Just heard a news report on the BBC that the Mars Odyssey spacecraft has possibly found large quantities of ice water just below the surface of the planet Mars, using a gamma-ray spectrometer. Naturally, the media are hyping it up and hoping that it could signal a renewed interest in getting our grubby little paws on some Martian soil for once. But, and this is a useful topic for debate, exactly how far away are we from beginning a feasible attempt to land on the Red Planet?

My personal estimate is not very soon. For one thing, there are major budgetary constraints that prevent such a project from getting off the ground (no pun in-10-did). It may be possible from an engineering and scientific point of view within the next, say, twenty years, but a lot of things can happen between now and then.

We have the technology to do it now. What we lack is the will and the money. Of course the money is inflated because the government is running things. Not that I think big business would handle it any better since they lack the will, as they don't see enough profit in it to spend all the time & money it would take.

We've had the technology for several years. Brian's right, though: money and will are lacking in those that have the means to actually carry out such a mission/missions. That's one reason we never went back to the moon, and why the International Space Station took forever to get built (and even that's been cut back to the point of being little more than a scientific curiosity, rather than a jumping point for human expansion into space.)

Found it! Ice on Mars

History Lesson: When Spiro T. Agnew was acting as Chairman of the National Space Council, (which is part of the duties of the Vice President of the U.S. - WHEN we have a Presidential Administration that agrees to HAVE a National Space Council!), a plan HAD BEEN drawn up for a U.S. manned expedition to Mars, which WOULD HAVE had U.S. astronauts setting foot on Mars in 1985!
THEREFORE, we can get a manned expedition to Mars, IF and WHEN enough of the anti-NASA politicians are removed from office and kept out of office. Now you tell me how to do that. Also, we must defeat groups like the "Global Network Against Weapons And Nuclear Power In Space". A manned expedition to Mars is going to be a big job to begin with; we cannot allow CRACK-tivists to dictate to us whether or not we can put nuclear BATTERIES on space probes, whether or not nuclear GENERATORS can be included among astronauts' equipment, or whether or not nuclear rocket engines can be used to deliver large-enough loads to other planets - if we want this expedition to take place. (Besides, the ONLY DEPENDABLE way to keep "Country X" from attacking us with intercontinental missiles is to GET a system designed and constructed, BEFORE those missiles are launched, for the purpose of destroying those missiles AFTER they are launched.)

There are many problems with any manned flight
out of the Earth-Moon system.For the first part
the timing has to be very precise,there are only
certain times when Earth and Mars are aligned in
the exact manner for the safest and fastest transport,even as little as missing the opening
by five minutes would throw the entire expedition
off by months or years or even decades.Then when
it reaches Mars the time table has to be precise
and exact;there cannot be any staying over the
time alloted.
Also there is the fact that any craft has to be
built so as to be able to repel solar radiation
or at least keep it down as to not infect the crew
as much.And such things as space dust and meteorites,some only as large as a pebble have to
be taken into account.
Then come the provisions.
Unlike the Moon landings a Mars landing would
mean that the astronauts would be literally out
of touch of any sort of rescue.So emergency rations and medical supplies would have to be computed to the maximum limit.
Also studies of Astronauts and Cosmonauts who have
spent long lengths of time in space,just on for
example,MIR,show that overlong exposure in space
weakens the human nervous system.Any Mars expedition would mean exposing the human nervous
system to lengths of not heard of before,add to
that the need to get their "Mars Legs"and the
impossibilities continue to grow.
That said is there any reason for a manned expedition to Mars?
Not really.
The media overhyped the entire ice water on Mars
thing.
It is safer and cheaper to continue to probe the
solar system with unmanned probes like Viking and
Voyager.
Also it is time to scrap SETI,over the decades it
has been in existence it has made some discoveries
regarding uncharted stars,but it has not lived up
and will never live up to it's mandate of seeking
alien life,which probably doesn't exist in the
first and last place.

SETI is mostly privately funded nowdays, isn't it? I believe it lost Federal funding due to its "lack of performance."
Whether or not SETI an effective means of detecting life, the Universe is HUGE. I don't think one should conclusively say life doesn't or can't exist anywhere except Earth. (Mind you, even if it does, that doesn't mean we'd be able to find out about it. I personally think that due to the Universe's vast size, chances of life developing elsewhere may be high. Whether that life develops intelligence is another matter... I don't think it'll be anything like the stuff we see in popular tv shows, though.)

By the way, I favor the use of robotic exploration in the short term, especially in areas where humans can't safely travel (such as the radiation-saturated zones close to Jupiter, or really close to the sun, for example). However, nothing beats "going there" in person, and risk is inherent in any venture (even driving to work every day). The problem isn't overcoming technical issues, it's overcoming socio-economic and/or socio-religious issues. (Come to think of it, most problems in the world stem from those issues, but I believe that's topic for a different board, so I won't pursue it here.)
Anyway, just because we may not yet have the means to explore in person doesn't mean we'll never have the means to do so. We learn by doing, not by lamenting what we can't do.
I'm reminded of an old quote (author unknown): "A ship is safe in port, but that's not what a ship is for."

Scott ET Call Roswell McClenny:

There are many problems with any manned flight
out of the Earth-Moon system.

That said is there any reason for a manned expedition to Mars?
Not really.
It is safer and cheaper to continue to probe the
solar system with unmanned probes like Viking and
Voyager.
Also it is time to scrap SETI,over the decades it
has been in existence it has made some discoveries
regarding uncharted stars,but it has not lived up
and will never live up to it's mandate of seeking
alien life,which probably doesn't exist in the
first and last place.

I'm quite glad that Scott wasn't the guy who got to decide if Columbus should try to travel to the other side of the world on a dangerous expedition that he will probably die on (after all it‘s not like he was going to find land or anything like that) or Limberg should try to cross the Atlantic, Cook to sail around the world or Byrd to explore Antarctica (that was Byrd wasn‘t it?)

Yes, it was Byrd.
Just a nit (it's the nature of NitCentral, after all ), it was Lindbergh who flew across the Atlantic.

"Unlike the Moon landings a Mars landing would mean that the astronauts would be literally out of touch of any sort of rescue." Keep in mind that the Apollo missions were done roughly 6 months apart - the astronauts WERE out of reach of any sort of rescue. Why do you think NASA didn't just send up another rocket to help the Apollo 13 astronauts? Because they couldn't get one ready in time!
As for the effects of long-term space missions, this is due to being IN ORBIT for months at a time, NOT to being on a planet (albeit with LESS gravity) for any length of time. Also, astronauts who HAVE spent months in orbit have fully recovered from the effects on their bones and muscles, while spending an equal amount of time back in Earth-surface-gravity. Assuming that a crew spent months getting to Mars, coasting most of the way, they would experience SOME atrophy due to being in zero-G; while spending months on Mars, they would make a partial recovery in that planet's gravitational field; they would experience more atrophy during the months-long voyage back to Earth, then gradually make a full recovery. OR, if the spaceship has an on-board centrifuge, like in the film, "2001: A Space Odyssey", they could avoid the atrophy completely because they wouldn't be in zero-G for months at all. (Except for the small amount that they might have due to months of being in reduced gravity).
"That said is there any reason for a manned expedition to Mars? Not really. ... It is safer and cheaper to continue to probe the entire solar system with unmanned probes..."
There is a natural law which states that any organism will tend to occupy all available living space. I want the human race to have as much volume as possible. Furthermore, every generation has a psychological need for a frontier. And since unmanned probes landed on Luna several years before men did, it is most logical to use unmanned probes to pave the way for later manned expeditions.
"Also it is time to scrap SETI, ... it has not lived up and will never live up to it's mandate of seeking alien life, which probably doesn't exist in the first and last place."
"Rome wasn't built in a day." As for whether SETI will NEVER live up to its mandate, are you claiming to be a prophet? And as for the existence of alien life, let's assume for a minute that (pre-technological) life HAS TO HAVE A PLANET THAT IS VERY MUCH LIKE EARTH, except for such details as the shape of the continents and socio-political stuff. TO HAVE SUCH A PLANET, you have to have the right kind of star system, which means that you have to have a spectral-type F8 through K0 main-sequence star that is not part of a close binary system. While finding such a star system does not GUARANTEE that it will have such a planet,
...
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY SUCH STAR SYSTEMS ARE KNOWN TO EXIST, IN THIS GALAXY ALONE?

A manned mission to mars needs a reason. Note that it doesn't have to be a good reason. A reason for the manned moon mission was the Soviet space program. It was viewed really jingoistically as us against them. (Never mind that they said they weren't interested after we went, the issue is our belief not their intentions.) A manned mission to anywhere but low earth orbit would be expensive. It would not be prohibitively so, but it would be. If some bugaboo rises up as a threat and looks like they are planning a mars shot, we'll go. For that to happen we need:

1) A nation to rise up and threaten the US militarily and
2) Said nation to close the ground in space enough that it is conceivable they'd beat us (not necessarily probable but "conceivable". Japan, England, Canada, etc. are conceivable [unfortunately(?) they are all on our side right now.])

Given that, a manned Mars mission will occur when I'm dead.

China has said they are going to try and launch a manned orbital mission sometime in the next five years.

As for the effects of long-term space missions, this is due to being IN ORBIT for months at a time, NOT to being on a planet (albeit with LESS gravity) for any length of time. Also, astronauts who HAVE spent months in orbit have fully recovered from the effects on their bones and muscles, while spending an equal amount of time back in Earth-surface-gravity. Assuming that a crew spent months getting to Mars, coasting most of the way, they would experience SOME atrophy due to being in zero-G

I remember when I was in high school Newsweek did a cover story on the possibility of a manned mission to Mars. I wonder if I still have the issue, to get more detales. They said that after NASA scraped all possibility of a mission in the near future (the best cost their guys could come up with was $400 billion over 10 years, which is $40 billion a year) a group of engineers and scientists from around the country got together online in their spare time and shared ideas about how to do it cheaper and came up with a way to do it from around $50 billion over 10 years (that's $500 million per year). That plan did provide for centrifical force to simulate gravity on the trip and the mission would lst for around 2 years.

Blue Berry: Granted, one of the main reasons for the Apollo program was for the United States to do SOMETHING (of significance) in space, BEFORE the Soviet Union could do it. Granted also, that that set of geopolitical circumstances was rather unique and is not likely to occur again in the foreseeable future. HOWEVER, one should not give up hope that some pro-space organization will find some way to make it happen. (Also, the way you worded your last sentence sounds like you are PROMISING that a manned expedition to Mars will take place as soon as someone causes you to die!)
On another note, according to the late-night radio program "Coast To Coast A.M.", the Russians are saying now that - as the announcer worded it - they plan to send a manned expedition to Mars in 2015, and would like other nations (including the U.S.) to join in.

Note: Killing me will not get a manned mission to Mars any faster.

For one good example of what kind of people we must defeat in order to get a manned expedition to Mars, check out this essay and the rest of the associated website. For a good example of people doing something beneficial, check out this site.

Brill, where did you find these people. How long did it take you to find a group of people who are aginst all space expolration and one hwo is for any nuclear propulsion even Project Orion.

I may be wrong but when I was in middle school I remember reading an artical on Prodigy's old Beyond Belief science site about that project where he was talking about ways to apply it in the future as a space propultion system to be used OUTSIDE of the atmosphere. As I recall he said that back in the 50s (when it was though of as a launch system) they estimated that the raditation could cause between 10 and 100 new cases of cancer, and that was in the 50s when they had unsuited guys (or suits that weren't strong enough) checking out test detination sites.

Believe it or not, I just stumbled across both of these sites while Netsurfing. As for Project Orion, I believe that NERVA-type rocket engines would be better, both inside and outside of the atmosphere. (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application - basically, the ones tested in the '60's used a fission reactor as a heat source; liquid hydrogen was pumped into the fission reactor, got heated up, vaporized, and expanded rapidly, thereby producing thrust.) Fissionable matter is rare, and DETONATING it is a terrible WASTE of precious fissionable matter.
Also, there have been proposals to use a fission reactor on vacuum-only spacecraft to power ion engines, and nuclear batteries have been of great value on numerous space probes.

I have heard of NERVA engines, Arthur C Clark wrote about them in 2001 & 2010. I don't have a problem with fission reactors on vaccum-only spacecraft, the sun puts out so much radiation that worrying about the waste from one craft is like standing in the middle of the Chicago fire and worrying about the smoke from one match.

Given the fact that Boeing like already the NASA before works now on the anti-gravity propulsion based on Podkletnov's mysterious findings we'll be on Mars sooner than expected.

Yuck. Update

As Herman Munster would say, "Darn darn darn darn darn darn (Crashing down through the floor)!"
Maybe the Duchy of Grand Fenwick will build another rocket ship, fueled with their wonderful wine and using shower heads for thrusters!

Interesting news from ALH84001: 25 percent of the magnetic material in the meteorite was produced by ancient bacteria on Mars

Wow. So is this conclusive? The wording of the story seemed a bit vague with respect to how certain this proves or doesn't prove that there was life in that meteorite and on Mars.

New Private Foundation To Send Humans To Mars

So, any thoughts on how Bush will get us there? I mean we can barely keep some robots working properly up there let alone land them in one piece.

He'll just call his people, who will send the mother ship for us.

Either that or he'll just use all the hot air he generates to propel a really big balloon over there.

You're all under arrest for treason. Or terrorism. Whichever works this week.

I mean we can barely keep some robots working properly up there let alone land them in one piece.

We *did* land them in one piece. And things like the mishaps with the rovers is exactly why humans need to be out there. Humans can handle the unexpected. Robots can't.

Unless the little green martians are destroying the gizmos we send up. Of course if the green martians are triple breasted beautiful females who say "show me some more of this earth thing called kissing" show me the way to sign up at NASA. :-)

I've heard the idea of a Moon base ;aunching pad poo-pooed by "experts" on NPR saying if thfuel is shipped out of Earths gravity well to the moon then there is no benefit.

Poppycock. The hull and engine would weigh less. The moon may or may not be able to provide fuel (depending on what is "fuel") but radiation sheilding, etc. is up there already. For some things I'd recommend a base base orbiting the moon or at an L-point.

I have no done any basic reasoning on this and I'm sure it is chock full of nits. Enjoy.

I'd say you didn't do any spell checking, either!

Of course, now that I've pointed that out, I'm in for trouble the next time I misspell a word...

Also we must be on the lookout for the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator.

What's the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator?

A device invented by Marvin the Martian (from the Bugs Bunny cartoons) to destroy the Earth because it obstructs Marvin's view of Venus. (Isn't that peachy?)

And it makes an Earth-Shattering Kaboom! Hmmm?

Indeed. Actually, it's the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Mod-u-la-tor.

[shuffles off, muttering irritably] Delays, delays...

What was Planet X like, Marvin...?
BTW,Marvin, is there any truth to the rumour that 4 armed Martian Space Gophers, tried to destroy "All Surface Dwellers", & in the process, ruined your game of Golf, Last Week...?

I wonder about the feasibility of a mission to Mars at this time. Columnist Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in the Jan. 26 I read an article in Time that NASA estimated in 1989 that such a mission would could $400 billion, which would be $600 billion in today's money. Pointing out that the Hoover Dam cost $700 million in today's money, Easterbrook asserted that a mission to Mars would cost the equivalent of about 800 new Hoover Dams.

Easterbrook opines that such a mission would be the most expensive nonwartime undertaking in U.S. history, and that absent some remarkable discovery to justify the expense, merely getting the 1,000 tons of spacecraft and equipment into low Earth orbit would require cutting spending on other important things like health-care benefits or education.

Easterbrook was also concerned that when making his proposal, President Bush listed such achievements as pictures of Saturn's rings and the other planets, evidence of water on Mars and the moons of Jupiter, studies of Martian soil, and the discovery of more than 100 planets outside our solar system. All these things were accomplished by automated probes or telescopes, but ironically, Bush's proposal would require "reprogramming" of some of NASA's present budget, which Easterbrook feels couuld lead to a reduction in unmanned science--the one aspect of space exploration that's been mostly successful.

Agree? Disagree?

Luigi, there will *never* be enough money spent on healthcare and education. Even if we threw the entire national budget at it, we won't wipe out poverty and disease.

We're still reaping the benefits of Apollo both direct (scientific) and indirect (engineering). Plus, there's one other very important item. Robert Burns said it best: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?".

Also, Robert Zubrin of The Mars Society estimates that a Mars trip could be done for $20-30 Billion, in his book, The Case For Mars.

That's eminently more doable than the $800Billion you quote.

Luigi,

First off did you know Easterbrook is also the Tuesday Morning Quarterback on NFL.com?

BTW, I would disagree with your and his assumption that is important spending. (In my state we passed an English Emersion only ballot initiative. Would you agree that teaching Spanish-speaking immigrants in Methuen, Vietnamese immigrants in Lawrence, and Portuguese immigrants in New Bedford might be different? Who is better placed to decide if immersion or the old method is best; that community or people 100 miles away?

You education part would replace Beacon Hill with Washington D.C.

Now we turn this over to Kerriem who will exclaim this belongs on PM. Have fun being wrong!

Oh, I agree it is too expensive and we should wait until the Chinese light a fire under us. (For the humor challenged "" signifies I'm smiling when I type that and it may not be a 100% serious comment. The rest, is.)

Right, and here's where kerriem surprises you: This discussion is just fine. In fact, I'm enjoying it immensely thus far.

I would however remind everyone that it's got to do with the feasibility of a trip to Mars. The 'spend money on space/spend money at home' debate is integral to the topic, I know, but.

Thanks.

ScottN: Also, Robert Zubrin of The Mars Society estimates that a Mars trip could be done for $20-30 Billion, in his book, The Case For Mars.
Luigi Novi: I’m familiar with Zubrin through the few documentaries I have on tape about Mars (he’s head of the Mars Direct Project, right?), but I don’t recall him mentioning the cost in any of them. Thanks for the info, Scott.

Blue Berry: BTW, I would disagree with your and his assumption that is important spending.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t make any assumption. I quoted Easterbrook, and asked you guys if there was anything to what he said.

Does anyone see any possibilities in reviving Project Orion for this (the large spacecraft powered by shoving atom bombs out the back and using the shockwaves to propel a pusher-plate)?

Obviously you couldn't launch it off the ground thanks to the test-ban theory, but you could assemble it in orbit like the ISS. Thoughts?

You wouldn't want to launch it off the ground anyways. If you're popping off nukes, you'd only want to use it in space.

Orion, if used, should only be a space-space vehicle.

The technology boon would be good. In 1961 we were not capable of going to the Moon.

Unfortunately the technology produced is unpredictable. A time traveler telling a 1961 computer engineer that the room-filling machine used to calculate trajectories will be the basis on adding 3 inches to his genitals would see how far mental health has progressed.

(The only revolutionary advancement of technology with out a war was because of the "cold" war. Without a "crisis" [read "war; cold or hot"] there will be no technological revolution and no Mars Mission. If Bush Jr. doesn't back away from it President Hillary will.)

Thande,

There is probably a better way to get a large mass to high speeds.

Better? Probably. Cheaper, more cost-effective or simpler? No. At least not at the moment. All current ion, fusion and solar-sail projected thrusts pale into insignificance beside Freeman Dyson's calculations for Orion's thrust (based on miniaturised scale models using chemical rather than nuclear bombs for propulsion).

Basically, Orion is the most powerful propulsion system known to man...until somebody invents impulse drive.

Too bad that the MARS'96 mission failed or else we would have seen those fantastic pictures years ago.

Unmanned missions to Mars seem to fail far more often than you would expect. For instance, the Russians have never managed to land successfully on Mars, even though they have successfully landed on Venus (which is much harder, being covered with boiling acid storms and temperatures of over 300C!)

Some people have speculated that there is some factor upsetting these missions (not little green saboteurs, but something like an extra electromagnetic layer that we haven't anticipated - Patrick Moore suggests one factor in his fictional work Voyage to Mars).

Really, I think this is just another reason to send men to Mars - apart from the fact that unmanned missions are generally not as good at catching the public's imagination and thus getting funding.

The only unmanned projects which I see being real headliners are drill probes to Europa (to look for life under the surface) and the new Interferometers being built by Europe and the USA (several small space telescopes using interferometry to get pictures as good as one vast telescope - eventually we could get pictures of alien planets as detailed as our current orbital pictures of Earth, and all within 20 years or so!)

The secret Klingon base on Mars is why probes fail.

On this subject (Mars Missions not Klingons) the BBC during "Reporting Religion" had a panel of "experts".

First I must say that their concern about wasted US tax money will get a good hearing in the Great Britain primary.

Second I was surprised by this being on "Reporting Religion" until I found out it is really a Catholic plot to impose their view that GOD's creation is wonderful. (Secret Vatican meeting room: First Cardinal; we must land humans on Mars for the greater Glory of God.
Second Cardinal; now to get that 1diot Protestant Bush to go along with our plot.)

(That was voiced by the same person who responded to a throwaway line about a space race between the Americans and the Chinese that she hoped the Chinese would win.)

Let me save everybody time and worry. It won't happen. (Despite the Pope's evil plans.) It is a campaign ploy by Bush aimed at the dreamers to get them focused on something other than Iraq. Although the way the Republicans are spending they might want to spend some more. (Political tidbit to upset kerriem: spending on Health and Human Services with a Republican White house and Republican control in Congress is higher than in the Clinton years. Conservatives used to favor conserving something, but Republicans will change that definition shortly. Back on subject, what is another $400 billion?)

Er, Blue Berry, there IS no 'Great Britain primary'. The leader of the party which wins the general election simply becomes prime minister. thus not needing vast quantities of cash and/or sucking up to big corporations.

I think that we have reached a time where it is simply ludicrous for any one nation to attempt a manned mission to Mars.It should be a combined effort involving many countries due to the astronomical cost factor involved.For any one nation to go it alone these days is unrealistic & will only contribute to thwart reaching Mars one day.

"It should be a combined effort involving many countries due to the astronomical cost factor involved." - Mike Powers

No Pun Intended...

And Classic Who had us sending humans to Mars in the early 1970's.

Boy, were they way off.

Fifty years later and we still haven't sent any humans to Mars.