Well, That About Wraps It Up For Mars

I have hope. To me it is no more unreasonable than thinking we're going to spend the next 30 years having the Russians ferry us to the ISS (or a successor).

NASA's budget is small compared to budgets, but if we were to cut defense, we could totally afford a manned mission to Mars. On a separate note, did you see the movie Europa Report? That movie suggests a private company sends a manned mission to Europa.

A manned mission to Mars would never cost that much. I downloaded a detailed cost chart for a manned Mars program a few years ago going from initial development through the first three manned missions.

It included a 50% cost overrun.

At any rate it indicated the cost to the United States over about 12 years to be in the neighborhood of 70 billion if the U.S. did it alone.

And about 55 billion costs to the United States if it was part of an international effort.

Note again, the two cost projections both INCLUDED 50% cost overruns.

The question is what is the purpose and how long is the mission? Also, are we setting up long term habitats?

My understanding has always been six months there, six months back. In between 14 month stay times.

If you go by something similar to Dr. Robert Zubrin's plans eventually the stay times are lengthened to where astronauts stay a full 26 months longer than the initial 14 months. So that would be a surface stay of 40 months eventually.

You'll note the repeated references to "26 months". That is the normal interval (it varies slightly) for Mars and Earth to be in position for conjunction missions.

Not independently.

The former, perhaps; the latter, most definitely not.

I think "The Martian" mission was a good reason for a manned mission. It was never clearly explained, but it seemed to be something to do with several different things involving the ability of humans living on Mars.

Your six months there and back is accurate though.

I didn't get that idea from "The Martian" at all but I'll let that go.

I think its assumed that one of the reasons for manned missions is to determine the feasibility of human habitation. Of course the initial exploration must be things like exploring the possibility of any sign of present Martian life, past Martian life, or potential Martian life.

I know you didn't get your idea from "The Martian", but I think it's in the ether for reasons. I'd also say that reasons for manned missions to anywhere is that tangible hands vs robots.

I wasn't talking about "my idea(s)" from "The Martian". I was saying that I did not think "The Martian" (the movie) indicated that the reason for the mission was involving the ability of human beings to live on Mars.

If it had then I think the marooned astronaut would've been far, far better supplied and equipped rather than having to jury rig everything.

What you are saying is consistent with "The Martian". I'm trying to agree with you. I think your ideas are sound. I think we are on the same page, but I don't see our government doing it.

Governments can change. Sometimes radically. I know this is not the forum for politics but the way I see in in 2016 an egotistical clown managed to get elected. It is quite possible that in a subsequent election we get a visionary.

Pence talks Americans on Mars, but gives no details.

Stick a fork in a manned NASA mission to Mars.

That's bullshit, I'm sure they can do it.

Sure, they'd just have to cancel most of the other things that they work on. NASA's objectives are controlled by Congress, so unless Congress okays them dropping the other areas, or gives them more money, it ain't happening.

Remember that NASA never intended to land on the moon before 1970 either until President Kennedy made that the goal. They had some vague notions of launching Mercury missions for most of the 1960s before trying to land on the moon "sometime in the 70s".

The goal to land men on the moon not only gave us the Apollo program but also the precursor Gemini program and post Apollo, the Skylab program.

Great, now get us a President who'll make the same kind of commitment Kennedy did, and we'll talk. Both Bushes said they wanted to send humans to Mars, and look what came of it: Nothing. I'd say the odds of us seeing a President before 2030 willing to actually commit to sending humans are nil.

well I guess I can retire my "we can put a man on the moon but we still can't (fill in the blank)" and change it to "we can send children to Mars to harvest their blood but we still can't....."

IIRC Marco Rubio is pretty supportive of the space program.

And? Rubio doesn't strike as the kind of bold, visionary type who'd actually throw his weight around to get a manned mission to Mars going. He'd probably push for a modest boost for NASA's funding, but I can't see him making it a priority to get humans to Mars.

It wouldn't take that big a boost in spending. I've seen several cost estimates that included 50% cost overruns. Ten years would mean an extra 5.5 to 7.0 billion a year.

Barely a blip in the budget.

It will be attacked by members of both parties as "unnecessary" spending, and it will take a lot of arm twisting to get it done. I don't see Rubio as having that kind of interest in the idea.

I've said before (hoping I'd be wrong) that a manned landing on Mars won't happen in my lifetime.

Now, I'm pretty sure of it.

Won't happen unless Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or some other Bond villain does it.

Dr. No by my reckoning.

I'm a shameless optimist. I still think that during my lifetime the U.S. (possibly in cooperation with other nations) will send manned missions to explore every major planet in the solar system. And I only plan to live to 2059.

I think that once we land a manned mission on Mars the "dam will break" so to speak in the pace of manned exploration of the solar system.

If you're lucky, you might see a manned landing on Mars. I predict this will happen in around 2040-2060. Certainly not in the next 10 years, and probably not in the next 20. I have no idea whether it will be NASA, the Chinese, or SomeRichBastard.com who does it first.

But manned missions to the other planets? No. Barring some breakthroughs in space travel, those won't happen until at least well into the later half of this century, and more likely the next.

We don't need any real breakthroughs to send manned missions to Jupiter (and probably Saturn).

Nuclear thermal rocket engines which have been tested would get a manned mission to Jupiter (landing on Callisto for about 4 months) in less than 2 and a half years.

Even fusion engines wouldn't get a manned mission there noticeably faster.

Dayton, if work on a nuclear powered spacecraft began today, it would be a decade or more before it was ready for use. And such a thing is not even remotely planned.

NASA isn't even sure they could keep astronauts alive for long duration spaceflights. Their record for missions outside LEO is little more than a week.

If we can't get to Mars in the next couple of decades, then missions to the moons of Jupiter or Saturn are way, way off. They won't happen in your lifetime.

We could get manned missions to Mars within 8 years from now if the go ahead was given now.

And there is no known reason that people can't survive multi year space flights. Being beyond LEO is no game breaker.