Well, there are 3 candidates:

NASA may be able to launch a human mission to Mars by 2037

The ESA has a long term vision of sending a human to mars in 2030

While Russian scientists have proposed a launch date somewhere between 2016 to 2020.

However, i have serious doubts that Russia will make it safely if they are going to rush like that. Best bet will be either ESA or NASA.

As this is not a news story I am moving it from the Space News forum to the Space and Astronomy forum, which is more appropriate for general discussion.

I think you are wrong in saying there are only three candidates. China has a manned spaceflight programme, Japan has a long term goal that involves Moon bases and then maybe on to Mars and India is currently debating whether to start a manned space programme.

Realistically I think Russia has a better chance of getting to Mars than ESA. ESA currently has no independent manned space programme and depends on the USA or Rssia to launch its astronauts. It currently has no plans to develop a manned launch capability. Indeed it is in in discussions with Russia to be partners in their new Soyuz replacement.

A combined Russian/European mission to Mars is a possibility. If Mars is reached first by a single nation then that is most likely to be the USA. With the Constellation programme they will have the infra-structure to do it. As the worlds most powerful economic super power they have the money to do it. The only question is whether they have the political will to do it.

I'd agree with Waspies point's, pretty much right down the line.

I don't think that the Russians have nearly the financial resources to accomplish the task alone. Technically, they are of course very capable, but I think for them it would have to be a joint project...and there's the matter of them having no particular outside-of-Earth orbit experience.

If a country is going to do it, it will be the United States.
However...

The will to do so, and the financial backing required is always up in the air...as the ebb and flow of those who approve budgets for such things sways in the political wind, so-to-speak.

I prefer not to think about Mars missions at this point.
Realistically, we're 5 years from Orion's shakedown. That's going to keep alot of people on their toes for quite some time. When that happens, we'll be far ahead of anyone else in spacecraft technology. Then there's Altair in the years to follow, and a return mission to the Moon following that. Then we get on with our lunar program.

Only then will I seriously start considering manned Mars flights.

Any other nation that plans Mars will logically have to plan for the Moon first (unless they're insane...and I don't think any of them who might contemplate such a thing are insane).

I could possibly see the Chinese getting to the level of attempting lunar flight, perhaps by 2020. I could also see the Russians certainly doing that...provided their economics would allow such a program to go forth. But if anyone wants to sell me the idea that the Russians are realistically planning a manned Mars flight between 2016 and 2020, I think there's pixie dust in their corn flakes.

That would imply that they're planning to test their interplanetary capability on the Moon, real soon, and prove it out through a series of missions. Then, they're going to go full tilt with manned Mars plans...and all of this happening in the next 8 to 12 years.

It's a nice dream, but no joy in my book.

IM thinking like MID on this one too, we cant even take care of all our brave souls over in the dirt fighting for our freedoms to even do these forums. First you finish, then you finish First. Back to the Moon I say lets get Nasa the star-bucks they need! DONTEATUS getting off the little soap box now . we type all we want and eat the rest LoL.

...there was a time when coffee and cigarrettes were what everyone lived on!

I don't think you can smoke in the MOCR anymore!

But Starbucks...I'm sure that's still on the menu!

Actually, I have my doubts that a single country will do it - I see this more as an international endeavour simply because of the monumental task at hand and the future vision we hold for Mars. I can easily see NASA and ESA undertaking this jointly because...







Me either

Cheers,
Badeskov

The US has many strategies outlined and are already training potential astronauts for such a manned-mission. NASA is already working on designs of how to get humans to Mars including how to deal with bone-loss in a zero-gravity environment for extended period of time. All this training, inventing, and planning will take decades, and to have other space agencies come out and say "we'll beat you to it" is just stupid flag-waiving.

If it's not going to be the US, it's going to be Russia. China just got their feet off the ground, so to say they have just a fair shot as two nations who are already well-established in the infancy of space travel is a bit laughable. Such a trip would require vast resources and efforts of ensuring that once we land, we can survive. Bone-loss will mean that the person will have to rehabilitate, they're going to have to be trained to deal with radiation and solar activity that can damage or destroy their vessel or themselves, they're going to have to have a way of getting there and coming back, or getting there and surviving for a very long time until we can figure out how to come back, and many other factors will come into play in how, what, why, and when. Even if China was going to completely dedicate all of its resources on such a mission, they still have many things to do before dreaming about a Mars mission. You have to crawl before you walk. If Kennedy had instead said to get a man on Mars by the end of the decade instead of the Moon, people would laugh at him. Just because China finally got someone into space doesn't mean they have a leg-up on anyone.

I haven't heard much from the Russians as to a Mars mission, and have seen even less evidence in how they would prepare, and nothing in an actual plan. Whereas the US is already training people, building equipment, further planning on the many variables involved in such a huge undertaking, and planning a return trip the Moon at the same time (which will also be used as training for potential Mars astronauts). Whereas the ESA, Russians, and Chinese have yet to land on the Moon once.

I'm not trying to be biased here, but I guess if knowing a certain nation is better-prepared to make it first is biased, then I am. However, if a private organisation entered the fray, then maybe sure, they could beat a national space agency since private organisations don't have a public to answer to. But even then, it's a monumental undertaking of resources, knowledge, and time.

As for people debating the importance of such a mission, my response is, again, you have to crawl before you walk. A manned mission to Mars opens up so many realisitic possibilities on space-travel, that despite what some people think, it's worth the great efforts. The best defense humanity will have against extinction is expansion. And that's what the big picture is about, survival of the species.

Actually, Bade, I envision it as being a joint venture myself. Frankly, I'd love to see it.
I envision contributions by all of our current partners on the ISS project for a Mars mission. Most people probably don't realize that this endeavor will exceed the ISS in complexity and risk level many times, and Lord knows, what we learn aboard ISS in the coming years will be contributory to long term manned space flight.

The contributions which we've seen in the ISS project from so many adept international partners is a necessary asset to manned planetary exploration.
I envision the U.S. taking the lead, but I rather have this vision of a crew of Americans, Russians, Canadians, Europeans, and Japanese...and hopefully, even someone wearing the British flag on their suit sleeve, making this journey decades from now....

M~

Russians announce plans to send monkeys to Mars before humans.

Ah yes, the old Russian trick of "we can still beat them there with a monkey." Well this ups the ante a bit, and creates that wonderful thing of polar-competition long-missed from the days of the Cold War. Here's to hoping the Russians get a solid plan for a manned mission to realistically compete with NASA's timeframe.

I'm not so sure it's a "trick" per-se. Beating us there with a monkee is not beating us there. It's sending monkees on a long term mission to find out if they survive. It's the way they've done things for a long time in Russia / Soviet Union. We flew chimps in the early days as well.

We'll use long term manned studies to determine what's required, and will spend years developing the craft, and the redundancies required for manned, controlled flight. Our lunar program, as our ISS program now does, will go a long way toward collecting the appropriate data so as to dictate designs and systems for a two year mission into deep space.

Personally, I find the idea of sending animals to Mars...under completely automated control, landing them there, and returning them to Earth, more daunting than having a manned crew present on the mission.

You took me saying "the old Russian trick of 'we can still beat them there with a monkey'" too literally, I think.

It did speak to a restoration of the old competition of the 1960s, no?
I don't think you're going to see any such things as pertains to Mars.

It spoke to it as in "ah yes, the Russians still got fight left in them" which they do. And why wouldn't you expect it? It's not the 1990's anymore, they're not some tragic former-superpower in ridiculous economical crisis anymore. The Russians are back on the rise and they very much would like to give the Americans a run for their money. I have many Russian friends and read up on Russian news on a daily basis, and from all those sources, I gain the Russians are actually a proud people, but you can look at history alone just to know that. They have just as much reason as NASA to get to Mars first.

Or did you think I meant this will respark another cold war, which is not what I said anywhere. Competition doesn't necessarily mean reigniting old polar rivalries again.

Its still all up to the Chaa,Ching! factor and what a ching factor it will be to go to mars the whole earth needs to be shareing this endeavor,with out a question. The sooner we get together the better we can attempt this goal. Whos got a spare trillion dollars for a mars trip? DONTEATUS

I don't think the Russians ever did have no fight in them, as pertains to scientific adventure.
I do expect it, and I know it to be the case. As partners on the ISS, they have been of course significantly instrumental in the programs stunning success.

NASA doesn't have a reason to get to Mars first. They have a reason to get to Mars, period. If the Russians have a reason to go to Mars, it would be the same as ours.

However, realism must remind one that the Russians have no experience in manned lunar flight, let alone landing and exploring its surface. They have no capability of going to Mars with a manned mission. Just looking at their heavy lift capability at the moment shows that the trusty Proton is their heavy lift booster at the moment.

Proton has an interplanetary mass capacity of ~ 12,000 pounds with it's ~ 2.3MM pounds of thrust at liftoff. A substantial booster, without a doubt, but 12,000 lbs was the mass of an Apollo Command Module...sans Service Module or LM. Proton has not the capability of launching even a lunar landing package.

Angara 5 is in development as the next generation of heavy lift Russian vehicle. I have no doubts that it will be a success, but that booster will be able to lift 50,000 pounds into LEO. That in itself is less than a loaded Apollo CSM, without S4-B or LM. Still, not close to the Saturn V's capability of 260,000 pounds to LEO, and it needed that capability in order to propel 100,000 pounds of lunar landing gear to the Moon.


But we're talking about Mars...a two year mission at least, which is going to require a much more substantial substantial craft, capable of safely housing multiple crew for two years. The U.S. has the Ares V in development now. It's LEO capability will dwarf the Angara 5, with it's 9 million pounds of thrust, it will be able to lift almost 290,000 pounds into LEO, and that will suffice to propel the Orion and Altair to the Moon...and we're talking probably 150,000 pounds at least of total space vehicle.

As far as a Mars spacecraft...well, for the U.S. that's not going to even be in the active planning phases until after lunar exploration resumes within the Constellation program (we're talking a dozen years away at the earliest). It's probably going to entail multiple Ares V launches with assembly or docking of components in LEO (or perhaps it will be a lunar orbit hook-up scenario...I don't honestly know, and I don't think anyone else does at this time), and then a trans-Mars injection with a spacecraft that dwarfs CEV and Altair, let alone the Apollo spacecraft assembly!


Now, when you consider all of that, and the massive requirements for 2 years of human sustenance...sustenance that must be inherent in the spacecraft system itself and which cannot be re-supplied for the duration of the mission, the redundancy that must be built in to the entire system, and the necessary mass of such a system, as well as the long term manned spaceflight experience and the capability of interplanetary travel...as well as the need for absolute autonomy in flight control during critical phases of manned flight that will be on the order of 3-to 3.5 light minutes away from Earth...I do not see a run for our money forthcoming from anyone.

I don't see competition in that realm. The U.S. is already far ahead in the necessary experience and design capability, as well as heavy lift capability. I do, however, see an advantage, and perhaps a necessity of co-operative work between our partners in such an endeavor as Mars exploration...and in my view, that includes everyone who's been involved in the ISS to-date, Russians, Eurpoeans, Japanese, and Canadians, all of whom have made substantial contributions and all of whom are essential to the project at hand.



What I speak to is the rather obvious incredulity of the idea that anyone else is going to even attempt to get to Mars first. I also speak to the fact that competition, against an entity that already has the prerequisites completed for planetary exploratory capability, is somewhat nonsensical, and has no possible merit.

I prefer to think of what shall come in the future as a co-operative effort, with the Russians being exceedingly present in that effort.

I want that...and that has nothing to do with a "cold war". A "cold war", which was, and is no more, is a fruitless and ridiculous idea to contemplate in the future. When you watch what I did today, the hand-over of command from Peggy Whitson, American, to Sergei Volkov, aboard the ISS, an American and a Russian exchanging command of the ISS...you will see what I'm talking about.


I speak not to competition between the U.S. and the Russians, which would be a regression, but to cooperation , which is, as I now see it, the only way to accomplish something truly universal, truly expansive in scope--the exploration by men of Mars.

That is a succinct summary of what I am talking about above, D!
However, the Chinese, who are indeed adept, are farther away yet from the Russians in manned interplanetary capability (manned space flight capability for that matter), let alone the U.S.

This is something I've already stated in my first post in this thread. I don't see why it should be repeated, and to me.



Like I said, I've already stated that the best bet would be placed on the Americans, but I still think you jumped the gun and assumed my saying the Russians want to waive their flag automatically means I'm saying they will beat us there. You're trying to create an argument when there is none. I'll quote myself to further explain things:

"Here's to hoping the Russians get a solid plan for a manned mission to realistically compete with NASA's timeframe."

Please note, the word 'realistically' and the word 'hope'. Maybe we're not all fans of merry wishes and competition, but you'll have to point out where I said the Russians have the same expertise as the Americans.

I'm not arguing against a cooperative effort, either, unless you're saying NASA isn't going to be designated as the leader of the project. If that's the case, then I ask, what other space agency do you think has the potential to lead? Perhaps the FKA? Not likely, right? At least not until they land on the moon a few times (and safely return their cosmonauts) for starters. Then we're back to what I've always said "my money is on the Americans."



So you're basing what you view as realistic on preference?

...

Now, 2100 is a long time away. Do I think we'll get a man on Mars by 2100? Yes. But considering a few things before I go on with the next point I'm about to make- economics and politics. We Americans have grown used to a good standard of living. With an energy, environmental, food, social, and economic crisis on the minds of many people, I'm not so keen on assuming everything will go to plan. Public awareness on going to Mars currently lies around the realm of "cool" and "what's so great about Mars?" Now, I'd love it if we went to Mars, as it opens up so many great things in the name of space exploration, but I know a majority of family, friends, and acquaintences don't honestly care and would rather have their taxes lowered so they could pay for rising gas, food, rent/mortgage, and utility prices. I'm no psychic, and I've heard good and bad things about the next ten to twenty years, but I'm not naive enough to say what's going to really happen (I've read that many western economists said the USSR was on the rise in the late 80's during the reforms in an attempt to reenvigorate their stagnant economy, look what happened), but I do know a thing about American politics and general agendas. I suspect the Moon mission will be delayed several times due to budget cuts unless the next administration thinks Mars is more important than appeasing the public with all the rising costs, Iraq, and many concerns about where life in this country and world is headed in general. Now look at Russia, they've rebounded quite a bit since the 90's, if things get even better, I see no reason why it's impossible to think they wouldn't be able to suddenly overtake NASA in a lunar mission, especially if the next administration convinces Congress our concerns should be fully-diverted to something like the environment, economy, war, etc... I'm not saying this can't happen to the Russians, but I'm saying I can see plenty of cases of how and why a Mars or even lunar-return mission can be delayed or called off entirely.

But let's say Americans stay on the current course, and even increase their awareness and desire to spread to the planets. I recall saying something along the lines of "I'm not trying to be biased here, but I guess if knowing a certain nation is better-prepared to make it first is biased, then I am."



I talked to some Russians about how much they despise the U.S. for expanding NATO and meddling in affairs in Caucasia. So if one example of cooperation of a few Russians with Americans is enough by your standards to make a point, then by the same logic, mine is enough as well. If you think there's no animosity between the two, you have a lot to learn.

Look, again, you assume I'm oblivious to that big hunk of machine in the sky called the ISS and friendly intentions the Russians have with Americans and Americans with Russians, but if you're asking me to drop what I know about foreign relations between the two because of a handshake you saw on t.v., I'll have to just smile and trod off into my corner of the world that you seem to think I'm in. I've nowhere put off a cooperative effort, so don't tell me there's anything for me to see. But let me go watch some more handshakes between Americans and Russians, like at Elbe River.

When you see what I saw, then you'll know this certainly means we'll cooperate for the next fifty years, for sure.



I don't see why we'd have to be confined to requiring a multinational effort to do something. It makes it much easier, sure, but that doesn't mean a unilateral effort is not foreseeable.

Roughneck:

It sounds suspiciously as if you are attempting an argument here, when none is needed.

You're responding to this:


No...you stated no such thing in your first post. The only thing you said about the Russians in your first post was :




I wasn't addressing your first post. I agrees with that post.
I addressed your post speaking to "cold war" like competition....



I don't think there's anything relevant or necessarily good about that old competition. It hasn't been long-missed, and has evolved into a co-operative effort unimaginable back in the day.

That's what I addressed.

You seem to want to misinterpret that and take the discussion into a confrontation for some reason...






Like this.
I never indicated any such thing. For some reson you choose to interpret my discussion as that, but it's not what I said at all.

I am well aware that you said your money is on the Americans. I am not arguing that. What I've addressed is the idea that the Russians have a serious desire to give the Americans a run for their money, and the realism that makes that a very slim if not non-existant possibility.

This:



Perhaps some in Russia would like to get there first. The Russians are and should be a proud people. They are adept, intelligent, and have made great strides over the years...but as I said, they largely have the same reasons to get to Mars as the U.S. does. Not first (that's nonsensical), just get there.
__________________________________________________________

Next point.

I said:




And you ask:




Yes, I suppose so. My preference is based upon experience, and a realistic state of things as they are today, and as they've evolved since days long before you were born.
...



I am not so keen on assuming that things will necessarily go according to current plans myself. Constellation will require the continued support of future administrations to keep going as it should. That is always and has always been a matter of some doubt in America.
And there is an awful lot of emphasis placed upon the things you mention above...although none of them are crises. That's an exaggeration, and virtually all of them are interelated to environmentalism and it's profoundly negative effects. This can all be fixed with appropriate steps...


But this is stretching the subject matter ever so slightly. A discussion of the ripple effects of radical environmentalism is not really relevant to what I was talking about.




There's no doubt about that. But again...the appropriate and logical steps will lower taxes, reduce gasoline prices, boost economic growth and allow those who have the capability, but not the present resources, to develop alternative energy sources for the future, which will adress the real environmental "crisis" that exists (local pollution, not man made global warming). And also again...that's politics and logic...the right vote gets much of that in work. If course, in the current election cycle, no vote is going to get all of it in work.

The wrong vote doesn't get any of it in work and we'll be saddled with more of what we see now. That may well have an effect on the future of manned space exploration, but that is not what I'm addressing, and this thread shouldn't get too far off tangent with political and social discussions...I am speaking to the state of space flight technology at the moment, and current plans.





Now, you're going a little far, and revealing your age.

One example of cooperation? Are you kidding me?

Look, we all have alot to learn. But statements like that, completely oblivious to the real extent of the cooperation that exists in these endeavors, and has for years, between entities that were once allies, and then enemies...long before you were born, illustrate that while I still have alot to learn, perhaps a 20 year old has a little more...






I said nothing about "being confined" to a multinational effort. The idea of being "confined" to such an option is a curious selection of terminology. I merely state that it is the most beneficial path to follow, where possible, as has been clearly illustrated. I also never stated that a unlateral effort is not unforseeable...I merely spoke the most beneficial path, which is not something that anyone in NASA, ESA, JAXA, or the Russian Space Agency would ever disagree with.

You seem to be misinterpreting what I've said with an eye toward argument.

As it is now, the U.S. will be the nation to lead Mars exploration, when it occurs. That will either be a very lengthy process, unilaterally, or a bit shorter of a process, if we do what we should--which is the only thing I've spoken to in this thread. Competition, such as you clearly implied might be the impetus for the Russian animal to Mars scenario...would be a regressive step. What we need in this world is progression.

And please, try to avoid the snide comments.

For a young person to make such comments...a young person who was born after Elba River by over 4 decades, after the beginning and the end of the Cold War, after the IGY by 30 years, who didn't experience first hand the space race, who in fact was born after the remains of Challenger's crew were interred and who hasn't even been cognizant for more than a dozen years or so...and to tout your vast knowledge of foreign relations to someone who experienced much of that directly, is a wee bit over the top.


Having said that, you're a fairly articulate young man. You express yourself better than most 20 year olds...but the tendency to mis-interpret and argue when there really isn't an argument is reason to take pause....

Ugh, quote-box limitations made me redo this entire post!



You're speaking to experience and capability right? If yes, then yes, I stated exactly that (without the specific examples of designs) in my first post. If you still can't see it, I'll gladly point it out in detail in my next post, if there is to be a next.

When did I ever say it was a 'cold-war' like competition? I asked you if you thought just because two nations can have competitive natures with eachother (which the U.S. and Russia certainly do) if you thought I was implying it was going to spark another cold-war like rivalry. Just because two nations are competitive in certain areas doesn't void any chances of cooperation and vice versa. Perhaps I should've been so finely specific it wouldn't create any room for doubt, but a polar-competition in a specific area is possible without sparking a cold war. Just because the FKA may (and by 'may', I mean 'if') feel they want to compete with NASA in space technology and travel doesn't mean it's going to spark an arms race and polarity of things ranging from social structures to vehicular techonolgy. I'll admit, however, saying 'creates polar-competition' was the wrong thing to say.



Funny, many of my friends in the military of both countries, both young and old, say they admire the old USSR/USA and miss the rivalry we once had (for many reasons). Those same friends remark how current trends between the two nations have a freakishly high-probability of war being waged over Georgia. Aren't the differences of human opinions grand?



You said:

"However, realism must remind one that the Russians have no experience in manned lunar flight, let alone landing and exploring its surface. They have no capability of going to Mars with a manned mission. Just looking at their heavy lift capability at the moment shows that the trusty Proton is their heavy lift booster at the moment."

I don't ever recall needing to be reminded the Russians are not more experienced than NASA when it comes to a lunar/Mars mission. So because I already knew this, you quoting something I said, then adding a remark as if it was something I should learn lead me to believe that you're implying I was implying something I'm not. Well, I'm glad there has been so much miscommunications, implications, and all manners of suspicious undertones in this one thread. I was thinking that my life today might actually make sense for once.



There is no realism that makes that a 'very slim if not non-existant possibility' because there is indeed animosity between the two. I don't know how you miss it whether you have selective attention or just don't hear/read/see/experience as much of it as I have. The Russians aren't talking about a new arms-race just because they like it when the people get fired up about something the BBC may or may not imply. Whereas you might think because I remarked on the Russians beginning tests and studies into missions of extended space flight means I'm implying a new cold-war will start (even though I dropped the world 'polar' by brain-fart), I think you're overly enthusiastic about an international cooperative effort in the ISS and a bit shut-off to tensions the Americans and Russians feel currently against eachother.

Exact response from a Russian senior officer when the Russian officials commented the U.S. was citing concerns of national security over Russia's new 4.5 generation and 5th generation fighters was, and I quote "suck it down you ******* Yanks." I can understand if you wish avoid the overhyped concerns some media outlets will proclaim, but if you have associated with many Russians (and I don't mean the Russian-Americans) and kept up with Russian news, you'd know that not only do they feel they're threatened by eachother, but also a great deal of Russians feel the same way as a great deal of Americans when it comes to nationalism- "America/Russia F* Yeah!" You may find that irrelevant, but I don't, especially when Putin and Bush and their people are quite proud in their national heritages. However, I never said anywhere that there is only one example of a cooperative effort (in fact, I have many that pop into mind right now) or that all the instances of cooperative efforts between the U.S. and Russia are irrelevant.



I couldn't sanely tell myself most Russians don't want to beat the Americans at anything when every-other Russian I've known and talked to about things like literature, entertainment, history, and various other forms of ficitional and non-fictional things where the U.S. is invaded and/or destroyed have said when asked "why do they always go for New York?" something along the lines of "I'll be honest, if I was a giant monster/invading army/etc..., I'd attack you guys too, just to spite you." Now they don't all exactly (in the sense of those exact words) say that, and I don't exactly set up conversations like that all the time, but in general, those are the types of things said when questions like that are asked. I'm not trying to incite fears or anything, because that's just the mindset my friends and I function on as we just laugh and nod, but to find a great many deal of Russians feel relatively the same way about Americans speaks enough to put off any idealistic dreams of a union between the two, at least until things change. However, I'm not saying the American and Russian governments want to systematically destroy eachother just out of spite, or at least, not that I know of.

I can, however, presume that there may be a great deal of people who feel the opposite within both countries, but until my personal and non-personal experiences of that nature outnumber the experiences of animosity, I'll not toss aside any possible acts of great undertaking out of a desire to compete. To toss it aside entirely is to live in a dream, because history is full of examples of rash actions being taken just to beat someone to somewhere. To point one out right now, that hopefully won't be taken out of context, I'll name how Christian armies would attack eachother on the way to the Holy Land out of spite and, of course, just to beat them there. Don't take that out of context- I'm not implying the journey to Mars is a crusade and the U.S. and Russia are neo-crusaders and some random Martian rock-formations the infidels, though some people may look at it like that.

Now, do I think the Russians want to beat us there? Yes and no. Yes because of the obvious, pride and history, and considering their history in their pride, it speaks enough to not put it off as a possibility entirely. No because of a few things, one being they're behind NASA when it comes to design and experience. Another being it's rather not going to happen in the current state-of-affairs. Russia still has problems of their own financially and socially before they can start gaining ground on NASA, but that doesn't mean it's not possible because things don't always stay in their current state for long. I can't say what will happen and the reasons of why it happened for something that I believe won't happen until near the end of this century, but I can say that currently, it's impossible to tell for such things that people want to happen a long time from now.



Interesting, because I base what I know of experience as well, and associate some of that experience with people who were around long before I was born as well.



If it can incite substantial fears in a substantial ammount of the population, it can be a crisis. But I didn't say I thought there were crises, I said some/all of those crises are on the minds of many people. Considering that the current potentials for the next U.S. presidential administration are campaigning on behalf of some or all of those issues should project of how things will probably turn out for this country under the leadership of the next administration. Of course, that's not certain, but that's why I said 'probably'.



For one, environmentalism is not all I was talking about when I said 'energy, environmental, food, social, and economic', and considering what we're talking about is an event that won't happen for a long time, the effects of what we do and desire now will have consequences for when that long time is not such a long time anymore. After all, it's all relative.



How am I revealing my age? I cited how you gave me one example that then by the same logic me giving you one example is enough to make a point.

You said:

"When you watch what I did today... you will see what I'm talking about."

I found that a bit limited in examples and visualised a funny image of someone sitting next to a computer with a t.v. in their little corner thinking that's all they needed to know how the world worked. I also found it rather hostile for you to try to jack yourself up to some higher plane of intelligence and experience than me. I may be young to older people, but when I was aged nine years, I had already lived in three different countries and had several jobs. I'm not talking about kiddie-chores, either. But this topic isn't about my experience as an American child lost in a world of foreign cultures, so I see no reason to try to attack my age.

You also assume I'm unaware of the last century of history between the U.S. and Russia. Just because I've only graced this rock with 21 years of exitence doesn't mean I've not accumulated enough knowledge to know what I'm talking about. I'm not pompous enough to think that I'm some kind of self-proclaimed genious, but I know from personal experience alone that histories of cooperation doesn't negate histories of former and on-going antagonism.



You said:

"which is, as I now see it, the only way to accomplish something truly universal"

Nowhere in there did you say "the only way to most beneficially accomplish" so you'll have to forgive me for basing what I said on what you said. If you want to accuse me of too literally taking what you say then I ask you, how does it feel when someone does it to you?



I don't see how competition can't stimulate growth in a given sector to make it no less shorter than a cooperative effort of everyone on the same page with different ideas. I'm not denying a cooperative effort can be a better choice than a unilateral effort.



Don't imply that you're right just because you've seen the Sun set more times than I. Just because your age is of higher value doesn't mean you've experienced everything I have. To think just because someone was born later than someone else means they're less-inclined to know what they're talking about is a pompous way of thinking. I'm glad we don't live in a world where the mathematical equation of age=right has been proven by respected officials. If you want to negate someone's posts based on whether or not that someone can say "I read this in a newspaper when I was younger" then you have a lot more to learn than I do. If, however, you were everywhere in history all at once to experience all those events first-hand, then I bow to you, sir, and ask to bask in your infinite experience and wisdom.

Again, I know I have a lot of growing up to do, I am human. But to sneer at someone's age like a senior officer sneers at rank only works in a workplace or the military, unless it was the IAF. What we're arguing is not whether 2+2=5, it's how political theory is involved in the constitutions of great endeavors such as an expedition to Mars or the Moon. And thus, I don't think I'm more right or have claimed I'm right, and if I have, I apologise. But I don't see how you can think you're more right, either.



I've said that many times about you. I think now we realise that neither of us will be able to deploy our psychic powers to know what the other is implying. You're wearing your tin-foil hat aren't you? I hate it when my opponents do that. But it's okay, I'm wearing mine, as well.

Ultimately, I feel you see implications where there are none, and accuse me of implying things I'm not implying. Whether it's my fault I'm not exceptionally specific or prone to be misread by others is a possibility. But like I just said, I'll admit I used the word polar in the wrong context, at least used it too soon. Now, if only we can both interpret what the both of us are saying in a... cooperative effort.

Sorry for the pun, I really wanted to use it a few posts back but restrained myself. I just wanted to make this long post worthwile. Cheers.

Roughneck, you have already been warned once today, by the site administrator, to keep it civil (in the Youtube links thread). Your unnecessarily combative and argumentative style and condescending tone will get you into trouble if you do not learn to calm it down a bit.

I wasn't aware I've been uncivil in this thread or the Youtube link thread. I'll contact Saruman, though, and see what the deal is.

After re-reading this thread I stand by my comments, however I will add this caveat:
MID, your comments about Roughnecks age were unnecessary and have contributed to the unfriendly nature that currently pervades this thread. I would ask you to please refrain from any comments that can be construed as a personal attack. Whilst I feel that Roughneck was over the top in his response to your comments I do have sympathy with him.

In the great scheme of things this is a rather uncontroversial and unimportant thread in an uncontroversial section of this website. There is room for all opinions, as long as they are civilly expressed and discussion opposing points of view is the very life blood of this site, but is this really a topic worth falling out with people over?

Now let's return to the topic under discussion... who will be the first to land a human n Mars?

I apologise for any rash or rude behaviour. I'll be more mindful of my commentaries in the future as sometimes I forget that not all people communicate in the same mannerisms that I normally do. Waspie pointed out a few instances of how I crossed that line and wish to point out to MID that in my previous long-winded post I tried to light-heartedly acknowledge I was also to blame for some of the miscommunications between myself and MID. Some of those same light-hearted remarks, however, came off as flame-bait. Those were not my intentions. I'll leave it unedited for clarification's sake, but do reiterate sincerity.



Jamaica.

All this talk about who will be the first human on Mars makes me want to watch RocketMan.

I can accept that, no problem.

It seemed to me that we were drifting into off-topic areas and beginning a shouting match about nothing, and I wanted to get back to the point--besides, I don't think there's anything regarding who's going to be first to get to Mars that we're actually arguing!



As to who'll be first, I think my bottom line is this:


I don't know.



Frankly, I don't think of it in terms of who'll be first. I rather tend to think of it as when will we get there (we meaning humans...pink ones, yellow ones, black ones, whatever country affilliation ones...). After having been through Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, and seeing what has occurred since, I have a difficult time thinking of it in terms of who's going to be first.

It's just a matter of when and how.

Now, that being said, the idea of a unilateral effort is of course possible, depending on the unknowns involving political situations that may unfold in the future--and guessing about that is well, fruitless. I'd prefer not to see that develop, but if it does, I don't think there's any doubt about who will lead the charge. In fact, there's little doubt that the U.S. will be at the forefront of a multilateral Mars mission as well.

But the vast complexity and difficulty of the venture I cannot express enough. Aside from a massive end run go for broke effort by a nation (say the Chinese), who might essentially go for broke and take a huge risk (which in my view is a recipe for disaster), the effort, if unchecked by the winds of fortunes that could stop it dead in its tracks, will still be a decades long affair.

There is so much to consider its mind boggling. Starting now, as we are with Constellation, and continuing the required studies will result in a mission...perhaps 20-25 years from now. There is a very large scale, incremental development process required, a major part of which will come once we return to the lunar surface for extended stays starting a decade from now...we hope.

I hope that mission to Mars, when it happens, involves a crew of, or at least the direct contributions of Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Canadians, and Russians, and perhaps others who may be joining the fray in the years to come.

Hmmm,

Hadn't thought of them.
They did field a bobsled team some time ago in the Winter Olympics...maybe we should pay attemtion to them!

Hey Mid long time no see! Good post about mars think we will see a trip in 10 to 20 yrs? Im betting so. just gotta get back to printing more green backs.Maybe if we all vote for a logical pres,that can happen. well its off to solve that apollo quiz you put up. See Y`all

That is a bet I suspect you would lose. The USA does not envisage a manned return to the Moon for another 12 years. It is the intention to then build a Moon base, only then will eyes turn to Mars. I can not see any way that the USA will be ready to land a man on Mars by 2028. The other space-faring nations are not as advanced in their plans to reach for the Moon and are certainly in no position to beat the USA to Mars as things currently stand.

Going to Mars is far, FAR harder than going to the Moon. A Moon base can be resupplied from Earth. A crew can be home in a couple of days in the event of problems or illness. This is not the case for a mission to Mars. You are looking at a 9 month voyage each way. There is no quick return in the event of a problem. There is no resupplying the mission, the crew must carry everything they need with them. Any crew illnesses must be dealt with in space. Forget the technological problems which have to be overcome, there is still a vast amount that must be learned in LEO and on the Moon before it is safe to go to Mars.

I concur completely.




I had said that I tend not to seriously think about a manned Mars mission. Until such time as we're actually ready and in a position to begin a full out effort, it remains for me a daunting challenge (i.e., a completely unknown manned realm) that must have backing and an industry completely dedicated to it. Thought experiments are fine, but that's as serious as I get about it.

Everything you said is absolutely true about it, Waspie.

...in fact, we haven't actually asked all the questions we must in order to start serious development.

We often throw the idea of a manned Mars mission around, with what are actually simplistic and almost nonsensical questions (when one considers the vast difficulty of such a program). The present one, 'Who's gonna land there first?' is actually one of those which makes my jaw drop, because the questions, "Can we do it?" and "How are we going to do it?" haven't even been seriously contemplated yet.

What's involved in such a long term plan is mind-boggling. The difficulty and the questions that need to be answered are most often not even contemplated when people talk about it...

I suspect that NASA will attempt a simulated Manned Mars mission before trying the real thing. I envisage a mission in which astronauts will spend a prolonged time on board the ISS. They would then transfer to the Moon base before returning to the ISS for another 9 months or so. This will, as closely as possible, replicate the zero-G/low-G/zero-G mission profile of a real Mars mission but with out the risk of the astronauts being far from home.

Just one such simulation would, itself, take close to 2 years to run (depending on the length of stay envisaged on the Moon). Assessing the crews health upon return and then analysing all the data would add more time.

Ssssssssssssssssss goes the air out of my inflated head! Lets try a lot harder to make goals again Like JFK did in the late 60`s we can do anything we put our minds and money to.

It's not all about the money. If the human body is not capable of making a trip to Mars no amount of money is going to solve it.

It is true that we could speed the process of returning to the Moon by increasing NASA's budget but a mission to Mars requires we learn a lot more about long duration missions and exposure to zero g & low g environments. This learning process simply can not be sped up by throwing the almighty $ at it. The only way that you can find out what happens to a human body after 18 months in zero g is to expose a human body to 18 months of zero g. But doing this once isn't enough. You have to do it enough times to know whether some people are more prone to problems than others. Whether age, gender or even ethnicity have an effect. You have to find out what the problems are, think of ways of overcoming them and then repeat the process to see if the solution worked. This is very time intensive stuff and will take years of study. Only when this is understood can we think about sending humans to Mars. And this is just one of the problems that need to be surmounted. All though there is an increasing amount of data data on what the effects of zero g are, there is no data at all on what extended periods of reduced g do to a human. Collection of this data can only begin once we have returned to the Moon.

Ok I see the point but 40 years have gone by ,more than enough time for mankind to of done every study of endurance space flight and the scores of support needs of such a trip. Whats up with the research of our future? ISS and the european sace agency are a start but 40 yrs? Where`s the Dreamers? p.s. and the doers IMO

I think that is an astute, very engineering-minded idea, Waspie.
I can definitely see something along those lines happening.

What Waspie says is correct, D.
I do understand your quandary regarding the amount of time, however.

I would agree with you that enouigh time has elapsed since Apollo for us to have done the studies required, and perhaps have resolved issues and executed a manned Mars mission.

However, we haven't.


It's not that the dreamers and doers aren't out there. They are, and they have been. It's about the national will, and the politics of doing such things that has stalled us in our tracks for a long time, Mars mission-wise.

Now, as we have a Space Exploration Initiative in place, we finally begin. That's just the reality of it. At least we have such an initiative in work!

What about the private sector? Does anyone believe they will play much of a part in the eventual mission to Mars? Ventures such as those of Richard Branson in the coming years will really be quite interesting and I personally can only see positives from the private sector getting involved in space flight and exploration. However it is obvious that NASA and other national/regional space agencies will be the major contributers to a mission to Mars, with a cooperative effort the most likely recipe for success. It may not be for many decades though.

In a word, no.

The problem here is that you talk about people like Richard Branson being involved in space flight and exploration. He isn't, he is involved in spaceflight and commercialisation. The private sector is driven purely by profit. What profit is there to be gained from the exploration of Mars?

It is possible that NASA will buy services from the private sector - NASA already has a programme called the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) programme. The aim is that NASA will buy cargo flights (and eventually even manned flights) to the ISS from a private sector manufacturer. Although the commercial company will use some of it's own money in the development stage ultimately the money will come from NASA and therefore the US tax payer. I can envisage something similar being used in the Mars programme but it will still be driven by government agencies.

The private sector will only get involved in the exploration of Mars (and the Moon for that matter) when and if a potential (relatively short term) source of profit is discovered there.

Again, I have to agree with Waspie. No, no private sector involvement with planetary exploration will be forthcoming.

I think private ventures are stimulating, certainly. Indeed, some pretty good ideas may come of it. But we're talking about commercialization of space with tourism in mind. While the designs of a man like Burt Rutan just might accomplish private venture orbital flight, and I find him stimulating, and brilliant, I am almost exclusively uninterested in space tourism.

I feel confident is sayting that at this point in time, space flight is still a dangerous business, and a business for professionals, period.
I don't think any private firm will be able to develop the infrastructure to support an orbital tourism operation any time in the next couple of decades. And simply attaining private orbital flight will not be without official oversight.

The Federal Government will get involved, probably both the FAA and NASA. Stringent rules will be required, tracking, support, emergency recovery operations, spacesuits, emergency procedures, etc., etc. I can envision no way that a private firm will be launching any manned vehicle into Earth orbit from the United States without clearance, guidance, restrictions ad nauseam, and full knowledge of the government agencies that are responsible for such travel.



It's a massive undertaking. Accomplishing it technically is one thing. Making it work as a venture is quite another.

We're talking decades. As to planetary exploration...I see no inroad for such a venture any time in the forseeable future. I do however see, perhaps in a decade or two, the potential for private enterprise to develop a transportation system which, perhaps with Federal help, may be usable in the professional sector as adjunct transportation to LEO.

i was watching a programme and this guy mentioned making mars habbitable for humans and he said the first life forms to land on mars will be the plants so humans can breathe.

I doubt that seriously. We don't need, and shall not have atmosphere that's actually breathable on Mars when we go there. We'll have space suits.

You're speaking of terraforming, which is a process which, if adeqauate plant life is developed for the purpose, would take centuries to have any effect.

We'll be going to Mars, when we do, to explore it with suits on. We're not going to transform the planet into an Earth like environment first. Terraforming is a process that's been discussed for decades, but it is a concept...not a process we intend to execute. Just a theoretical possibility.

I should further point out that if our explorations of the planet do in fact uncover signs or evidence of life in any form, terraforming as a possible mechanism to transform the planet will be tossed out the window. We will not interfere in any way with life discovered on other worlds...

I really REALLY hope you are correct.

Well, Waspie... that's been the way I've understood the scientific position for decades.

If that changes, or has changed, we're in for alot of hell...

And frankly, I don't want to be around around to see anything else ever happen on another planet such as mankind interfering with life on another world!

We have no business, and no right to even contemplate the idea.

Well, you're all WAY off the mark. The first to land on mars will, of course, be the British. Specificly, the English.

I have it on good authority that Syd Boggle has already constructed the prototype ship in his garden shed, using a modified FlyMo powered by Cheese to reach orbit, and one of Mrs Boggles negliges as a Solar Sail for the trans-planetary stage.

Have non of you watched The Mouse on the Moon ?

Meow Purr.

Maybe, but when it comes to those in power how often do they listen to scientists ahead of business men? How often does what is morally right win over what will make a profit?

It is likely to be centuries before we are capable of terraforming Mars, I hope we have more enlightened politicians (and business men) by then.

Point well taken...
I certainly cannot argue with it at all...only hope for the future.

Well we could of just shipped about twenty billoin old cheveys to mars and put them in gear to auto drive or just idle for the last fourty years and the green house evect wuld of been well on its way to heating up the mars air. LoL but its a thought. Isnt Exxon got a few thousand stations up there already ,across from the starbucks on every corner!

Actually, I wouldn't dismiss Russia's ability to send people to Mars before both NASA & ESA. My father, which immigrated from the USSR back in 1979, told me that while NASA was fixated on getting their astronauts to the Moon, the Russian's never tried it, and so the space race was never lost because of the Apollo missions - it was lost because the Russian economy prevented them from carrying on their plan to reach their real target - Mars. The Russian space program never attempted anything like Apollo because they always thought sending a person to the Moon is a waste of time and money (you can study it much better with robots and orbiting probes), and so aimed at putting their cosmonauts on Mars.

So I think the Russians might have a ready-to-use blueprint mission to Mars - they only need the money which wasn't available during the later 1970s because already then Soviet economy began to crack.

I wouldn't dismiss it totally, just put it into perspective. It is highly unlikely that Russia could be the first to land a human on Mars as a single national effort. I have given my reasons for this statement before and I repeat some of them below.


Oh they did try and they failed. They tried to keep it a secret until recently.

The Soviet Union did not enter the race to the Moon until after the USA. There aims (the civilian ones at least) were to take a more step by step approach. First men in orbit, then space stations, then the Moon and then Mars. This is exactly how the great Russian scientist an visionary Konstantin Tsiolkovsky laid things down at the turn of the century. (I happen to believe that if the US had taken the same approach then they may have taken longer to get to the Moon, maybe by a decade or more, but when they did get their it would have been to stay.)

Only when they realised that the world saw the race to the Moon as important to the pride of the rival political systems of the USSR and the USA did they join in. They built a huge 30 engined rocket called the N1. The Soyuz spacecraft had a version capable of taking cosmonauts around the Moon (it was called Zond). They even built a manned lunar module. There plans were reasonably advanced. Zond was test flown, including taking animals around the Moon. Their lunar module was test flown in Earth orbit. It all came to nothing however as the N1 failed on all 4 of its attempted launches. The Soviet manned moon programme was not cancelled until after Apollo, but it was denied by the Soviet Union until after that nations collapse.

Although they denied the existence of this programme it was actually well known in the west. The N1 was given the code name G1e by the USA and was also nicknamed Webb's Giant after the NASA administrator James Webb, who used its existence to ask Congress for more money.

I do not believe that the Russians could beat the USA to Mars in a straight fight. They lack the money, the boosters and the rest of the infrastructure. They also lack the experience of sending a manned mission beyond low Earth orbit. The USA is already moving towards the next generation of vehicles that could go to the Moon and on to Mars. The Russians are still discussing the matter.

Where they do score over the USA is that they have much more experience of long duration flights. With the exception of the 3 Skylab flights in the '70s the ISS is the first space station the US has been able to use to research long duration flights. The Russians/Soviets have bben doing so in Salyut6, Salyut 7 and Mir before the ISS. They have the single flight endurance record of 438 days set by Valeri Polyakov in 1994 - 95. This is close to double the record for a US astronaut.

That's interesting info, but as you can see, their eventual target was Mars, while the US simply wanted to beat the Soviets and get to the Moon - ie there was serious intention to get to Mars.

And there's another era in which the Russians are better, and that is - launch efficiency. Russian launches are much cheaper than the Western ones, and judging by the new Orion spacecraft NASA is building to replace the Shuttles after 2010, it seems that their launch vehicles' economy is better, and perhaps the entire shuttle experience was a waste of money.

Anyhow, I hope that the private market of space tourism will make much more advancements than either governments. It's been almost 40 years since we got to the moon and we still haven't gone further. What a shame.

Again this isn't so. Von Braun always saw Mars as the eventual goal for the US space programme. There were plans made for Saturn V derivatives with a nuclear upper stage that would have been used to take Apollo derived spacecraft to Mars. Both countries express an interest in sending men to Mars, neither actually made a serious attempt to do so.

The political will was not there to do it (in either country). The US had one the space race in the eyes of the world. It had reached the Moon first. What more did it need to prove. The Soviet Union had failed even to get a man on the Moon after the USA, never mind beat it. There was no way that the Polit Bureau would give billions more roubles to a manned Mars effort.

Had either one, in the height of the cold war, seriously attempted to start a manned Mars programme I have no doubt that we would have seen another race. I also suspect that we would have seen another US victory.

Also remember that the Soviet Union/Russia has never had much success in even their unmanned Mars missions.