Tens of thousands?
More like tens of millions, at a bare minimum!
I do. Not as an end in itself but as a stepping-stone to the stars.
I have more faith in human ingenuity - and in human hunger - than that.
But even if you’re right, we still have to make the first step. It’s incredibly frustrating living in this day and age, knowing that we are deep in the darkest recesses of humanity’s prehistory, but I’d die happy knowing we made just an iota of progress towards self-fulfilment.
If we don’t bypass the limitation of the speed of light.
Do we have some kind of galactic manifest destiny?
I have some really mixed emotions on this. What you’re describing as triumphant expansion, I can see more as the spread of a disease.
- No.
I heard the only reason 747’s etc need pilots, is to keep the passengers at ease?
Even diseases want to spread.
If we don’t we’ll be conquered by a species that does.
I’m sorry you have such a low view of humanity.
Right - I was working with the time scale proposed in the OP.
It’s not unreasonable to imagine that within substantially less than 1000 years technologies will appear that make a trip to Mars look much less difficult than it now does. At that point, the idea may start to make sense.
Even with pessimistic assumptions about the condition of Earth, this planet will remain dramatically more friendly to human habitation than Mars for an extremely long time. So the best way to enhance our medium-term survival prospects (out to, say, a few thousand years) will be to attend to things at home.
I don’t see why they would be particularly interested in a lunar landing, except as a stepping stone to Mars. Doing something the Americans did 50 years ago doesn’t accomplish their goals. Doing something the Americans (or anyone else of course) have never done, now that would do it.
At the moment they obviously can’t do it, but I’m only in my 20s, so that will certainly change in my lifetime (unless I’m hit by a car or something :<). I don’t expect it soon, but sometime in the next 60 years I think they’ll have a go. Won’t necessarily succeed, mind.
It is of course very much speculation. Who knows what China, or Europe, or America (or India, or some consortium of Asian or African countries) will look like in 50 years? So difficult to make predictions that far into the future.
If the trip to Mars is intended to be a stepping-stone to exploration at much greater distances, it makes even more sense to wait for improved technologies. As things now sit, the resources that can possibly be mustered might barely suffice for a short visit. Were that successfully completed, the will and resources to continue further would probably be a long time in coming. IOW, a premature visit might well be a setback to longer-term progress.
Apollo Moon missions can be seen as an example of this. They were done as a grand stunt and for political reasons, and not out of any real need to be on the Moon. Those reasons no longer exist, and we are no closer to a Moon base than we were 35 years ago.
I say no… only for this reason; the reason we went to the moon was to get there before the Russian did, plain and simple. In the '60 “Space Race”, it was about getting there before the Russian to keep us at #1. With no ‘Cold War’ going on now and people not having as much interest in space exploration as they did before, I don’t see any reason to risk the lives of a few astronauts for several months just to step foot on Martian soil. Orbiting in space and returning back into the Earth’s atmosphere is risky enough… imagine having something go wrong halfway to Mars that would make continuing the mission risky and not sure of a safe return in an aborted mission.
I disagree. The first Moon mission in 50 years would have enormous prestige. They could easily choose goals that would put them ahead of the US missions: more people on the surface at one time, longer stays, better science, a reusable base, etc.
As noted above, Moon missions would be dramatically cheaper - and accomplished much sooner - than a Mars mission. It’s also worth noting that the chance of success would be much higher. I think any sensible observer would conclude that a Mars mission using current technology is a very risky thing - and that one way to lower the hideous cost is to accept more risk. How well would China’s interests be served by an extremely expensive failed Mars mission?
Why now, as opposed to, say, 100 years from now, when (we hope) technology has made this much more practical?
Robotic missions to Mars are cheap (compared with the cost of a manned mission) and have sufficient scientific return to readily justify their cost. Thus, they are being done, and yielding information not only about Mars, but also about space travel. (And wouldn’t we want to send robotic probes ahead of a manned mission to any destination?)
A “manned missions or nothing!” approach would pretty well guarantee much less space exploration.
Waiting for technology to get better without developing it. Just how is that going to work? We have to get started sometime, the sooner the better. Learning to live in a microcosm will teach us much needed lessons to help save our macrocosm here on Earth.
ZenBeam
No.
Not because of money or technology issues, but because of a failure of will. It could happen, not easily, but it could. But it won’t, because there’s nothing driving the project that everyone can agree on. This very thread is exhibit A.
Drive, will and motivation for such a thing can and will crystalize. Depending on the notions of the nations at particular times, such an endeavor could galvanize global morale. I’m not in the camp that says it couldn’t happen in my lifetime, but it’s looking pretty slim (I’m almost 36).
Maybe we’ve all become too cynical over the last few decades, but exploration is in our nature. So is doing something for the sheer reason that we can (“Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”). Any challenge as complex as a manned mission to Mars will result in several collateral rewards in things learned and new technology. We will get there someday, it’s just a matter of the right circumstances aligning.
There are plenty of example where developments in one field led to advances in others. For a simple example, surely you’d grant that a manned mission to Mars will benefit from advances in semiconductor technology developed for very different purposes.
I don’t see why sooner is necessarily better - why not wait a few hundred years? At the current state of space travel technology, the incredible cost would demand a strong worldwide consensus that a manned Mars mission is extremely important. From where do you see this coming?
This could be done on Earth (e.g. Biosphere 2) - no need to incur the expense of a space voyage to learn those lessons.