…assuming you don’t walk out tomorrow and get squashed by a falling anvil or something.
Inspired by this poll; “71 Percent of U.S. See Humans On Mars By 2033”
So whatdya reckon? Will you see mankind’s first footstep on the Red Planet?
I certainly hope not.
Wait a colossal waste of money that would be.
Not until they develop a propulsion system beyond the current liquid hydrogen/oxygen system.
There’s no way they can get a crew there and back with the current fueling technology, unless they go for some Rube Goldberg scheme that puts a refueling station in orbit or on the planet beforehand.
Otherwise, it’s a one-way trip for the volunteers. I’m a big proponent of the space program, but I can’t see it happening until the aforementioned propulsion system is invented.
We the US? No. We humanity? Yes. The Chinese almost have to: it’s the obvious “next step” that hasn’t been done, they’re really proud of their space program, and they have the ability to mandate a nationwide effort. 2033 seems optimistic, but perhaps just a little.
I voted yes, but really its more of a solid maybe. I think there is a distinct possibility of a Mars landing within the next 20 years, but as Buffalo Bilious stated there are some issues that need to be solved first.
I can already imagine the sensationalist headlines if China ends up getting there first,
“RED CHINA CLAIMS RED PLANET”
I wouldn’t bet on the Chinese making it to Mars before the U.S.
China, India, or a private company might end up doing it. I do NOT see an American government-backed mission to Mars happening. With America’s financial mess and the fact that culturally Americans do not value science/scientific education that much nowadays, I think America’s glory days at the forefront of space exploration have come and gone. With space tourism being a realistic possibility in the not too distance future, though, I could picture a private company deciding to put together a mission to Mars for wealthy and adventurous people.
Even if it’s a one way voyage, I could imagine some people out there would be eager to do it. Just as in the past many people were willing to take the chance of dying or never going back home to be pioneers in America, I can definitely picture some people wanting to make the first settlement on Mars. There are people out there who really want a fresh start or would like to make history.
My question would be why?
I mean, we already have our little landrover up there checking things out.
It makes the Sahara desert look lush in comparison.
Now, if it really were a planet with nice lakes and rivers and forests and dancing unicorns and pretty rainbows - sure, go for it. But really - what real purpose would sending humans there accomplish?
I’m guessing not, which is a shame, because it would be epic. 
I don’t expect to die until at least 2080.
So, probably.
China will have a permanent base on the Moon in my lifetime.
I’m less sure about manned Mars missions, but it will be “in the works” at least.
I voted “yes,” but I’m thinking “barely.” 2033 feels a tad soon. More like 2038. And I figure I’ll be dead, or at least out of my mind, by around 2046.
I’m 62, and would have voted “probably.”
It’s just something our species does. We go places and check them out.
Usually, we exploit places in some way that isn’t necessarily obvious ahead of time.
Considering without any breakthroughs in medical technology I can be expected to live into the 2070s and '80s, yes.
It’s possible that someone might walk on Mars if I live long enough. I doubt they’ll make it back to Earth alive. Maybe a landing on one of Mars’ moons and a return is feasible, yet still foolish if we rush it.
I’m very mixed. I see a lot of reasons for, and a lot of reasons against.
What tips the balance, just very slightly, in favor of going to Mars is that it will likely lead to a lot of side-stream technological advances. We’ll learn a lot about materials and engineering and the like, which will be useful here on earth. This was one of the best things to come out of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era, and is certainly one of the great things coming out of the current satellite/robot space age.
I’d like to see another, more serious “Biosphere” experiment, first, demonstrating long-term human survival in isolation.
there’s all kinds of more reasonable and far more important crap i expected to happen in my lifetime that hasn’t or won’t.
I’m a HUGE fan of the original space program so it pains me to answer no to the poll. The question that has to be asked, and will be asked by anybody with the ability to fund a mission like this, is why? Obviously in the late 50’s and 60’s there was a reason why congress heavily funded the space program. Once we went to the moon, Congress cut the program early and cut NASA spending so significantly that we haven’t left orbit ever since. Now it’s such a low priority we outsource our launches. Why would we reverse this trend and suddenly fund a mission by 2033? To answer that, we could look at why congress agreed to fund space flight in the first place.
People in the 1950’s had just finished World War 2 and many of those alive had also fought in World War 1. The Korean War and Vietnam were current events during this era. War with the Soviet Union was perceived to be inevitable. When the Soviet’s launched Sputnik it gave them a strategic advantage over the US. Sputnik proved the US was defenseless against an attack from space. This is the reason why the space program was born. Any advantages the Soviets had had to be countered and any weaknesses in their position had to be exploited if we were to have any chance at victory.
The rocket boosters used to send astronauts into space weren’t designed for manned flight. Redstone, Atlas, and Titan were all primarily designed to carry bombs. It’s just convenient that by putting a man up on top it turns the flight into a scientific adventure. Rocket researchers could launch repeatedly to develop the weapons technology, but do so under the guise of peaceful exploration for public eyes. In fact, virtually everything that money was spent on to aid the space program had military advantages. Computers gave us better flight models and could better guide planes and weapons. Life support for astronauts could also keep pilots alive in high altitude jet missions. The communications system used to communicate with space missions around the world also created a global network that kept our military connected around the world.
Technology in the 50’s was just too unreliable to work without manned assistance. Most of the astronauts came from a test pilot background where they died at a rate of about 1 per week Test pilot - Wikipedia. Computer simulations and flight models were too simple to adequately describe what happened to planes flying at transonic and supersonic speeds. The result was a risky environment that still required a man to fly the mission so we could improve the models mostly by trial and error. Pilots accepted the risk because only a human had the ability to respond and adapt to the unknowns. The same was true of space flight. Every conceivable mission required a human mind and abilities to make the mission work. There are some fascinating stories from this era that are no longer classified that reveal what the military planned to do with the technologies NASA was developing.
Because of the Cold War, there was a political will to fund these programs. By announcing we were going to the moon we were able to put an end to early Soviet bragging of their early space victories. Money devoted to research for space travel went to universities and industry and produced real and tangible results in applications beyond space. The moon mission itself was a symbolic victory that a capitalist approach to solving a problem is better than a communist approach. But once we got there, then what? Science?
By the time we went to the moon man was no longer a necessary ingredient in space flight. All of the best science from space in the last 45 years has come from unmanned probes and satellites. Any budget that includes the cost of people, life support, and living space would have to be faced against using that same space for automated science equipment. Funding manned science on Mars is throwing money away.
Competition? It’s true that China has an active space program but thus far it’s to catch up to the capabilities of the US and Russia. I see no real motivation on their side to fund a mission to Mars either. There’s just no real return on investment.
Private enterprise? Maybe. If somebody developed a radical new propulsion system a mission to Mars would be spectacular marketing. Likewise if somebody developed an artificial environment in space that could sustain people for very lengthy periods of time that too would be a good way to draw attention to their product. But in both cases, these victories come from solving engineering challenges - something that humans are still better at than robots.
So no, as much as I would love to see a manned mission to Mars, I just don’t see it happening any time soon. It’s a dream, but until there’s a good return nobody will pay to go.
I hope not. I think it would be a huge waste of money and resources that could be put to better use, considering we can explore this cold dead planet perfectly well with robots and satellites.