Do you think humans will land on Mars by 2030?

Do you think humans will land on Mars by 2030?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 42.5%
  • No

    Votes: 61 57.5%

  • Total voters
    106

marine1

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
48,194
An instrument aboard the Curiosity Mars rover during its 253-day deep-space cruise revealed that the radiation dose received by an astronaut on even the shortest Earth-Mars round trip would be about 0.66 sievert. This amount is like receiving a whole-body CT scan every five or six days.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
7,746
People currently stay alive perfectly fine on the space station. I think the record stay on the space station was just over a year. I think 14/18 months. It can be done. Like I said, we just need someone willing to take a chance.
I'm not saying it can't be done, just that the technology required will take many decades to develop and there will also need to be a huge amount of preparation - the size and mass of the craft will likely have to be huge compared to the ISS as it will have to store supplies and fuel for that period as well as have sufficient radiation shielding, so it will likely have to be assembled in orbit.

They can recycle water, scrub CO2 and even grow food hydroponically but these solutions are nowhere near the levels that will sustain life for years. The lowest energy requirement trip will take 300 days with current technology to get there and then a 500 day wait before returning. So that's realistically about 3 years. There are faster options but they require far more energy - and we need to develop better propulsion, etc. This will not happen any time soon.

Then there's the basic limitations of human physiology. Consider that astronauts that have spent a long period in the space station can barely walk when they return and lose about 30% of their bone density, not to mention muscle wasting - and that's with regular exercise. There are numerous other health issues - and this is before you take into account the radiation and cosmic rays they will be exposed to which is far more of a problem than on the ISS since it is only 400km away and still within the earth's protective magnetic field.

All of these factors are probably not insurmountable, but I'd be very surprised if all of this was solved within 20-30 yrs - and this is all just to send one manned mission, let alone colonise the planet.
 

WaxLyrical

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
20,269
Matter of time. Dont know if we will set foot on Mars in 2030, but I do believe that Humans will colonise other habitable planets. Please just leave the religious zealots behind... Dont need them on another planet... Let them stay behind on their flat earth.
Don't think that will happen.
Physics won't allow it.
 

oceanmasterza

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
63
yep, especially if Elon gets good funding. Perhaps Bezos or someone with money to throw at it.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,537
I'm still disappointed they didn't do it by 1990, as the space buffs said when the Apollo program ended.

Maybe it'll need another Cold War to get them going...
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
7,746
I'm still disappointed they didn't do it by 1990, as the space buffs said when the Apollo program ended.

Maybe it'll need another Cold War to get them going...
I think it's far more likely now that the Chinese will get there first. While the rest of the world argues about how many genders there are, they're making vast strides in all the areas that require large technological infrastructure discipline.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,706
You know over the course of the day I've thought long and hard about this question. I suspect we'll be a few years behind. Most likely in the year 2033.
Couldn't agree more. It will definitely happen between 2030 and 2040 sometime. We might as well start now. We literally only have 3 million years +- to spend on Earth before it's consumed by the sun as the sun reaches its dying days. Baby steps.
 

ES1

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
24
No, I think funding and as it is USA and China already fighting over REM metals - which I am sure will e a big component in such a venture. Anyhow I think scientists should rather put effort into cleaning the mess that is earth and supply us all with food, shelter, water and clothing than some stupid rock in space. And I have a couple of "people" I would pay for to go to Mars, Moon, venus any place that is very very far.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
17,113
No, I think funding and as it is USA and China already fighting over REM metals - which I am sure will e a big component in such a venture. Anyhow I think scientists should rather put effort into cleaning the mess that is earth and supply us all with food, shelter, water and clothing than some stupid rock in space. And I have a couple of "people" I would pay for to go to Mars, Moon, venus any place that is very very far.
this,
plus no motivation exists for humanity to move off-world.
there is still breathable air, drinkable water, farmland,

when those start getting scarce, like in blade runner or soylent green.
and were stepping on each others toes then maybe we might think about spreading off-world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ES1

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
26,046
No, unless the financials change.

A law signed in March 2017 by US President Donald Trump gives NASA an annual budget of about $19.5 billion (R264-odd million), and it may rise to $19.9 billion in 2019.

Either amount sounds like a windfall — until you consider that the total gets split among all of the agency's divisions and ambitious projects: the James Webb Space Telescope, the giant rocket project called Space Launch System, and far-flung missions to the sun, Jupiter, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, the Kuiper Belt, and the edge of the solar system. (By contrast, the US military gets a budget of about $600 billion (just shy of R2 trillion) per year. One project within that budget — the modernisation and now expansion of America's nuclear arsenal— may even cost as much as $1.7 trillion over 30 years.)

"NASA's portion of the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965. For the past 40 years it has remained below 1%, and for the last 15 years it has been driving toward 0.4% of the federal budget," Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said during a 2015 congressional testimony.

[...]
In 2004, for example, the Bush administration tasked NASA with coming up with a way to replace the space shuttle, which was due to retire, and also return to the moon. The agency came up with the Constellation programme to land astronauts on the moon, using a rocket called Ares and a spaceship called Orion.

NASA spent $9 billion over five years designing, building, and testing hardware for that human spaceflight programme. Yet after President Barack Obama took office — and the Government Accountability Office released a report about NASA's inability to estimate Constellation's cost — Obama pushed to scrap the programme and signed off on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket instead.

Trump hasn't scrapped SLS. But he did change Obama's goal of launching astronauts to an asteroid to moon and Mars missions.

Such frequent changes to NASA's expensive priorities has led to cancellation after cancellation, a loss of about $20 billion, and years of wasted time and momentum.

 

yebocan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
10,298
as per Ancient Aliens ...been there done that, ****ed up the planet and relocated to the 3rd rock of Sol
 
Top