/sci/ - Science & Math

Both are reasonable guesses, IMO.

But only if it's a politically motivated contest, like the moon landing.

It won't happen.

Seriously, humans will stop exploring outer space even before they land on Mars.

>>2220935

Yeah, without competition there won't be a real impetus to go in the next couple decades.

Maybe the threat of a Chinese moon-base will spur NASA into action.

>>2220941
No.

>>2220941

maybe if we nuke ourselves
but assuming that doesnt happen i figure 2050 at the latest..

i mean we put people on the moon over 40 years ago!

2150
the next 100 years will be spent fire-fighting the coming fubar
if we survive then by the end our tech should be reasonably ready and we should have the patience to do it PROPERLY - totally go for permanent, self-sustaining colonisation and terraforming.

>>2220945
All that's missing is a *reason* to go to Mars. If it's a political reason, it can happen soon. If for scientific reasons, then within the next century. If for permanent colonization and economic benefit, a century or two.

>>2220927
i don't know, first you would need to put men in a real moon :/

op thatss awesome...carl sagan has the autotune voice of an angel...

WONDER WONDERS WONDERS

>>2220949
>if we survive
lol
The oil-energy crisis will be unfun until we fully switch to other sources, but industrial civilization will be fine.

if it wasn't for religion we would be playing cosmic billiards with saturn's moons by now

as it stands now with all the economic bullshit and terrorism bullshit probably another 50 years. and that doesnt include all the test-runs and failed missions that kill people that will probably delay the next actual "one small step for mans"

>>2220956
lol
say that with 100% confidence with asia, africa, s america getting genuinely DESPERATE for resources, with seas rising and lands disappearing and everything looking like "it couldn't get much worse even if we fight and lose" and with the chinks, the sand niggers and the russians thinking they could get away with a bit of war against the rest of us while our nations are in mired in political chaos caused by the panic

I hope yous right and it's only a bump in the road. But not sure.

NASA plans on doing it after 2030. Manned asteroid mission between 2020-2035

>>2220967

>You were born too soon. You will never play cosmic billiards.

>>2220974
>implying it's any better than normal billiards

>>2220974
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#

>>2220974
>>2220976

lol.

right now there are probably aliens so technologically advanced that there fucking around with smaller planet orbits and some sort of game juts like we play pool.

crazy to think about

>>2220979

this looks so promising, I hope I can contribute to the preparations when i get my degree in aerospace

10 years after the first human set foot on the Moon.

>>2220951
>>2220992

trolololol lololo lololo

trolololo

>>2220942
China still is not a legitimate competitor

NASA's budget is 5 times bigger and we have better tech and more experience

not the mention we have a private space sector

No way any one nation will attempt a manned Mars mission alone. The cost will be huge. Any sort of Mars mission will be an international effort, likely involving the US, Russia, India, China, Japan, and Canada.

>>2220927
And of course it will be american

We already have plans to go to mars in the 2030's

China not so much

Were building cheap orbital travel we already have out of orbit spacecraft(dragon)

and we are building a new rocket that go out of orbit

>>2221016

>The cost will be huge.

NASA can do it for $30 billion. The US military wastes $30 billion in a couple of weeks.

When President Sanchez declares in 2035 that we are going to mars the senate will give NASA the proper budget.

this is not the cold war anymore, we are share the same technology, its about who has the best engineers and material, for example russia developed a relatively cheap fighter that offers a challenge to the more expensive american homologues

>>2221008
That's why OP said 2032, and not 2015.
Twenty years may change a lot. Think of the origins of NASA and the space race.

>And it won't be an American.

it won't be australian. i can tell you that.

>>2221028
Well...

>>2221021

US military budget: 685 billion $

NASA budget: 19 billion $

If those numbers were flipped we would be on Mars by the end of Obama's second term.

>>2221051
Easy fix. Convince the government to invade Mars.

>>2221051
It's 717 billion I believe.

America cant into space anymore, they are killing arabs instead.

I'm betting on Europe because communism is bad

>>2221054
lol

>>2221055
Sauce on the whole pic?

>>2221025
But where actively working twords that goal

the current plan is an asteroid mission by 2025

Mars mission by 2030's

>>2221065

>>2221057
I don't think so tim

america is so awesome we can do both

>>2221016

>The cost will be huge.

If you're from a country the size of Vermont maybe.

NASA is turning into a ninja when it comes to landing things on Mars. And this is something that can only be achieved through experience.

By 2030 landing there will not be as expensive as it was projected back in the 70s.

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA could do it with its current budget.

The easiest and fastest way to get humans serious about space is find a way to profit from it. The world revolve around money in one shape or form. An enticing monetary incentive will drive private industry, and, since most governments are obedient dogs to corporations, this will thus bring the government to invest in space as well.

>>2221094

Hopefully, because you guys have been, time and time again, returning to square zero ever since Nixon said 'fuck it' and killed NASA Future Projects.

>>2221103
MARS HAS UNOBTAINIUM
BRB MARS

>>2221103

Well, there's Platinium in the asteroids which is a candidate for room-temperature superconductivity, in orbit solar power is five times more efficient because of all the wattage that is reflected by our atmosphere, then there's the benefits of manufacturing in microgravity conditions, the minor tourism things, the science profits, the "We can do it!" factor injected into the economy of whatever nation goes into space, etc etc.

Never. We will be dead long before the first species from the planet earth will "set foot" on Mars. (spoiler: it will be an octopus)

>>2221100
By building a $100 billion space station?

and landing rovers on mars?

Building the space shuttle?


we have not had enough progress but were have been making progress

>>2221098


>russia cannot into mars

>>2221141
Thank you, I laughed.

>>2221143
>were have been making progresss
wat

>>2221190
Sorry I have some sort of typo problem

We are making progress

>>2221113
But if it's obtainable, then it can't be unobtainium?

>>2221206
Tell that to the geniuses behind The Core and Avatar.

>>2221223
Yoinks! Got your nose!

>>2220927
What, international?

bump

about one decade after Never

Never.

1. A manned expedition to Mars will probably require a spacecraft mass of hundreds of tons. Sending something this massive to Mars will require nuclear propulsion. Because of environmental issues, nuclear engines will never be developed.

2. There may still be life there. A manned landing could not be sterilized like an unmanned probe, and could hopelessly contaminate the planet.

3. We have no political reason to spend the money to do it. From bitter experience, politicians know that a cost estimate of 30 billion dollars means that the final cost will be 300 billion dollars.

4. We have big problems coming down the road. Right now, people warning about peak oil and climate change are mocked and laughed at. Unfortunately, they're not wrong.

5. We can't afford it anymore. All of the money is going to go to entitlements, wars, and bank bailouts.

Too bad... I'll never see it happen.

>What year will Humans step foot on Mars?

They have already done so, but that was some 50ky ago. They left things.

undingko comprised

well lets see all the liberals and democrats (who already give less funding to science than republicans do) have NASA's latest mission as going to the middle east and giving muslims feel good lessons about their contributions to science in the past.

so at this rate and at the rate we spend all our money on giving niggers and fags benefits jobs and education they dont deserve, well probably get to mars by 2599 AD

>>2224372
>have NASA's latest mission as going to the middle east and giving muslims feel good lessons about their contributions to science in the past
slowpoke.jpg

>>2224379
lets see if i can make this easier for you:

bush's plan for NASA: take us to mars asap

obama's plan for NASA: go to the middle east and raise muslim's self esteems. any questions, queer?

>>2224386
I can't see it mentioning anywhere a specific date, just saying that he wants a Mars mission in the future.

Look, don't think I support the Democrats but don't fucking think for a second I like the Republicans. Two sides of the same coin.

You seem to also ignore SINCE THAT DEVELOPMENT WITH MUSLIMS MONTHS AGO that Obama announced a manned mission to an asteroid in 2025.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>Less money to research
>Less money to NASA/space researches
>Less money in innovation

We'll surely go to Mars AFTER we readers will be all dead in 70 years.

Fucking politicians

>>2224392
yea after everyone bashed the shit out of him for his faggy nasa mission of muslim therapy

>>2224395
I've been bashing him about not making the Mars trip in 2022.

Anyone who knew anyone about the Orion program knew it was a pipe dream to get to the moon by 2020, much less Mars a decade later. The Bush admin talked a big game but never gave NASA the proper funding to see it through.

That's not to say the Obama admin plans are any better. At least the Bush admin gave NASA a specific goal.Under Obama, NASA is rudderless. However, I do give credit to Obama for pushing privatization of space travel. THat's where we'll see space travel really advance, I think.

>>2224409
It's funny to see the supposedly socialist leader encouraging privatization.

Hi, I fell on the HiVOLT project, and I wondered the feasibility of it, would solar panel be enough ? Would it defeat the point of removing radiation if a fusion reactor was used ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiVOLT

There also the thing about tether propulsion for low mass.
http://www.tethers.com/papers/Hoyt_NIAC04.pdf

>>2224412
if by encouraging privatization you mean taking away funding from something to give it to niggers and communist unions.

>>2224399

>Still thinks Obama killed NASA

Gee I guess you just forgot about Nixon waving at the crowd and enjoying the glory while scrapping NASA Future Projects and the rocket test beds, and Bush under-funding the Constellation program until the only reasonable way out for Obama was to close it and hire SpaceX because those people actually DO things.

Obama made the best decision in the modern space program, that is, privatizing space, which is what America has done throughout its history with, well, pretty much anything.

I mean, SpaceX has been progressing at NASA-in-the-sixties speed, and Elon Musk made that bet of putting humans on Mars by 2020~2025.

Pic related it's a nuclear thermal rocket like what SpaceX wants to build.

>>2220927
>What year will Humans step foot on Mars?

10-15 years after the first human set foot on the Moon. 2030 0r 2045.

>>2224476

You are right sir. Its gonna encourage competition and inovation.

>>2224486

And don't forget the delicious private habs Bigelow Aerospace is planning to build in orbit, the Moon, and Mars.

>>2224480

You mean 1979/1984?

Dumbass...

>>2224476
100 year latter we end up with the "Red's Mars" novel situation.

Private enterprise use the absence of any law in space to exploit asteroid, raise price artificially, make UN it's bitch and bring to another level the meaning of "competition".

Enjoy your space war when they'll declare themselves independent.

>>2224515
Went right over your head there, eh?

>And it won't be American

I would agree that it wouldn't be just the US but if the human race is going to mars anywhere in the near future, do you really think that the self-serving american pigs won't want to claim that "they" were there first?