Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sweetbeans2001 t1_ixe706k wrote

I watched the first moon landings. It would be cool if I lived long enough to watch the first Mars landing. I probably have about 25 years. Hope we make it.

80

PracticalShoulder916 t1_ixelz3x wrote

I watched the moon landing too and was hoping to see people on Mars before I go, or proof of extra terrestrial life.

Fingers crossed.

30

jaccaj56 t1_ixf1p6b wrote

Proof of ET life is at the top of my “before I go“ wishlist , too. Probably pretty common for this sub, I imagine.

18

AshFromTheStands t1_ixfx1vo wrote

Agree 100%. As I get older, 47 now, I recognize that the distances between us and “them” are just so vast. Way farther away than my 47 years, certainly whatever I may have left, are but a speck on the head of a pin, in the sheer distances between points in space.

8

kldload t1_ixvnuzw wrote

We could discover wormhole tech or master antimatter engines. Or someone else could solve these problems and visit us. We could also discover life on mars

1

Notyouravrgebot t1_ixg7upp wrote

Is it just proof that you need? I have no doubt that there is extra terrestrial life out there. Billions and trillions of solar systems in our galaxy. That there wouldnt be life anywhere outside of ours is virtually impossible. But that’s only according to our logic and ignoring factors we probably can’t even comprehend

2

all_m0ds_are_virgins t1_ixfn7hw wrote

>I watched the first moon landings.

Lucky.

But imagine the people who were alive to witness flight for the first time and the moon landings. That must have been a trip.

11

mrrektstrong t1_ixg59xe wrote

My great grandma got to experience that, but unfortunately I never got to talk to her. Must have been wild to grow up with horse drawn carts and steam ships to then see space exploration from the comfort of your living room.

4

Laius33 t1_ixhk4x5 wrote

Just think about what time you’re living. This is truly the future.

1

Dinindalael t1_ixedb35 wrote

Don't worry, Elon's gonna land humans on mars by 2021 oooohh i see the problem

0

El_Lobot t1_ixekq45 wrote

I once had hope in this man. He's his own worst enemy.

13

bookers555 t1_ixem6hp wrote

If the SLS can actually launch anything's possible.

6

wgp3 t1_ixel6lk wrote

The closest thing to that is Elon stating they could land a human on Mars in 10 to 20 years if all goes well back in 2010/2011. There was never a promise to land humans in 2021. Check back in 2031 to make this statement. It'll almost for sure still be accurate. Although if things go well with nasa returning humans to the moon on starship it'll likely only be a few years behind the 20 year prediction.

9

Dinindalael t1_ixeog32 wrote

Pretty sure he had given a 2022 date years ago. Everyone knew it wasnt realistic.

−4

xylopyrography t1_ixep8r2 wrote

The more confident one was always by 2024, but that was before Starship development even really started.

Gwynne Shotwell gave about 10 years in either 2018 or 2019 I think.

I think 2036 is realistically possible. It may require far more resources/effort than are economical or reasonable, but it will probably be possible.

7

wgp3 t1_ixf02nl wrote

You're wrong. Never did they state humans by 2022. They mentioned demonstration landings without humans as possible in either 2022 or 2024. Then humans to follow before 2030. That was around the start of starship. And again, it was always "best case if everything goes right". So you're both wrong and even if you were right it would be disingenuous at best for acting like a best case scenario was ever thought of as realistic to begin with.

3

jso__ t1_ixf7sll wrote

In terms of a SpaceX unmanned mission, aren't we like 3-4 years off minimum just because it hasn't been planned yet (so if they started planning today it would take 3-4 years)

−1

wgp3 t1_ixf9iti wrote

Probably. Starship according to nasa won't launch until December at the earliest. So that means January at the earliest. They have to test out a lot of things in earth orbit after the first test. Mostly cryogenic fluid transfer and re-entry testing. Currently they have multiple ships and boosters in the works. So I imagine all of next year will be orbital test flights every couple of months to test out necessary functions for landing humans on the moon in 2025 for nasa.

In 2024 they'll are supposed to do the uncrewed demonstration to the moon. I doubt they will want to send starships to mars near then so as not to make nasa feel like they aren't focused on landing on the moon. I know in the past when working on future projects some at nasa felt they may be distracted from commercial crew.

If they land humans on the moon in 2025 then I could see demonstration missions to mars in the window in 2026. Mostly because they proved starship is safe at that point so any mishaps landing on Mars won't have a big effect on the moon missions. But when it comes to mars that means if they don't do the moon landing until 2026 they'll have to wait til 2028 for the next mars window. That's the earliest I expect a cargo/demonstration mission.

2

Dinindalael t1_ixg1zf6 wrote

Listen, you need to understand. Im not mocking SpaceX, they're doing a fantastic job.

I'm specifically mocking Elon.

1

The_Only_AL t1_ixfa87x wrote

I just wanted to read through the comments to see how many before someone tried to turn the conversation around to Elon Musk.

8

Bigjoemonger t1_ixg0phc wrote

Well he is currently the only one actually making an effort to go to mars. So logically the topic of going to Mars should include him.

9

Mikinl t1_ixgatxz wrote

Just part of his marketing campaign I would dare to say.

−1

Bigjoemonger t1_ixh7482 wrote

He's built and testing actual rockets. That's more than anybody else has done.

1

Hot_Carpenter8959 t1_ixetof2 wrote

About 6 months after the crewed Mars mission launches

27

hdufort t1_ixe2993 wrote

If we manage to land equipment and the first modules and habitats by 2027 to 2030, then I'd say 2035.

25

My_Soul_to_Squeeze t1_ixfy6fl wrote

If SpaceX's Starship lives up to a fraction of the hype (mainly if it can touchdown safely on Mars' surface), we can have a small city worth of supplies and shelter on the surface before we send the first people. I think your timeline is pretty reasonable.

3

roksraka t1_ixgcjw3 wrote

I will donate a kidney if we get anything close to that in 5-8 years! Everything SpaceX is promising is taking way longer than what they originally thought and that’s completely understandable. Also, I think you underestimate just how much stuff we’d need to get there before we send humans and what happens if a percentage of these missions fail or get delayed… I’m saying 2040-2050.

1

RowKiwi t1_ixe7phc wrote

People could land on Mars really soon, they just wouldn't be coming back. Like the North Koreans in the TV show For All Mankind, they basically shot a Soyuz module to Mars, parachuted down, and walked around a bit, before ground control turned off the radios and abandoned them.

22

BroasisMusic t1_ixgb3pl wrote

Right. Getting them there isn't really a problem. Keeping them alive while they're there and then bring them home - alive - well... that's a different story entirely!

4

kldload t1_ixvo7gu wrote

It kind of is strange to me. Why don’t we send some terminally ill astronauts or people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to pioneer the first mars trips? Send them there to perform critical soil tests and dig deep searching for life. Like I’m not even terminally I’ll but I’ll gladly take one for the team.

1

ruiner8850 t1_ixe6f2s wrote

I'd love for it to be sooner, but I think we are looking at at least 15-20 more years. I think the timeline Musk has suggested is way too optimistic. There are a lot of hurdles to get over both technologically and with government regulations. I doubt the US government would allow people to go there without either a way to get them back or guarantees that they could keep a colony alive indefinitely. They'd need to send a whole bunch of equipment there ahead of the astronauts. Even picking and training the astronauts is way more difficult than with other missions because of the extreme long-term isolation.

20

TangoKlass t1_ixe2uxo wrote

I would bet my house today that we don't have boots on the ground in 10 years. Way to optimistic.

Given recent events, no boots on the ground before 2050, everything, unfortunately, just seems to take much times longer than they expect. I just hope I'm alive to see it at this point.

11

vashistamped t1_ixe37kq wrote

If all the budget that the nations spend on defense is used for space exploration we would've probably colonized Mars by now.

11

Safe_Base312 t1_ixe41s7 wrote

I've always said, that if humanity could put its inherent pettiness behind it, and actually worked together, there is so much we could accomplish collectively. But, we seem to want to smack each other around more. Sad really.

11

Janeway1109 t1_ixfbduw wrote

We’d probably all have our own personal space ships by now.

3

scunglyscrimblo t1_ixgewxu wrote

There’s a timeline that we only slightly diverted from where we went full stop towards space expiration during and after the Cold War. I fully believe that people would be on mars right now and a fully functional space economy would exist

2

jeremymorrison88 t1_ixe1smq wrote

No. It's taken us 60yrs just to get back on the moon and we're not even there again yet. Cost and logistics are the biggest issues for Mars landing.

9

SLCW718 t1_ixe7s7d wrote

It didn't really take us 60 years to go back to the moon. After the Apollo program, the political landscape changed, and the decision was made not to pursue additional manned lunar exploration. It's not as if we were trying to go back all these years, but just couldn't do it. It was a calculated decision not to return until relatively recently.

19

fivestarusername t1_ixedxo8 wrote

Right but OP isn't asking when it will be technically feasible to send people to Mars. They're asking when will we do it and that means accounting for the political landscape.

6

Guy_Fieris_Hair t1_ixeocfs wrote

If we could throw money at it and remove politics, we would be living on Mars.

4

Wagyuwithketchup t1_ixe5pge wrote

From what ive heard, there is little gain to physically return to the moon and that is why we havent really been super into the idea. Mars on the other hand is a different thing since its a planet that we might inhabit one day.

3

thicc_snek t1_ixe8loq wrote

We will gain a lot from a permanent moon base. Its a big stepping stone on our journey to mars.

6

all_m0ds_are_virgins t1_ixfns6w wrote

What a logistical/infrastructure nightmare. But it's probably a wet dream for a bunch of egghead engineers out there.

1

Shmav t1_ixed63y wrote

You realize the majority of fuel rockets use is just to break earth's gravity, right? Having a spaceship gas station on the moon seems like a pretty big win to me.

0

wgp3 t1_ixejxvn wrote

You're exactly right which is why you're exactly wrong too. The majority of fuel is used getting into earth orbit. Once in earth orbit it takes basically the same amount of delta v to land on the moon as it does on Mars. This is due to the atmosphere of Mars being capable of slowing you down whereas no atmosphere on the moon. So a fuel stop on the moon is quite useless for going to mars.

As for a fuel stop in orbit around the moon then it becomes more likely. However, it would be easier to have one in earth orbit rather than lunar orbit. So it would be a long time before any fuel depot would be needed around the moon. Definitely not needed for any initial Mars missions.

4

Shmav t1_ixesn6y wrote

Taking off from the moon would still require less fuel than taking off from Earth. That would allow the spacecraft to have a lot more fuel to get to Mars and maneuver once there.

Also, they could launch a craft from the moon to refuel the craft headed for Mars, further reducing their fuel consumption. There are a few ways to skin that cat and make the trip to Mars easier and safer. In space travel, easier and safer seems like a pretty good idea to me.

−1

wgp3 t1_ixf12xs wrote

Taking off from the moon to go to mars would take less fuel but ignores the fact that we have to take off from earth first. You either take off from earth and go to mars, or you take off from earth go to the moon and then mars. To skip taking off on earth requires us to build out mining, manufacturing, and ship launching stations on the moon. All monumentally more difficult than just fueling up in earth orbit.

The trip to mars is not safer or easier by building out manufacturing and mining on the moon and then doing cryogenic transfer in deep space. Much safer to use earth resources and cryo transfer in earth orbit where if something goes wrong it can more easily be rectified.

There's a few ways to skin a cat but that doesnt mean they're all equal for the current tech level.

6

xylopyrography t1_ixepifj wrote

We never tried to go to the moon from 1972-2016. The technological development stopped.

The SLS technology is integration between 60 year old components.

The only new Moon-capable technology being developed is Starship, which really only started in 2016.

1

NotAHamsterAtAll t1_ixe8yiv wrote

Land humans, with an expectation that they will return?

Not before 2050.

Land humans, with the expectation that it is a suicidal one way trip?

Not before 2035.

7

TrenchTingz t1_ixeujg3 wrote

I’d say 5-10 years once the rocket is reliable

7

simcoder t1_ixf89fb wrote

You're gonna have to figure out how to build a Starship landing pad on Mars before you can even consider landing a Starship there.

Bit of a chicken and the egg situation there. I wonder if Elon realizes that yet?

0

wgp3 t1_ixhnp7w wrote

That's as silly as saying they need a landing pad on the moon before they can even consider landing a starship there. Especially on the south pole with how uneven the terrain is.

Wonder if nasa realizes that?

Or maybe these people understand the challenges better than you and are working towards mitigating them.

3

TrenchTingz t1_ixfpb57 wrote

With one “all terrain starship” that can land in dicey spots. We can practice for that on earth!

That ship carries 3d printing and scavenger robots that 1.) bring back both rovers (i understand the contradiction without a flight back but this is murica and NASA needs all the help they can get) 2.) print hundreds of “concrete” landing pads in a small area where the next ships will land. More for redundancy, of course. 3.) gather data for the next mission [refuelling stations, oxygen, and survival]

2

simcoder t1_ixfqj9r wrote

"All terrain" vehicles tend to be short and wide so that uneven terrain doesn't cause your ship to fall over. I just can't really see how you modify Starship to address how not "all terrain" its basic design is.

I have to wonder if that isn't one of the hidden benefits of the "catcher" system they've put in place here on Earth. IE to avoid risking one of the ships falling over on landing.

I know there are other benefits but the catcher system is maybe the one way you sort of guarantee that it won't fall over on landing. Although it also introduces other risks but that's another thread :P

1

TrenchTingz t1_ixfqs97 wrote

With all due respect, no they don’t, look up some military “all terrain” vehicles. It’s all about distribution and suspension. The first landing is the only hard one, and if necessary we revive the old mars landing system for the 3d robot.

3

simcoder t1_ixfue7v wrote

Hmmm. OK. That was a pretty broad statement and probably doesn't hold up across the board. Fair enough.

I guess the issue to me is that Starship is basically 5 times taller than it is wide (iirc). That just seems fairly prone to tipping over while landing on perfectly flat ground (with the right adverse conditions). And in "all terrain" conditions, it just seems like you be lucky if it didn't tip over.

Maybe I'm over thinking it. But it seems like ideally you'd want the inverse of that ratio for an "all terrain" lander. IE one that is wider than it is taller. So pretty much no matter what type of slope you land on, you can be fairly confident that the thing will remain upright.

0

PallidZetta t1_ixlowxz wrote

Easy UPS space program has the fastest shipping. Just need to launch some workers to assemble it afterwards.

2

Many-Engineer-556 t1_ixeulkt wrote

Guys, stop listening to what elon musk is saying, you may be really disappointed waiting for something that will not happen in our lifetime

6

EricHunting t1_ixg015b wrote

IMO perhaps toward the end of the century at best. My reasoning here is that space activity is likely heading into a contraction mid-century as the economic drag of climate change impacts compels a revision of the prestige-driven approach of contemporary space agencies. Some will be consolidated into national science programs. Some will not survive at all. Consider, a great many space center facilities are in endangered coastal locations. KSC will, most certainly, be inundated by the end of the century. Yet NASA has no established plans for the relocation of its facilities --the politicization of climate long making the subject impossible to discuss. How well will space program budgets fair when the insurance industry starts abandoning whole regions of the country, Dust Bowl style mass migrations begin, and Washington DC starts looking like Venice on a seasonal basis with outrageous civil engineering follies being proposed to preserve it and the other centers of power, commerce, culture, and upper-class property?

I feel that for space development to progress at all during this century there is going to have to be a radical re-think of how space activity is supposed to work. The racket of throwing bodies into the void for its own sake is not going to persist. The money won't be there. Space development will become increasingly reliant on tele/robotics, in-space production, and high-flexibility-launch (possibly at sea) as a means to driving down costs and operational scales by commoditizing and driving down payload values or replacing terrestrial payloads altogether. (payload values drive launch costs by driving reliability overhead. There's a Tyranny of the Reliability Equation just as there is a Tyranny of the Rocket Equation. CATS was never about rocket technology, but logistics) To survive, space will have to become something you can do at a university level, and I think it will.

6

failurebeatssuccess t1_ixe4ctr wrote

Zero chance in 10 years. It may be that the decision on a man made mission is considered not worth the cost. There is nothing to be gained from sending a human that can't be done with a decent robot.

5

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixezqlu wrote

That's not true. A human can do lots of things a robot can't. Although it probably won't happen in our lifetime if ever. You are correct in saying it is probably not worth the cost. We could send a dozen rovers for the same cost. They aren't as good as a human, but they are still worth sending. I personally feel sending people is far too risky and costly. We can just send more advanced robots as they are invented. Eventually they could be as capable as a human. They are definitely more durable and can stay far longer on the surface. It would cost too much to keep people for any long period of time on the surface so even if they are better at tasks they have less staying power than a fleet of robots.

1

failurebeatssuccess t1_ixf5640 wrote

>>That's not true. A human can do lots of things a robot can't.

I don't think we are saying different things. I wasn't talking about current technology. Robotics is accelerating at a faster development rate than space travel. Ditto for autonomous AI. In 20 years time we won't be much closer to sending a human to Mars, but we will have some serious bit of robot hardware to send. It will be machines that colonise mars not humans.

1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf5bgi wrote

A trained geologist would be infinitely superior to a robot but it is just too expensive to send a person to Mars so it's better to send a lot of cheaper robots.

2

SLCW718 t1_ixe7c8e wrote

I think, realistically, we're looking at 2050.

4

2020survivoroftheBS t1_ixeih38 wrote

I would say about 30 years or so. So many risks and so many challenges that have never been done before, being that human lives will be involved. Just the thought of flying through space for 8 months and having to fight radiation, hunger, possible physical pains of just being up there, and always a chance of hitting space debris especially for a long trip. That’s just the trip, the landing alone would also present risks. Finally, there has to be a realization that those humans will know that there may not be a way back. The emotional distress that could set in could affect them drastically and reduce their ability to live and fulfill their mission. This is much more harder than landing on the moon. Hopefully I will be alive to see it happen but I will not get my hopes up too high (I’m 25 btw) but hopefully they are looking into it as we speak.

4

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixexarh wrote

Probably not for 20 years minimum, and probably longer. People saying 5-10 years have no idea what they are talking about.

4

GoBananaSlugs t1_ixf9793 wrote

During my lifetime, landing on Mars has always been about 15 years in the future (along with fusion power). I suspect that will continue until the Chinese land there. The American political system just isn't built to sustain sort of long term programs that will be necessary to go to Mars.

3

simcoder t1_ixfb4q8 wrote

The Chinese are not really the juggernaut of doom that so many people make them out to be. If you live in that neck of the world, sure, be concerned about what China is doing.

But if you're worried about Chinese hegemony in space, you can stop worrying because the Chinese are in the middle of demographic collapse. Among several other ongoing collapses.

3

GoBananaSlugs t1_ixfs4g5 wrote

They don't have to be a "juggxrnaught of doom" they just have to be able to make funding commitments that last more than eight years, something the US has proven incapable of over the last four decades.

1

simcoder t1_ixfvncw wrote

Well they do have that going for them. Score one for authoritarian socialism/communism/whathaveyou I guess.

But one of the downsides of that sort of govt is something like "the one child policy". Which is at the heart of their demographic collapse. A whole pile of financial collapses can also be laid directly at the foot of centralized authoritarianism.

So, it's a bit of a mixed bag.

1

GoBananaSlugs t1_ixg5ffo wrote

Yeah, I don't want to live in China, I just think, looking at the matter objectively, they have the best chance of getting to Mars first. This system where every President pledges to land on Mars in 20 years, with all of the serious spending delayed until to first two years of the succeeding Administration, just doesn't cut it. Maybe if the US revoked the 22nd Amendment......

1

Kiceres t1_ixe6nbh wrote

Or life span is too short for this to witness.

As Romans stated: Mars Longa, Vita Brevis

2

Impossible_Pop620 t1_ixem3bc wrote

At least 20-30 years. I'll take advice from more learned ppl here, but my understanding is that it takes approx 7x months to reach Mars and land. We would need at least 2/3 trips BEFORE the manned flight to drop return fuel, habitat, supplies, etc. We currently lose 50% of the spacecraft we send there, due to unknown reasons. We haven't even started the build for the unmanned stages yet.

2

The_Solar_Oracle t1_ixf8ep8 wrote

The, "50%" figure is very misleading. General spacecraft reliability has increased tremendously since the 50's, and many of the failed landers are attributable to the Soviet Union's old and very troubled exploration program (something which extended into the Russian Federation's attempts). Indeed, NASA hasn't had a Mars mission failure since the loss of Mars Polar Lander in 1999.

6

Impossible_Pop620 t1_ixf9kc0 wrote

43/78 missions+sub-missions successful, according to wiki. I should clarify that when I said 'we' I meant humanity, not Americans.

0

The_Solar_Oracle t1_ixff9m2 wrote

Again: Many of the failures are attributable to a single nation which doesn't even exist anymore, and this really messes with our understanding of spaceflight as a whole by ignoring improvements in reliability.

As it stands, however, deep space exploration really is dominated by NASA. The agency is and will likely remain the front runner in terms of technology and mission volume for many years.

4

Impossible_Pop620 t1_ixffrjr wrote

I never said otherwise, AFAIK all successful missions to Mars surface are NASA ones. Risks are very high, tho and tbh, I struggle to see them actually doing it in the near future (50x years).

0

The_Solar_Oracle t1_ixfwpdt wrote

My point was that you're using data that's taken out of context and ignores the many improvements which make the old failures; often which were the result of quality control and immature spaceflight technologies. Including the failures of the Soviets' programs would be like using boiler explosions from steam engines to say diesel engines are unsafe.

Heck, even your revision is not terribly accurate. Aside from NASA, the ESA, China, India and even the United Arab Emirates have all had successful missions to Mars. China's even got a functioning lander and rover.

3

Decronym t1_ixf18di wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CNC|Computerized Numerical Control, for precise machining or measuring| |ESA|European Space Agency| |KSC|Kennedy Space Center, Florida| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |cryogenic|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure| | |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox| |hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|

^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 19 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8333 for this sub, first seen 22nd Nov 2022, 23:10]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

2

The_Only_AL t1_ixfbaov wrote

To answer your question and not drift off into tangents, yes it’s possible. It comes down to how many reliable rockets are made. There’s no technical reason why not, we have the ability. We need to able to prove long term life support far from Earth and being able to reliably and safely land. A mission to Mars will require many layers of redundancy, because Mars is a long way away, the mission won’t be able to call for help or spare parts. Once we land on the Moon and prove out systems and gear it will become clearer how soon we can go to Mars.

2

AtomicPow_r_D t1_ixg0frp wrote

Getting to Mars will be tough, might take 10-20 years. The real problem is getting people off the planet. That will require much more force and energy than it took to get off the moon. We'll have to send quite an elaborate ship that can get out of there. And no Lockheed Martin up the road for spare parts.

2

wtr25 t1_ixg54v4 wrote

Buncha naysaying negative people in this thread...

2

Purona t1_ixg5i87 wrote

not within the next 20 years.

We are well passed the days of send people on a one way journey with the idea that they're probably going to die before they get there, and if they get there theyll probably die, and if they survive passed that....theyre probbaly going to die to something else.

2

CrypticOctagon t1_ixgppr4 wrote

There's a lot of guesswork here, but there is still a bit of 'math' we can do to work out the problem. Here's the equation: transit_time + launch_window * num_missions / will

transit_time is about 9 months.

launch_window is about 25 months, when the phases of Earth & Mars align for optimal transit. In space, every gram counts, so a mission to Mars outside these windows is highly unlikely. The 2022 launch window has passed, so the next opportunity is 2024.

num_missions is the number of Mars-transit missions required for the goal of the program. By comparison, for the Apollo program this number was ~11, each mission building on the lessons of the last. For a Mars return mission, num_missions is more like ~6. At the very least, we'd need 4 missions:

  • A probe sample return mission to prove martian launch and recovery capability.
  • A transit mission, taking a spacecraft on a round-trip to Mars, demostrating safe long-term manned deep space flight.
  • An unmanned heavy lander test, demostrating a repeatable method for putting cargo on the red planet, as well as ensuring the safety of the vehicle for future human passengers.
  • Manned return mission.

will is, in this equation, the hardest variable to quantify. For good reason; the trillions of dollars and millenia of man hours required to land on Mars represents an enormous quanity. Beyond the lofty pursuits of science and exploration, there is little on Mars to justify the monumentous cost. In the smoky backrooms of global leadership, there seams to be no appetite for such an adventure.

In pure speculation, though, here's the absolute madlad speedrun bare minimum. Suddenly, dank memes are discovered on Mars, Elon quits Twitter and the full force of the US government is dedicated to the Starship program. Welders are bussed to Texas, and every million dollar CNC on three continents to set to run raptor engine parts. In September 2024, after weeks of refueling, a ship makes its burn, and lone explorer rides to legend. With will = 1 and num_missions = 1, they touch down in 2025. Obviously not gonna happen, but it's nice to dream.

Realistically, num_missions ~= 6 and will ~= 0.15 so we're looking at around ~84 years. Don't be disheartened, though! On this adventure, each individual accomplishment is an awesome sight to behold. Each mission is a triumph for enlightement, for civilization, for science and exploration. Even before we put boots on the ground, Mars has a lot to teach us.

2

illestrated16 t1_ixekdxn wrote

Not until there’s a massive breakthrough in space travel. I believe we lack the technology to block the radiation during the trip to mars and would basically be a death sentence. Also, wouldn’t we have to build structures prior to arrival to stay in because radiation levels are so high? I’m 38, I honestly don’t think I’ll see it in my life.

1

The_Solar_Oracle t1_ixf7j5q wrote

Technically, a ~1,000 day mission to Mars (including ~500 days spent on the planet's surface) would entail about 1 Sievert of radiation. That's only a death sentence if you're getting it within a very short period of time, but it's quite survivable when spread out over the given timeframe. While there would be an increased tumor risk over the remaining lifetime of a Martian astronaut, it would be far from a guarantee.

However, that given radiation figure does not include the use of shielded habitats or spacecraft. If need be, local dirt could provide very effective protection, but radiation exposure on the surface of Mars is less of a problem relative to that encountered in deep space. For that, there are promising, lightweight albeit bulky materials that could provide a significant risk in radiation absorption. Some people have also suggested the use of reusable shields or shielded Aldrin cyclers in perpetual transfer orbits: The idea being that interplanetary vehicles would 'dock' with these structures after burning towards Mars.

4

illestrated16 t1_ixf9hou wrote

I guess my radiation isn’t as big as a problem as I thought, but based on the aldrin cycles idea and setting up structure/habitat I’d still guess I wouldn’t see it in my lifetime. Although placing something in the aldrin cycle in my lifetime would be pretty amazing.

0

Israeli_pride t1_ixg6zt4 wrote

The technology is simple, it’s called water. Or a very powerful magnet

2

[deleted] t1_ixfmntz wrote

Wishing Elon would focus more on this and less on twitter.

1

Insertblamehere t1_ixfoxhr wrote

50 years at least without a massive unforeseen breakthrough in rocket technology, colonization will most likely never happen but it's at least a century away.

The 50 years thing is assuming they plan a return trip though, if it's a suicide mission it could be 10-20 years away.

1

FengSushi t1_ixgas84 wrote

I believe we all ready did in the previous simulation /s

1

Beeeeater t1_ixgjat7 wrote

I have no doubt we will be able to do it, but frankly I don't see the point. It will never be more than a science project, and a very dangerous and expensive one at that.

1

protoman888 t1_ixh6o8a wrote

Not within 10 years no, maybe within my lifetime but I predict it will be a government that does it first

1

spekky1234 t1_ixhub49 wrote

2035 at the very earliest, probably around 2040-45

1

Discovensco t1_ixe59m9 wrote

10 years is the absolute best case, but I believe SpaceX could pull off an unmanned mission in the next 5 years. Maybe even deliver NASA's sample return mission plus cargo for a future manned mission. You can't have a manned mission without some kind of redundancy/safety margin. Maybe in 15 years it will be doable. I saw this prediction about the topic that you can check out

0

PerfectPercentage69 t1_ixec92r wrote

Musk also claimed that they would land on Mars in 2022 lol

Also, just because a rocket is capable of landing on Mars doesn't mean you'll send humans on it. You would first need to verify that it can get there, land AND take off again and return. That will require several trips to Mars to verify and that's assuming everything goes according to plan and there's no setbacks.

Plus, he's basing his estimation on the aspirational performance of a rocket that doesn't exist yet. They've changed their design quite a bit already, which further invalidates his estimates.

2

kindslayer t1_ixf719q wrote

Its better not to rush things. But with Musk's money and rocket company rapidly advancing, I think they could pull it off but not necessarily would. Life is at risk for a manned mission, and I think they can't just do that without assurance of safety.

0

Saktfardig t1_ixenld2 wrote

There are a lot of obstacles to go to Mars. One of the greatest is the complete unnecessity of it.

0

MBeebeCIII t1_ixf9vrn wrote

We might not ever. Robotics continue their incredible advances. We may never need to send humans. At least, not until we can do it easily...

0

scunglyscrimblo t1_ixgfymh wrote

This makes no sense dispute everyone saying it. It’s not just about the science, but also partly about achievement. We will put humans on mars eventually because it’s what we want to do as intrepid humans, it just might take a while and the first human to step foot on mars might arrive at a junkyard for a few generations of unmanned vehicles and robots

2

AIlien7 t1_ixfdblt wrote

Sometime between 2050 and 2070 would be my guess. It really depends on technological advances and the success of missions between now and then aswell though.

0

earsplitingloud t1_ixfg8s3 wrote

I estimate about 2097 or later. It took over 50 years to go back to the moon and a manned mission just to orbit Mars and return is 10 times harder.

0

JumboJetz t1_ixfib9c wrote

Starship will be the vehicle that takes us there I think. Let’s say it is ready in 5 years so about 2028.

We are going to spend a decade dicking around on the Moon I think. So 2038. And then we will finally start thinking about Mars and will be about 7 years from then.

0

grxxnfrxg t1_ixgm125 wrote

SpaceX will send Starships separately from Nasa, do the moon part of your estimate can be cut out.

2

wgp3 t1_ixhyaje wrote

They'll send them separately as tests but they will for sure partner with nasa for sending crew. No way would nasa not want in on that. And considering nasa will have already had experience using starship for moon landings they will be a lot more comfortable using it for mars landings. It's a win win for both to use the other for those first mars missions.

1

grxxnfrxg t1_ixhyhi8 wrote

Of course, I meant that Artemis and the Mars missions don‘t have to happen each other. They can happen simultaneously.

1

StarVoyager96 t1_ixfox2v wrote

I think if Artemis goes well it may be possible before the end of the decade. If Artemis has issues or if we discover new challenges and obstacles we didn’t anticipate before it may be delayed until 2040 until that gets resolved.

0

Maxpower2727 t1_ixgc1bn wrote

Even if Artemis goes perfectly, Mars isn't happening before the end of the decade. We'll most likely have people on the moon before the end of the decade, but not Mars.

2

groundphoenixhogday t1_ixfq7kc wrote

Getting to Mars seems like fiddling while Gaia is burning.

0

SgtTibbs2049 t1_ixfurir wrote

Not counting on it happening in my lifetime, granted how crazy the world has been for the last 15 years and what is seemingly to come. I know that the propulsion schematics and technology we used to disembark the moon were lost though, and this supposedly occured before databases, intranets, and significant data storage options were available. It was simple to lose knowledge about such complex things back then.

The bush administration dropped project CONSTELLATION with the intention of getting people back up there, but none of the higher ups really looked into the why. Unsurprisingly, the government now wants to schedule a mission to Mars, without having solved the propulsion system issue.

I could go on about that issue for some time, but for now I think our best goal, at least for now, is to develop new ways of moving large amounts of data over long distances, without having to physically move it. We still use radio waves to transfer data from the equipment we've sent to Mars, which severely limits the volume of data we can get back and analyze. That technology is more than a century old now.We primarily use optical fiber to transfer data over long distances here (the internet), but it's fairly crude in the medium of inter-system data transfer.

Needless to say, we have A LOT of domestic things to figure out before we make a milestone of moving people next door.

0

simcoder t1_ixg2hs2 wrote

I think there are two people problems that aren't often talked about.

One is that stuffing people into a comparative sardine can for a few years has all sorts of negative psychological implications that risk the mission and are also extremely hard to predict and or quantify. The submarine force has some guidelines on this. I don't recall the numbers exactly. But the gist seemed to be that even people who are cut out for this sort of thing and are highly trained and motivated have an upper limit on their ability to tolerate that sort of isolation.

The other one is the PR issue. A guy like Elon can probably lose a crew and soldier on towards the end goal, maybe without too much of a fuss. But if NASA loses a crew, there's going to be all sorts of hearings and people demanding that NASA get canceled and so NASA is going to have a far lower tolerance for the types of unquantifiable risks that come with the first people problem mentioned above.

0

Mikinl t1_ixgalr8 wrote

Best case 25-30 years, worse case scenario never.

I am unfortunately believing it will never happen.

0

dirtdaubersdosting t1_ixhbqay wrote

I doubt we ever will. But if we do it’ll be at 50 years out. The country I would expect to do it is the US. I’m American, and believe me, neither party is pushing space exploration. Politically, no one’s giving money to it. I mean seriously even I, as a Texan, would be salty if they manned a mission to Mars, but still haven’t replaced Flint, Michigan’s water pipes.

China may do it, but they seem a lot mor interested in spreading their control. I don’t think Mars is on their radar.

The EU? I’m not seeing it, but they might have funding for it. Again, it doesn’t seem like a priority.

Russia? Yeah right.

Maybe, just maybe India or an India collaboration with the US. They definitely have the brain power. Heck, they’re supplying the US with engineers. But they might be at war with China and or Pakistan before getting a project like that going.

Edit: It’s like Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, (heavily paraphrased) “Countries aren’t placing space exploration as a priority; they’re not competing like the US and USSR did in the 60s”.

0

VikingViik t1_ixe4tie wrote

Very slowly until we have an actual need for space travel, I think the need will be incrementally more obvious over the next 10 years and maybe finally at some stage money becomes less important than survival and taking care of this planet...

−1

[deleted] t1_ixe5kz2 wrote

[deleted]

−1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf0751 wrote

That's weird since NASA has put car sized robots on MARS already multiple times without SpaceX...

6

[deleted] t1_ixf1c6m wrote

[deleted]

0

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf1ske wrote

I'm talking about NASA, who has done far more in Space than SpaceX can ever hope to accomplish...

You need to re-examine your beliefs if you think SpaceX is going to surpass NASA in anything.

5

kindslayer t1_ixf9dkg wrote

We're not saying that NASA is becoming inferior. It's because Musk is envisioning on bringing people there soon. With NASA's budget right now, I think they are being careful about expenditure, funds is certainly what's holding NASA back. Not adding the fact that starship's purpose is for manned missions and high payloads. But then, there's no SpaceX without NASA.

1

fabulousmarco t1_ixgu01o wrote

Musk was also envisioning orbital tests of Starship more than 3 years ago. What he thinks he can achieve and what he can actually achieve are two very different things.

Starship is an ambitious and promising concept, but given its highly experimental nature and Musk's tendency to oversell I wouldn't consider it until we find out whether it can live up to expectations.

0

kindslayer t1_ixgx1kf wrote

I think we're all familliar of Musk being bad at promised deadlines lol. But yeah, even with the recent sucessful high-altitude test, we have yet to see an orbital test anytime soon. So yeah, it is safe to say that there's no definite proof yet that Musk can actually accomplish landing humans on Mars. But then, we also can't say that the starship progress is not going anywhere. Finally, we can just say that NASA and SpaceX have their advancements and pros, SpaceX for effective landing systems for rockets, and NASA for the actual accomplished plans of placing human presence beyond Earth.

2

fabulousmarco t1_ixjnh4c wrote

I'm not debating it, but still for the Starship plan to work there are so many critical points to pass that I simply don't feel we've seen enough at this stage.

Launching and landing the rocket is certainly two of them, which of course they've achieved. But for a Mars mission to work they also need to demonstrate high launch cadence with Starship due to the several orbital refueling launches required for each mission. This in turn means that any reusability strategy (e.g. heat shield, Raptor durability, etc...) and fast construction also need to work as well as envisioned.

And of course landing on Mars on rough terrain, launching from Mars (something which has never been attempted before), habitat and life support for crewed missions on a scale which is simply not required for the ISS and so on.

I'm not saying they won't achieve it, but I find it laughable when people talk about the SpaceX Mars missions as if they were a done deal.

1

Jobotics t1_ixe7382 wrote

Tbh I doubt we'll land humans on mars this century. Pretty sure we'll see orbital habitats first. We need to figure out long-term life support without resupply.

−1

TheOriginal_Dka13 t1_ixedblp wrote

I thought it would be by the end of the decade, but the way the rest of musks companies are going right now I'm not sure..

−1

Cautious_Prize_4323 t1_ixeqbvz wrote

I hope it’s not before we learn to take care of Earth.

−1

levitating_donkey t1_ixg1wf3 wrote

We are getting wayyyyyyyyyyy ahead of ourselves here. To date not a single space craft has ever returned to earth from mars. Getting there and back requires too much fuel and logistical nightmares for modern technology.

And let’s say we do find technology capable of doing so, the question rises as to the purpose of landing on mars. There is zero evidence at all that humans can survive and reproduce in space let alone on fkn mars. I don’t think we will ever land on mars due to lack of funding the idea, lack of necessity and lack of capable technology.

−1

Zilfer-Zurfer t1_ixgr36a wrote

how far is Mars?

What is our fastest ship?

Mars is 84.000.000 Km. away from us.

The fastest ship we have was Apollo 10. 39.000 Km/Hr. (with no human in it.) A human will not survive speeds over 6000Km/Hr. (we think.)

So, there we go.

84.000.000Km (away) / 39.000 Km./Hr.(speed) = 2154 Hr / 24 (hour in a day)= ...?.. (days on the way)

84.000.000Km./6000Km.Hr.=14.000Hr./24=584Days. About 19 months.

There is your answer.

BUT?

−1

Just_Michael1138 t1_ixg2grc wrote

Mighty bold of you to assume we're not already there.

Eisenhower's warning about the Military-Industrial complex in his farewell address wasn't just pissing in the wind. There is a technocracy living among us that is at least a century ahead of our technology publicly available. Don't believe me? Read Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook (a Jane's Military Digest reporter, not some fly-by-night hack) in which he discusses Hans Kammeler's role as Obergrappenfuhrer (basically right under Hitler himself) for Special Projects hidden away in 20 miles of tunnel under Oberammergau--lasers, infrared tracking and interferometry, a nuclear reactor, and the Foo Fighters, which were a failed weapon designed to flame out the engines on the B-52s. This is all documented largely thanks to the Church Commission's efforts during the 1970s which uncovered most of the Operation: Paperclip's dealings, including importing 34,000+ nazi scientists (many of whom were sympathetic to the nazi cause, if not open war criminals) and hid them in academia with new identities so they could advance their racial supremacy theories about humanity while forcing the rest of us to live on crumbs.

−2

flowerpanes t1_ixe2tpc wrote

Since it’s a one way trip and we cannot successfully manage to live long term there with current technology, another 50-60 years may pass before enough time,resources and money would make it worthwhile to send humans to their potential doom.

−3

gburgwardt t1_ixe3kjx wrote

Why is it necessarily a one way trip?

5

flowerpanes t1_ixe5op5 wrote

With current technology, achieving a liftoff from Mars that would allow humans to return to Earth using their entry vehicle is impossible. Until we can utilize another fuel source, it’s just a one way trip for anyone who wants to see Mars up close.

−2

gburgwardt t1_ixe5zpp wrote

Seems to discount the starship program, doesn’t it?

4

comcain2 t1_ixeisyk wrote

I'd go on a one way trip, even one with considerable risk. It would be the adventure of a lifetime!!

Cheers

3

scunglyscrimblo t1_ixggkov wrote

They should just send us nolifes up there for testing so we can experience something cool before we die lol

1

DuffyDomino t1_ixe6vav wrote

Why bother?

Robots would be so much better than a human. By the time the mission is even possible, the AI robots will surpass humans...............on everything.

2035 sounds about right for the landing.

−4

wgp3 t1_ixei5et wrote

They quite literally aren't. There's a reason nasa constantly talks about sending astronauts to mars. The amount of science and the speed at which a scientist could do work on Mars is far greater than sending a rover. Rovers are only better if it isn't possible to send a human. Mars isn't impossible to send humans to though.

8

rottencakepowder t1_ixequ0q wrote

I'll give it 500 years before we land on Mars that's assuming we're still alive on this planet. Humans are trash in general, there is no way we could build a sustainable habitat, we can't even keep rivers clean on this planet let alone import and sustain one on another planet.

−4

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf0ds3 wrote

Agreed. We will never colonize Mars but we could visit it with humans like we did the moon. It would be absurdly expensive and probably not worth the money, but we could probably manage it once or twice. Hopefully no one dies in the process.

2

youname4321 t1_ixeee48 wrote

Can’t wait til we land there. Reflect on the billions spent and many lives lost. Then just stick a flag or something, look around and go whelp guess that’s it. Sure glad we didn’t spend all that money feeding starving children cause now we can say we’ve been here.

−6

wgp3 t1_ixeiruz wrote

Yeah how dare we spend several billion on space exploration to advance our knowledge. All that money could have gone to feeding starving children. Good thing we don't spend 100s of billions on video games every year. Could have used that to feed hungry children. If people would just not buy new electronics and instead spend that on feeding hungry children that would be great. Less research on renewables and instead funneling that towards hungry children would be nice. We shouldn't be worried about long term issues like that when children are dying today. Fix people not having food before worrying about those other issues that will cause problems later.

7

youname4321 t1_ixek15n wrote

Now explain to me how walking on mars creates renewables. Does it generate any advance in our quality of life?

−2

bookers555 t1_ixeoltu wrote

The technology that comes from space travel absolutely does help with our lives.

If it wasn't for the Apollo program computers wouldn't be nearly as advanced today, for example, and the ISS helps, not just with weather tracking, but with deforestation and crop tracking, along with the myriad of satellites we have. Other things that have come from space travel research are water filters, anti-corrosion coating, scratch resistant eye glasses, hearing-aid devices...

And since you care about the enviroment, i'll tell you that, in order to reduce the polution created by rocket launches, specially the one on natural soil around launch bases, they came up with a little something called emulsified zero-valent iron, a solution that can be injected in groundwater and eliminates a huge variety of chemicals that can be a huge risk to the enviroment. For 10 years now this thing has been used by a ton of companies from oil to chemical companies, and helps reduce their enviromental impact significantly. It's NASA's most succesful licensed product so far, too.

And if you care about money, are you really going to throw a fit over NASA's yearly budget of 25 billion, when the US military has one of 750 billion and they haven't fought any real conflicts for more than 20 years, and 80 since it fought a conflict that actually affected the US?

5

wgp3 t1_ixentkl wrote

Never said it would create renewables. You pointed out it was a waste because there are children starving now. So clearly you think starving children is the priority and money shouldn't be wasted on other advancements that may have longer pay off times.

I pointed out that renewable energy investment doesn't help starving children now either.

Define quality of life? Do video games improve quality of life? Does faster computing power? Better displays? Do sports improve quality of life? What about astronomy? What about quantum physics? Geology? Art?

There's a lot of things out there that either don't directly improve quality of life or don't improve quality of life at all depending on your definition.

Should we funnel all money related to video games into feeding starving children? Literally a 100 billion dollar business annually. Think of how much that would help starving children. Which is more important? Playing games instead of going outside or feeding starving children? Creating art museums or feeding starving children? Funding space telescopes or feeding starving children? Having YouTube or feeding starving children?

If you can't answer any of those it's because they're stupid questions. If you answer feeding starving children and aren't willing to ever speak out against every other thing then why speak out over this one?

Truth is you will never eliminate every single injustice or bad thing in the world. It's a ridiculously stupid goal to say you can't do something until every other issue is solved or unless it provides some strict utilitarian function defined by something as ambiguous as "quality of life".

It's especially hypocritical when the use case is unknown. How can we know what all may be learned or discovered when we haven't done the thing yet? People could have argued for feeding the poor instead of building out a highway system. Or instead of funding research on electromagnetism. They couldn't have predicted how useful it would be for making life better from a quality of life standpoint. Nor does quality of life capture how important it is for people to dream and be inspired by things. Even if those things have intangible benefits.

3

Ok-Substance8555 t1_ixe844g wrote

Something major is on the horizon. I dunno if it's a tech breakthrough or a meteor or an ET announcement, I dunno. My guess is the mars plan will change drastically in the next 18 mos.

−7

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf0hq9 wrote

There is no major breakthrough coming. We are 20 years min from even thinking about landing a person on it.

6

Ok-Substance8555 t1_ixec5zi wrote

You have the wealthiest moguls on earth losing money at an alarming rate. Why would people like Besos and Elon throw away billions? People like Greenpeace saying recycling has never worked. Throwing up of hands across the world when it comes to having zero options to deal with climate change. My guess would be meteor strike. NASA and everyone else in that space says that ten years warning isn't enough. Taurid showers scheduled for June 2023 are supposed to be the most extreme they've been in the last 20k years. They wouldn't tell us if that was coming.

−3

VividLifeToday t1_ixedupj wrote

2032? Maybe?

1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf0te8 wrote

If all the super wealthy billionaires interested in space gave up all their money for a Mars landing, it wouldn't even be near enough. Landing on Mars with people will be ungodly expensive. It will take a major country or several to pull it off. Which is why it is likely to never happen with people. We can send robots pretty easily but sending people is entirely different and way more challenging.

1