will we be able to land a colony in mars within 40 years?

Answer 1

We are able to today. Potential cost has been estimated at less than $30 billion...

Hey, I have an idea! Bill Gates can pay for the mission, and then claim Mars all for himself, kinda like the European monarchs did with the Americas!

Answer 2

I would say the answer is probably not. Not the way things are corruently done. As for the other answers claiming we have the technology to do it today- that is misleading.

Yes we have rocket engines. But we don't have rocket engines that are adequate for such a trip really. Sending an 800 pound probe to land on Mars is a much different proposition than sending a COLONY of people to Mars. It simply is not practical with technology that we have today.

Other areas where major leaps in technology would need to occur: Power systems. This is a 3 year mission at the minimum with huge weight constraints. The only plausible power source is a small nuclear reactor or a large number of RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators). The environmental lobby would take anybody who tried to launch that much plutonium into space and burn them at the stake. Especially with the prospect of 'polluting' another planet with it. Life support systems. There are no existing life support systems that can possibly operate reliably for that long and there are none that are completely closed loop (in other words, vast amounts of oxygen and water would need to be sent with the people). That means even bigger engines are needed.

Folks Mars is a LONG way off. We do not have anything close to the technology needed to successfully complete a mission that includes human crew. We may get the technologies needed in the next 40 years but it would generally require mulitple major breakthroughs.

Answer 3

Maybe if there was enough support from the general population, but the population spends it's time watching south park and reading Cosmo, the television market, could sway a lot of support for a mission to mars, but it wouldn't be cost effective. We need a charismatic leader, like J.F.K. and his " not because it's easy, but because it is hard" speech the led to the Apollo programs. Robert Zurbin came up with the mars direct plan, that was cost effective, and pitched it to N.A.S.A. and was rejected, do to budget constraints i believe, but don't quote me.The technology to go to mars has been around for a long time, it's just that know one has had the drive or vision to use the technology as it was meant to be used, but yes i believe that we will be able to land a colony on mars in the next 40 years, but it won't be N.A.S.A. that does it, it'll be a private company or a wealthy industrialist.

Answer 4

Depends on both the U.S. maybe even global economics, and whether or not Mars has an atmosphere and climate that we can handle. Martian radiation & poisonous gas levels will be taken into account.

Answer 5

Yes absolutely.
It's simply a matter of funding. We have the technology to do so today but the money seems to be being spent on some "war" in Iraq.
So you can tell where Bush's priorities are...

Answer 6

40 years ago I would have said yes. But now, knowing that in the last 40 years we have made exactly zero progress toward that goal, I would be more skeptical.

Answer 7

yes. we could actually, at an extremely high price, terraform the planet in about fifty years. It would take about 100 years until it is finished, if not longer. But it is possible.

Answer 8

Tough call.
Consider logistics and simple aspect of return on investment.

On the other hand if we bring the 60-th back, flower children, groupies, free sex… Ney, it will not work today.

Answer 9

prabably