 years. Pitch a bunch of Dragonv2's to Mars with Falcon Heavies, stick a small Bigelow module to the one carrying the people (the rest are cargo), land them close together. The mass you could land would be very limited, so if the resupply mission didn't launch in the next launch window, you'd be dead. But it could probably be done.

EDIT: And with infinite money it might be sooner than that. I was thinking 4-5 years because the commercial crew stuff is supposed to be 2017 (3 years away), but that could probably be accelerated somewhat. Dragonv2 would probably be the last thing ready, BEAM and Falcon Heavy are supposed to fly next year.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Hmm thought the window was next year. Well anyways, we ALREAD have the technology. Landing something on Mars and keeping a person alive in space longer than 6 months are well established concepts. We just need the will to combine them. It doesn't HAVE to be some gigantor muli-Brazilian-Fund international govt boondockle. Even with zero chance of surviving more than a few weeks at best, there's be volunteers lined up around the block.

[GoSlash27]

The problem is that we don't have the motivation that drove us to the Moon in under a decade.

Speaking as a child of the cold war, I don't mind this "problem". The motivation you speak so lightly of was paranoia that rose out of the realization that you and everyone you knew was 15 minutes from death in a thermonuclear firestorm.

Best,

-Slashy

[Bill Phil]

Multi Brazilian? Huh. I never knew much about Brazil 2...

Nah, just kidding.

We do have the tech, we just have to finish the puzzle of a Mars expedition.

More than one craft is actually a good idea, especially in formation. They can assist each other so if one fails, the mission as a whole won't necessarily fail.

[Gatling]

I'd think we would be on the moon 5 times before we get to mars.

I see funding for 1-way trips to mars but for humans to get back, the funds will increase x3. 2050 is my guess, as many others think too

[gbleck]

Lets see. Mass of two humans minus the mass of water in two humans is lets see. We are around what like 65% water by mass so for an average north american at 80 kilograms you are around 28 Kg for one person. You said we so lets round that to 60 kilograms with a container as I'm less then 80 kilograms. You only have to get there not land just hit so no guidance system needed other then the initial burn and maybe a mid coarse correction. The pathfinder lander was 264 Kg and was launched on a Delta II 7925. Curiosity is like 900 kilograms and was launched on an atlas V. I'm thinking you can get two humans to mars at the next transfer orbit window no problem. Living humans perhaps a bit harder.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Speaking as a child of the cold war, I don't mind this "problem". The motivation you speak so lightly of was paranoia that rose out of the realization that you and everyone you knew was 15 minutes from death in a thermonuclear firestorm.

Best,

-Slashy

I'm glad it's not just me.

[Nibb31]

No way could we go there in 4 or 5 years. That time wouldn't even be enough to develop the SCLSS for the hab module.

If we assume that we want to use Orion and the SLS, then that thing is designed for a maximum flight rate of 2 per year. You would need at least 5 launches to assemble the MTV, which means at least 2,5 years of orbital assembly. You also need to design and build the parts for the mission. It took 15 years just to develop Orion, the crew capsule. It took 15 years to field the F-35.

I don't see how we could design an entire MTV, with crew habitations, ECLSS, SEP propulsion, a cargo lander and a MAV, in less than 15 years, more realistically 20. And that's if we started now and constant funding was assured over 4 presidencies. With politicians' attention span being the same as a domestic house fly, that's not going to happen.

I've been quite annoyed by NASA's PR over the last few days, touting Orion as 'the ship that we'll use to go to Mars and beyond". Nobody is going to Mars in Orion. Orion is like the dinghy on Captain Cook's ship. It's only purpose during the mission will be transferring to and from a much larger MTV. Sure, you have to start somewhere, but when you are designing an interplanetary exploration vehicle, you don't start with the dinghy. It's like building a car around the cigarette lighter.

Nobody is going to Mars in a dinghy. In fact, NASA has no political mandate or funding to go to Mars at all. So instead of "inspiring future generations", all this baseless PR hype about Mars is doing is setting up future generations for even more disappointment.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Nibb31

[Torquemadus]

Robert Zubrin wrote a book called The Case For Mars that explains how a Mars mission could be implemented with existing technology and without massive budget increases.

Essentially, older plans for going to Mars assumed that all of the propellants and consumables needed for the return journey would have to be lifted from Earth. This required on orbit assembly of giant "Battlestar Galactica" interplanetary spacecraft. This in turn would require massive orbiting shipyards and propellant depots. The crew make a brief two week landing on Mars before returning to Earth via a Venus flyby.

Zubrin's Mars Direct plan uses some straightforward chemistry to produce the return propellant on Mars from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This also provides fuel for ground vehicles and provides an extra source of life support oxygen for the crew. The crew stay on the surface for a year and a half while they wait for the next launch window to open up to return to Earth. During this time, the crew use the mobility provided by their ground vehicles to perform extensive exploration. Over successive flights, a suitable location for a base would be found and subsequent flights would land there.

The plan assumes that a rocket with similar performance to the Saturn 5 could be made available. Each mission requires two launches. One sends the unfuelled Earth Return Vehicle, while the other sends the crew. This can be reduced to one launch per mission if nuclear thermal propulsion is used.

The book also explains how to deal with the various supposed show stoppers, such as radiation and zero gravity.

[Nibb31]

ISRU would be great for followup missions. It would take several cargo expeditions to set up and validate the equipment so that humans can rely on it to return.

For a "Mars as soon as possible" scenario, the development and validation of the ISRU equipment in addition to a Mars expedition spacecraft would take longer than the simple development of a Mars expedition spacecraft.

[Virtualgenius]

if all the agencies worked together and came up with a plan I am sure we could get there and setup in 5 years

[Nibb31]

if all the agencies worked together and came up with a plan I am sure we could get there and setup in 5 years

Any evidence or comparisons or examples to back that up, or is it just an empty claim?

[Red Iron Crown]

I guess one's answer depends on how "if we really wanted to" is interpreted. Nibb31's points about development time and funding are quite accurate under the current conditions, but the truth is we don't really want to go to Mars (or at least the people controlling the money don't). I think it is feasible for us to hit the 2020 window if given enough motivation and funding and if our risk tolerance went back to something like the early days of spaceflight.

[Virtualgenius]

I am talking USA EU Russia Chinese Japanese India I have no idea what plans they would have. If the USA could put a man on the moon 45 years ago imagine what 5 or 6 agencies could come up with modern technology modern manufacturing processs etc I wouldnt say it was an empty claim more of a pipe dream. Also i dont really see the point in capturing asteroids especially when a comet landing has already been accomplished could you not use the same tech to do the same thing and just use asteroid resources for Mars exploration

Edited December 6, 2014 by Virtualgenius

[Ikaneko]

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.

[Jdedo]

http://windupmyskirt.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/putinshirtless_display.jpg

Please add content to your posts in future, a smiling Putin is not enough - The Kerbal Space Program Moderation Team.