We'll never go to Mars (national debt, versus, Chicago, program)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question is, "why would we"?
There are many areas of planet earth that have problems that have never been solved - because it doesn't make sense to people to solve them.
I don't think anyone is saying it can't be done as much as we are saying it won't be done. For example, there will never be a need to colonize the ocean bottom although it certainly could be done. There is no permanent human habitation in Antarctica, and that could certainly be done. No one wants to.
The space station is resupplied every three months; it appears overhead every 90 minutes. Mars and earth arrive at their closest point every 26 months. And sometimes mars and earth are on different sides of the sun, so you can't just send up a shuttle any time you want. 'Inconvenient' and 'expensive' do not even begin to describe the obstacles.
As it is today you can almost ride along with the mars rover. We can even tune in and listen to the wind blow on mars. The pictures are wonderful.
There was even a company taking people's money for the "trip to mars" in 2024. They are broke now. People lost their money. The "going to mars" industry is doing well; the "been there are back" industry is still promising to retrieve samples from mars in the 2030's.
The why part.. And, again, if we're talking permanent inhabitation.. Mars bases and the like.. That is far, far in the future if it does happen, because.. Your point.. "Why?" Right now, there's little to no reason. MAYBE.. If we start figuring out harvesting resources from asteroids.. Well.. Now there might be a reason. But.. There could also be a good reason for having a moon base for that.
I think it's far more likely overall, especially if we're talking timeframes of the next 100 years, that we might have a permanent outpost on the moon. Not impossible for Mars, but.. The whole crawl before you walk thing.. Needs to be done on the moon more as a proof of concept first. Mainly because.. If things go wrong on the moon.. It's 3 days there, 3 days back. While there's always risk in things. That risk factor goes way, WAY up on a 26 month round trip.
Will we land humans on Mars in the next 100 years? Absolutely. In fact, I'll be surprised if we don't do that in the next 30. Why? Because we can. Will we stay? Doubt it. Will it be worthwhile? Yes. Why? To PROVE that we can.
I think a Mars mission will likely (could possibly) lead to a new technology boom, just as the moon landing did. So many things that come from the Moon missions that you don't even consider. Like Tang, for example! (kidding, obviously)
All that being said. Permanent habitation? Not within the next 100 years. Mainly due to that 26 month round trip. On the moon? Eh.. I'm not sure the odds hit 50%, but they're alot better than Mars.
The why part.. And, again, if we're talking permanent inhabitation.. Mars bases and the like.. That is far, far in the future if it does happen, because.. Your point.. "Why?" Right now, there's little to no reason. MAYBE.. If we start figuring out harvesting resources from asteroids.. Well.. Now there might be a reason. But.. There could also be a good reason for having a moon base for that.
I think it's far more likely overall, especially if we're talking timeframes of the next 100 years, that we might have a permanent outpost on the moon. Not impossible for Mars, but.. The whole crawl before you walk thing.. Needs to be done on the moon more as a proof of concept first. Mainly because.. If things go wrong on the moon.. It's 3 days there, 3 days back. While there's always risk in things. That risk factor goes way, WAY up on a 26 month round trip.
Will we land humans on Mars in the next 100 years? Absolutely. In fact, I'll be surprised if we don't do that in the next 30. Why? Because we can. Will we stay? Doubt it. Will it be worthwhile? Yes. Why? To PROVE that we can.
I think a Mars mission will likely (could possibly) lead to a new technology boom, just as the moon landing did. So many things that come from the Moon missions that you don't even consider. Like Tang, for example! (kidding, obviously)
All that being said. Permanent habitation? Not within the next 100 years. Mainly due to that 26 month round trip. On the moon? Eh.. I'm not sure the odds hit 50%, but they're alot better than Mars.
Interesting take.
But the next 100 years are going to be incredibly difficult and expensive here on earth as population declines and globalization dies. After that, we may see some real progress, but all depends on how countries and their leadership handle the population decline.
After that - the years from about 2435 onward - I would guess we may see some motion forward. So if humans ever make it to mars, I would have to bet it will happen after 2345 - long after.
The trip to mars only takes 7 months. Each 26 months the two planets are at their closest point.
So you can't leave just any time you want and go to mars. The best window of opportunity occurs every 26 months as earth, with its smaller orbit, goes sailing past mars, who has the outside lane so to speak.
Same with coming home from mars. You have to wait for the right time so that you catch earth as it zips past once every 26 months. Sometimes mars is in conjuction (the other side of the sun) so we can't even see it. 13 months later it's right beside us. Like now - these days you can go outside at night and look nearly straight up and see it.
I agree that it's very unlikely that we'll ever go to Mars. There are still big issues to solve - mostly the long duration and effects on the human body, but also food and provisioning. It would also be very expensive, and there is no indication that there will be enough pooling of money to make it happen. With so much on the line, it tends to dampen any real chance. Giving it more time and hopes of technological advances doesn't indicate much more helping out; not enough to make a difference.
And we have increasing issues and attention on Earth that make such a trip increasingly less practical. The costs / benefits aren't panning out to justify it all. I'm a huge admirer of space exploration, but we have to be sensible and realistic.
Interesting take.
But the next 100 years are going to be incredibly difficult and expensive here on earth as population declines and globalization dies. After that, we may see some real progress, but all depends on how countries and their leadership handle the population decline.
After that - the years from about 2435 onward - I would guess we may see some motion forward. So if humans ever make it to mars, I would have to bet it will happen after 2345 - long after.
The trip to mars only takes 7 months. Each 26 months the two planets are at their closest point.
So you can't leave just any time you want and go to mars. The best window of opportunity occurs every 26 months as earth, with its smaller orbit, goes sailing past mars, who has the outside lane so to speak.
Same with coming home from mars. You have to wait for the right time so that you catch earth as it zips past once every 26 months. Sometimes mars is in conjuction (the other side of the sun) so we can't even see it. 13 months later it's right beside us. Like now - these days you can go outside at night and look nearly straight up and see it.
Sorry.. You're right about the trip time.. I just got the 26 stuck in my head. But, you get to Mars and have to have an emergency evac.. What's the worst amount of time it can take to get back? Hell of a lot longer than a trip back from the moon.
I won't speak to the next 100 years because.. We have no clue. We have THOUGHTS, but, as I keep telling someone in another forum on here.. The old adage "That's why they play the games".. What we THINK will happen in no way means that's what happens.
Regardless. I would hope that we could agree that there will be no Mars base without a moon base first. At least.. As we can logically see things now. and.. We're nowhere close to having a permanent HUMAN presence on the moon.
The argument I've heard is that a Mars base would be a jumping off point for the farther solar system.. There is literally NOTHING out there, save asteroids if we're gonna be mining, that a human presence would serve. Mars.. There is. I mean, robotic missions can only do so much and I think we could learn quite a lot from boots on the ground there. But.. One of Jupiters moons? Sorry, robotic would be it for quite some time. Now, Warp drive comes along.. As they say.. That changes everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
I agree that it's very unlikely that we'll ever go to Mars. There are still big issues to solve - mostly the long duration and effects on the human body, but also food and provisioning. It would also be very expensive, and there is no indication that there will be enough pooling of money to make it happen. With so much on the line, it tends to dampen any real chance. Giving it more time and hopes of technological advances doesn't indicate much more helping out; not enough to make a difference.
And we have increasing issues and attention on Earth that make such a trip increasingly less practical. The costs / benefits aren't panning out to justify it all. I'm a huge admirer of space exploration, but we have to be sensible and realistic.
I disagree. I'm not sure it'll happen in my lifetime (I'm 49) but if I make it to 90, I would be shocked if we didn't. Again.. Politics and other world events could throw a wrench in that, but.. As things stand right now.. I think we're on track to do it. Maybe only once, but.. I think it gets done. Then, the focus probably returns to the moon and learning how to permanently inhabit it. There's 100% motivation to do it. Either via government or private or a mixture of the two. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a one-and-done, but I think the one happens. Or, at least, is attempted.
The cost / benefit analysis is flawed from the start since we don't know the benefits. Or, likely, the costs, since they are always MUCH higher than anticipated.
A few things tied to the space program. So, who knows? The mission to Mars.. While the act of landing on Mars might not lead to anything specific.. The development of the technologies to do so might lead to occular implants allowing the blind to see. If that happens.. that tips the scales pretty far on that cost/benefit ratio.
We'll never go live on Mars. Not ever.
Proponents and promoters speak of the need to colonize planets in order to reduce congestion here on earth. They tell us we could live underground, or in specially built facilities. They say children will be born on Mars.
It's nonsense. We will never live on a planet where venturing outside would mean certain death. Mars is a place where our bodies would rapidly deteriorate first from the lower gravity and second from the constant bombardment of deadly rays generated by the sun.
Scientists know this. But they want "research money" so they promote this fantasy.
You want to live in someplace harsh because earth is too crowded?..... Consider the far north. There is room on every continent that reaches into the arctic. Just pick a spot and colonize - Iceland; Greenland; Canada. Or go south to the Antarctic. Or go underwater if you want a real challenge.
Each of those are infinitely cheaper than going to mars. You could go outside and survive and babies could be born. And if you get tired of it you can go home.
Mars?..... Nah. Never.
But I'd be interested in your take.
I agree that the Earth still has plenty of frontier land for humans to colonize, much more cheaply and conveniently than to squeeze people into bottles and pop them off into outer space.
And of course we will eventually land humans on Mars, for scientific and political purposes but not to live permanently. It's far too hostile an environment for humans (plus terrestrial plants and livestock) to make a home in, at current technology levels anyway.
More likely is some kind of space habitats, O'Neill cylinders or something similar: giant rotating cylinders with close to Earth gravity, massive shielding to protect from the constant bombardment of raw radiation, cosmic rays and particles and meteorites that the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere protect us from.
Such a habitat would be ghastly expensive, but they could be built most cheaply using robots and asteroid-mined materials. Let the robots do all the dangerous work.
The attraction of such structures is that they could closely simulate Earth... a kind of inverted, inside-out Earth... but would have gravity, atmosphere, solar energy, bodies of water, farms, hospitals, malls, pleasant villages, and pretty much all the amenities of home.
Space is infinite, and there could be infinite habitats up there.
So, that's where we'll eventually be, the ultimate backup for our species and all life, just in case something does happen to the Earth.
None of us reading this will see it happen, though; it will take a hundred years minimum. But it will happen.
Having worked in the space program, I have a bit of insight into the technological and human challenges that are faced. Even going back to the moon at this point is tricky. We might have past experience, but it would largely be starting over. All new equipment would be needed. Items have to go through lengthy testing. NASA is nothing like it once was. The engineering and technical experience is mostly gone, especially in this development and testing area. Even with technological advances, we don't have the abilities - pooled together - that we once had. And the independent aeronautical companies are too separate and small to tackle such a new large task.
Going to Mars is dozens or hundreds of times more complex than going to the moon.
We don't have the government support, funding, and momentum that we had for Apollo, etc. (which was the only way those programs could have been completed). And that's only likely to continue to fade.
It's okay to say that going to Mars is an awesome goal, but not a realistic or practical one. There's no harm in that. I'm a positive and optimistic person, and wish the outlook was better. The more realistic and honest we are with ourselves, the more we can focus on something else more useful.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-27-2023 at 11:48 AM..
Guess that settles it....somebody's already been to Mars.
Yes, he's also from France, where Coneheads from Mars set up shop years ago and are at work in the European Space Agency to develop Jewish Space Lasers to shoot down asteroids before they can harm the big Moons of Kim Kartrashian.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 01-27-2023 at 02:27 PM..
Having worked in the space program, I have a bit of insight into the technological and human challenges that are faced. Even going back to the moon at this point is tricky. We might have past experience, but it would largely be starting over. All new equipment would be needed. Items have to go through lengthy testing. NASA is nothing like it once was. The engineering and technical experience is mostly gone, especially in this development and testing area. Even with technological advances, we don't have the abilities - pooled together - that we once had. And the independent aeronautical companies are too separate and small to tackle such a new large task.
Going to Mars is dozens or hundreds of times more complex than going to the moon.
We don't have the government support, funding, and momentum that we had for Apollo, etc. (which was the only way those programs could have been completed). And that's only likely to continue to fade.
It's okay to say that going to Mars is an awesome goal, but not a realistic or practical one. There's no harm in that. I'm a positive and optimistic person, and wish the outlook was better. The more realistic and honest we are with ourselves, the more we can focus on something else more useful.
But Nasa can send people to the Moon, don't you think?
The Artemis 1 with uncrewed Orion capsule that Nasa sent around the Moon recently seems very nearly ready for sending a crewed ship into Lunar orbit.
Granted, the lunar landing will be a couple of orders of magnitude beyond that, but the technology is pretty well established. Nasa's gotten really good at landings, at least landing on Mars (albeit of course quite a different challenge given atmosphere, wind, gravity etc.).
But I agree that Mars is many times more difficult and dangerous. However, Nasa has more Mars landing experience than any other organization in the world.
^ I don't think you read my comments above. But let's state it a different way, as a simple visual. Think of about five "links" that need to be together in a "chain", to make it possible. We only have about three links now, and none are connected. Getting the others are unlikely, and connecting what we have now is also not likely.
Unless we want to resort to fantasy, the components sadly aren't going to be able to come together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
