Do you think a manned mission will ever travel to Mars - or any other planets?

Question

Could we travel there on conventional rocket fuel?

Answer 1

Well, we can't even build reliable space shuttles or robots to land there, so I'd be very leery about getting aboard a manned mission to Mars. Think of the obstacles...

1) Psychological - well over a year in space (round trip) with no contact besides each other. Close quarters, and no options beside what is on the ship. It would require almost military discipline from decidedly non-military people. They would have to deal with every possible problem on their own, from constant weightlessness, to space sickness, to surgery. Astronauts are not magical beings, they are just like us, and experience the same stresses as the rest of us.
2) Mechanical - everything is dependent on the machinery. They aren't going to bring a years worth of air, water & food. If the water recycling equipment breaks, you die. If the toilet breaks, you die. If the engine fails, you die. If life support breaks, you die. If the ship gets hit by micro-meteorites, you die. If the hydroponics fail, you die. Basically, if anything fails that can't be fixed in space, you die. There are so many ways to die it's funny.
3) Radiation - radiation will most likely destroy the astronauts DNA. There is no way to predict whether they will be bombarded by a wave of high energy cosmic rays. A single solar flare could do this. There are so many unexpected things that can happen in deep space. They may underestimate the shielding because we simply can't predict exactly what is "out there." The potential for death on a manned deep space mission is high to say the least.
4) It's a one-way there, one-way back mission. There's no "turning back" if there is a problem. The entire journey would be predicated on leaving for Mars and returning to Earth at specific times in the planet's respective orbits. If problems arose halfway there, it's unlikely they could just abort and come home.
5) It's all hypothetical - right now, we don't even possess the technology to accomplish this undertaking. Most everything that would be required is on the drawing board. There isn't even a consensus as to what would be the best type of engine for the spacecraft, but what is agreed is that it would be something never before used. That's not very reassuring.

Horses asses like George Bush make rediculous statements like "manned mission by 2015" (ten years!!!!) when he doesn't have a clue about the challenges, or anything else for that matter. It's just his way of using patriotic themes to elicit support in light of his dismal approval rating.

Even NASA, the eternal optomists, admit there are huge challenges to overcome before a Mars mission would be viable. For one, we need to return to the moon, and do it often enough to work out the kinks in surviving for extended periods away from the earth. We need to further develop and test the numerous technologies that would be required, as well as invent a whole slew of new ones that have yet to be conceived. We still need to learn A LOT more about Mars with probes and landers. We need to design and build a spacecraft, and then test in out in space for at least a year.

Then, who will fund this 1/2 trillion dollar fantasy? In the best of times, with the US economy booming and us not at war, few politicians would be willing to give NASA 500 billion dollars to gamble on a grand experiment. The way things are today, forget it!

Lastly, there is nothing intrinsic to be gained from going to Mars other then "feel goodness" and prestige. There are vastly more pressing problems facing us such as energy, education, population, and environment which make Mars a pointless endeavor. Maybe in 50 years it would be more realistic.

Re: other planets... there are no other approachable planets in our solar system. Venus is an 800 degree acid bath and the gravity of the gas giants would destroy. Possibly a *moon* of a gas giant, but again, what would be the point? Besides, the distances are.... well... astronomical, which makes the very thought comical.

Addition: to the fanciful dreamers who site experimental technology articles as "solutions" to the problems besetting a manned mission to Mars, all I can say is, YOU GO. There is a reason that magazine writers aren't rocket scientists or engineers. Under the BEST CASE SCENARIO a ship in deep space will experience constant bombardment by cosmic rays and at least one solar flare a week, probably many more then that. There is no way to predict exactly how strong this radiation will be at different points in the journey, so shielding will be a "best guess" proposition. The astronauts may *survive* the trip but be genetically damaged for the remainder of their lives. We don't need "could protect them" experimental technologies, we need tested and proven solutions. A successful trip to Mars is orders of magnitude beyond an 11 day trip to the moon. Creating new technology is the ONLY way it will happen. Right now, getting to Mars with existing technology would be like trying sail around the world on an inflatable lounge chair.

Answer 2

There is no reason why we cannot do this.

The reason why we haven't done it to this point - nor returned to the Moon, nor done anything with manned space flight that's worth the expense of sending people into orbit - is that we persist in looking at goals like a Mars expedition as a technical problem.

No. Manned space flight is first of all an economic and political question.

Suppose I were to tell you that we had all the energy we'd ever need in the oceans of the world - clean, renewable, environmentally negligible impact. Suppose after convincing you of that, I told you, further, that we'd be able to extract, through innovative mining technology, pristine seams of metals from underneath the ocean floor.

Assuming I had made a case for that - would your first question be, "But can we make submarines that don't leak?"

...


But clean energy and resources are available in space, and thousands of times over that of Earth.

NASA is behind the wrong horse. We could fund lavish expeditions to Mars with the pocket change left over from the revenues from space industry... but the "Vision for Space Exploration" is really just Apollo redone - expendable rockets, flags and footprints.

In sum, we might go to Mars - but in the meantime, China, India and other nations are sending probes to the Moon. And those probes will be carrying sensors designed to look for mineral resources. (Source 1.)

Hmm. Historically, trade and exploration go hand in hand. China in particular lost out when she recalled the "Treasure Fleets" in 15th Century. They sent out huge fleets of ships, each ship of which *dwarfed* anything that Europe was building at the time. (Source 2.)

...And they did it just as an exercise in national pride, basically. They saw no need to actually do anything useful with those fleets, if I'm not mistaken. Sound familiar?

All those magnificent ships were recalled and broken up by a new Emperor. Probably was budget conscious and felt he had to keep the court eunuchs happy...

I don't see China making this mistake again.

The nation that goes to Mars, is the nation that will first find out how to open space up to humankind, for settlement, business and pleasure.

****

By the way, radiation in space is no joke, we don't have a good answer now... but I don't agree that no barrier to solar storm activity or cosmic rays isn't on the horizon.

Link #3 below discusses research into magnetic shielding to help deflect radiation. As a bonus, this type of technology can also be used to actually propel a space ship, far faster than our current chemical technology!

Google "Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion" sometime.

Answer 3

Possibly to Mars if there is the political will and co-operation between several countries.The launch might be further away in time than we think and by then we may have much more serious problems on earth to deal with.

The expenditure would be forbidding and I am sorry to say that I think the first few trips will be one way only.

We could not use conventional rockets and the difficulties are not to be underestimated!

Answer 4

If an asteroid dosn't wipe out our civilisation or any other catastrophe we will eventually. But no time soon with the current technology. How can we conquer space with a glorified fire work. It's not just the inadequacy of rocket fuel we need to improve on but on the technology we use to travel into and through space. That is a problem that will take many years and probably generations to sort out. But we will achieve it eventually.

Answer 5

the chinese will make it to mars soon enough, it could be done on rocket fuel, though alternate forms of fuel will be available in the next 50 years. Maybe even fusion power haha.

and with respect to the above answer, the problem is that our bone structure is dependant upon the forces it receives (gravity), for example if you dont walk then the bones in your legs will get restructured, the calcium will get used up by your body, but with exercise machines the space men will be fine.

Answer 6

There will be a manned trip to Mars in the year 2022. This will up on follow a exploratory trip, 2017, lasting for a mere 11 days.

Answer 7

We will reach mars in the next 20 years with conventional rockets probably launched from the moon. (There are reasons that I won't go into here...) That is why we are going back to the moon.

Answer 8

Everything is possible given time and money.
Other than the technological challenge of making such a trip why would we do it at the cost involved? The hazards are enormous and unknown at the moment.
Many more unmanned trips will happen before we try. Maybe we will find it's not worth going.
Moon-base first.
RoyS.

Answer 9

Yes, forget NASA. The European Space Agency are already planning a mission to Mars as we speak.

Answer 10

Yes but because Mars' orbit and our orbit are so different, opportunities to go there with the minimum journey time (and fuel consumption) only occur every 2 years.