Mars, the first and last non-Earth planet we set foot on

[Velocity]

I have little doubt that we will make a manned landing on Mars at some point. But I think that Mars will not only be the first non-Earth planet that humans ever set foot on…but also the last.

The other planets in the Solar System are either too hot, too cold, too vaporized or too liquid to send people to - and if I’m not mistaken, the planets outside the Solar System would take far too many years of traveling to reach. Furthermore, the political momentum just won’t be there. After reaching Mars, I don’t think the public’s enthusiasm could be revved up again for another planetary expedition that wouldn’t have the zest of being the “first manned landing on a non-Earth planet”.

What do you guys think?

[Winston_Smith]

Agree. With the current state of things, I wonder if I will see that in my lifetime.

[iiandyiiii]

Mercury’s dark side (Mercury’s rotation is very slow, such that we could land on the night side and still be safely cold and dark for many weeks) wouldn’t be that difficult to land on – it’s a lot like the moon. And there are many moons of the gas giants that wouldn’t be terribly difficult to land on (if we could get there).

Other than that, you’re right. We can’t land people on the gas giants, and landing people on Venus would be very, very difficult.

[TriPolar]

Sounds likely unless we develop FTL travel. We may set foot on a moon or large asteroid.

[CalMeacham]

@TriPolar

Sounds likely unless we develop FTL travel. We may set foot on a moon or large asteroid.

This is probably true. There are enough interesting features on the gas giant moons that we may set foot on one or more, if we ever get going into space with people again.

“Set foot on” might not be the best way to describe visits to asteroids or Mars’ moons, but we might have close human encounters with them, too. Especially asteroids passing close to earth.

3753 Cruithne would be particularly interesting to look at, and could conceivably be “met” with orbit matching without having to travel even as far as Mars.

3753 Cruithne

There are other resonant objects, including an Earth Trojan:

More resonant near-Earth objects (NEOs) have since been discovered. These include 54509 YORP, (85770) 1998 UP1, 2002 AA29, and 2009 BD which exist in resonant orbits similar to Cruithne’s. 2010 TK7 is the first and so far only identified Earth trojan.

[CalMeacham]

In fact, there have been nearby temporary targets for exploration (if not “set foot on” exploration):

Temporary satellites[edit]

On 14 September 2006, an object estimated at 5 meters in diameter was discovered in near-polar orbit around Earth. Originally thought to be a third stage Saturn S-IVB booster from Apollo 12, it was later determined to be an asteroid and designated as 2006 RH120. The asteroid re-entered Solar orbit after 13 months and is expected to return to Earth orbit in 21 years.[26]

Computer models by astrophysicists Mikael Granvik, Jeremie Vaubaillon, and Robert Jedicke of Cornell University suggest that these “temporary satellites” should be quite common; and that “At any given time, there should be at least one natural Earth satellite of 1-meter diameter orbiting the Earth.”[27] Such objects would remain in orbit for ten months on average, before returning to solar orbit once more, and so would make relatively easy targets for manned space exploration.[

Claimed moons of Earth

Orbiting celestial bodies conceivably closer than the moon! Of course, they’d be a LOT smaller, but you take what you can get.

[clairobscur]

I think we will either kill ourselves off or land on many planets.
I’m not sure which is the more likely, though.

[Randy_Seltzer]

Set foot on? Agree. Mostly.

Visit? Maybe not: I’ve read several times that Venus’s upper atmosphere would be perfectly hospitable for humans. Researchers could set up in blimps, and walk around with exposed skin wearing a mask.

Obviously, we’re many hundreds of years away from this possibility.

Though of course, by the time our distant descendants have gone to the trouble of setting up floating Venusian labs, it would be trivial to set up some kind of Challenger Deep type mission to put a guy on the surface. For 20 minutes.

[RTFirefly]

@CalMeacham

In fact, there have been nearby temporary targets for exploration (if not “set foot on” exploration):

Claimed moons of Earth - Wikipedia

Orbiting celestial bodies conceivably closer than the moon! Of course, they’d be a LOT smaller, but you take what you can get.

When 2006 RH120 comes back in 2027, we really ought to send up a manned mission to haul it into a nice big cargo bay and bring it back to Earth! It got as close as 172,000 miles to Earth when it was here in 2006-07.

[RTFirefly]

@CalMeacham

There are other resonant objects, including an Earth Trojan:

OK, I’ve been to Wikipedia, and now know what an Earth Trojan is actually.

But all I can think of anyway is a planet-sized condom.

[Revtim]

I think if life is discovered somewhere, like say Europa, that might make the gigantic pain-in-ass it would take for a humans to get there be worth it.

[Grey]

Of course it leads to the question as to why you’d want to sit yourself at the bottom of a massive gravity well.

[Bricker]

I hope the OP is wrong. I hope that humanity establishes an on-going presence on an Earth-like planet in some distant star.

That’s going to take the will to create a multi-generational ship (or a huge breakthrough in physics).

[John_DiFool]

Ceres, a “dwarf” planet by current definition, would be another candidate.

[Slowki]

Even if Mars is the only planet we reach, we may do more than just set foot on it. I know for a fact that NASA wants a moon base in the relatively near future, and a Mars base may follow in the distant future.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

I hope the OP is wrong. I hope that humanity establishes an on-going presence on an Earth-like planet in some distant star.

That’s going to take the will to create a multi-generational ship (or a huge breakthrough in physics).

That’s probably not a matter of “will” as such. If we end up building space habitats, eventually the population of one of them is going to decide to get a lot further away from the dumbass heathens inhabiting the other ones and cruise away.

[Smeghead]

@Slowki

I know for a fact that NASA wants a moon base

“Want” is not the issue.

[kanicbird]

Set foot on, as in just visiting is one thing, but if a somewhat self sufficient colony can be established, the solar system is open for settling.

[Peremensoe]

@TriPolar

We may set foot on a moon or large asteroid.

Certainly. These are worlds to explore and exploit as much as the planets–more so in some cases.

@Bricker

I hope the OP is wrong. I hope that humanity establishes an on-going presence on an Earth-like planet in some distant star.

That’s going to take the will to create a multi-generational ship (or a huge breakthrough in physics).

Yes. Honestly, the only way I see us not doing this, eventually, is if we wreck our civilization first. Reckon the odds on that as you will.

[msmith537]

@Bricker

That’s going to take the will to create a multi-generational ship (or a huge breakthrough in physics).

I always find the idea of a generation ship to be a bit absurd, as if it’s easier than creating an FTL ship. Lets assume that we could even make complex machines that can run in space for a thousand years. Just imagine the societal changes for the people living on that ship generation after generation.