How soon before we get to Mars?

And what do we do when we get there?

Is terraforming a practical idea or just a sci-fi concept?

Any other planets we can go to (at the moment it doesn't look like it)?

Any thoughts?

 

i et soeone from mars once

 

met*

 

Maybe 50 years, I don't put too much expectations in a derobed NASA to be able to do so. Anyway, terraforming is demanding too much effort even if we get there, it might be possible there though. Mars is rather similar to earth, but due to it's smaller mass and farther distance to the sun things will be very different there even after terraforming. So, at current state of technology, it's science fiction, as well as a voyage to Mars.

 

a long long time. It would be a long voyage using chemical propellant. You have to feed your crew as well. From a scientific perspective I struggle to see the point, I certianly wouldnt want to be the person writing the proposal for the required funding. There are experiemnts that only a human could perform but at the same time they are hardly likely to change our lives which I think they'd need to for the money it would need.

 

We have the technology to go to Mars now, but the political will just isn't there (nor should it be, IMO). So to answer your question about when we'll go to Mars, I'd say "ten years after we commit to the project." Personally I'd be surprised if we landed there before 2030, because there are so many other (better) uses of public money.

Terraforming can be a practical idea once we get mature nanotechnology, but at the present time it's utterly impossible. Theoretically, if you released intelligent nanobots into the Martian atmosphere and told them what to do, you could have another habitable planet in a few years' time.

 

i seriously wonder if its worth it. Right now it would just be to say 'we've done it'. We couldnt seriously make use of the planet or return there with any degree of regularity. There are so many better uses for the money, researching technologies that allow us to start a real and meaningful presence in space at last.

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3766/is_200004/ai_n8899167

.

 

This article tells about an estimated date of 2011 to 2014. Are they serious?
We are almost in Mid 2005. This means that they intend to get a suitable launcher, a vessel and a landing cabin in a few years, with a conservative government cutting NASA funds?

How kid this is.


Anyway. We would profit a lot of such a mission, because as already seen on the voyage to the moon, it will boost technological evolution instantly. (Demand for micro-computers and so on) And this will affect our lives briefly afterwards.

 

I think this is a good point ...

When the mission to Moon was in full-swing all kinds of people were yelling what a waste of money it all was ... but what we got was first a considerable dramatic boost in public imagination and then a tremendous improvement in technology. I mean the pacemaker for one thing was a direct consequence of the Moon landing. And of course miniaturization in all things.

One of the things that continues to annoy me is that NASA seems almost hopelessly inept in their PR department … every single low-IQ-lazy-government-worker-sloth in that department should’ve been fired years ago … Don’t hold your breath waiting …

NASA seems unable to make their case to the public in simple images and pictures, which is what is, sadly, required.

 

.

 

.

 

But how many things would've been developed shortly thereafter anyway, if we hadn't landed on the moon? And of the things that wouldn't have been developed, were they really worth the enormous cost of going to the moon? Personally I think the moon landings were a huge waste of money. Considering the cost, our technology didn't really improve THAT much as a result.

 

We aren't going to mars in this half of this century, just my opinion but I firmly stand behind it

 

no i'd tend to agree with that. Certainly if it were going to happen in the first quarter we'd know by now. I have no doubt that if more money were into space science we could develop the necessary systems. There is however no motivation like that provided by the cold war for the moon landing.

 

even if we did 28% of the population would say it was a hoax

 

.

 

I hate replying to my own threads but so what ...

I suppose we are all thinking about a launch from Earth. I propose that is not what is planned at all, rather a launch from the Moon, which would make a lot more sense wouldn't it?
So perhaps the first Moon station by year 2020 and a mission to Mars 5 to 10 years later.

Some of us may actually be alive to see it ...

 

.

 

suppose you launched from orbit of the moon, how many minerals\ materials could we get from the moon anyway? if you are just launching from earth, stopping @ moon and going to mars why not just sty up , even less fuel, and what about an uberelavator, techno nighnmare on earth not so much in the moons light gravity