Will there be human footprints on Mars by 2040? If so, who will have done it?

Brewer's Friend 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Will there be human footprints on Mars by 2040?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 35.0%

  • No

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Total voters
    40
As a huge fan of sci-fi in general as a literary genre, and as an engineer and technologist, and as a fan of space, I really hope the answer is yes.

But as someone who has a basic grasp of economics, I'm going with no. The costs are too high and the benefits too low. I don't see any economic reason to go to Mars. There are plenty of economic reasons to build rockets and launch things into Earth orbit. But the amount of engineering and cost to put together a Mars mission has no discernable ROI that I can find. It's far too expensive for even space tourism. Therefore, I don't see how SpaceX or any other for-profit outfit could justify it.

That leaves nation-states. When we were trying to beat communism, and the space race was in full bloom, it "made sense" to throw insane amounts of money at goals that were--at the end of the day--relatively meaningless in their own sense. Going to the moon was done to prove we could do it [before the Russians]. I don't see an ROI for a nation-state to send someone to the moon and bring them back, nor to set up an outpost or colony on the moon. Governments have enough problems on Earth, I don't see them devoting tens of billions or more likely hundreds of billions on a vanity project.

I just don't see it happening.
 
bwarbiany said:
I don't see an ROI for a nation-state to send someone to the moon and bring them back, nor to set up an outpost or colony on the moon.
Click to expand...
of course there is ROI with a moon base - have you not seen Space 1999?

Space-1999-Year-2.png
 
I thought space exploration was cool when it was the Space Race, the first space stations, and probes from JPL. But in our grim timeline, the first flag on Mars will be a vanity project from someone like Musk or Bezos. It won't be noble and for the betterment of mankind or even just a nation. It will be cheap, and tawdry, and covered in advertisements. The minute Mr. Musk enters Mars orbit, we will be one big step closer to an exploitative cyberpunk future that none of us will like much.

Space travel being commercialized may make it possible, but it will also make it awful.

But honestly, I don't think even that will happen. Pour a few ounces of homebrew and hear me out while I get all paranoid-philosophical-cynical.

Throughout our history, powerful nations have gone absolutely nuts over maintaining the balance of power. Just showcasing power can start a war. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Things almost came unglued when someone put missiles on our doorstep. Missiles weren't even something new, they were just somewhere new, and MAD was still in play. And even defensive technology is the subject of treaties and arguments, lest your defenses allow you to field an offense without fear.

Things are much more polite today, but just imagine if one of our geopolitical foes was developing a weapon system that was impossible to defend against. If you could end-run mutual assured destruction, that would make for an inconceivable disruption in the global order.

Well, that kind of power is what routine space travel gives you. Anyone that can zip around to the Moon and Mars and asteroids like it's one of the sci fi novels that @bwarbiany and I love so much will hold the highest ground there is. It is an unimaginable military advantage, like having air power when your enemy has none. They could even develop the technology to literally end the world--dropping rocks on our heads, like in a sci fi show.

I have to believe that the existing world governments will not let some billionaire just buy their way into having the greatest destructive power that there is. If governments cannot control that technology, they will find other ways to defeat it.

To be blunt, I think that as soon as a new space race heads past our own orbit, we will see some kind of massive realignment of commerce making it subordinate to governments, and where that relationship fails to develop to government satisfaction, I foresee violence. The major powers all go together, in parity, or no one goes at all.

Can you imagine a political rival shooting down a commercial Mars colony ship? I can, because in a couple of decades that colony could present an existential threat to them, like our missiles do today. Or what if a company had no geopolitical allegiance at all? All of Earth would let them just ... leave? Make a new government out of our reach? With new weapons we cannot control or even counter? No way.

tl;dr no one gets out. crab bucket future.
 
Horseflesh said:
Things are much more polite today, but just imagine if one of our geopolitical foes was developing a weapon system that was impossible to defend against. If you could end-run mutual assured destruction, that would make for an inconceivable disruption in the global order.
Click to expand...

exactly why so many are getting their skivvies bunched over the hyper-sonic technology that several countries are on the verge of rolling out in the first iteration of delivery systems. and in counter, why laser defense system technology is also seeing a push

To be blunt, I think that as soon as a new space race heads past our own orbit, we will see some kind of massive realignment of commerce making it subordinate to governments, and where that relationship fails to develop to government satisfaction, I foresee violence.
Click to expand...

ever see the National Geographic tv series Mars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)

the first season didn't come to global violence, but it does pit truly scientific endeavors vs a capitalized commercial interest in the race to explore/exploit the big red ball
 
"The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit(462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C)"

Yeah. Hard pass on that. I'd prefer a much chiller environment. Plus, there are days I'd appreciate lower gravity...

Cheers! ;)
 
I'm betting "Elon" will be written in the mars dust.
 
Aside from being rather scorching hot, the atmosphere of Venus is also incredibly acidic, and the pressure at the surface must be incredible. It would likely be akin to the pressure witnessed about a mile down in one of our oceans.

The plus would be that it isn't ever very windy at the surface.
 
6 - 8 months each way, then a stay for? how long? 17 months, It would have to be a huge spaceship just to carry enough food to keep the explorers alive. So no, unless some tremendous breakthrough regarding propulsion.
 
Does Glencore (mining company) have a flag? A large mining company might plant their flag and make footprints before any space tourism or country. Of course they would need to contract with one of the companies like Space X.
 
Horseflesh said:
... as soon as a new space race heads past our own orbit, we will see some kind of massive realignment of commerce making it subordinate to governments, and where that relationship fails to develop to government satisfaction, I foresee violence. The major powers all go together, in parity, or no one goes at all.
Click to expand...

When have all major powers truly gone together, in parity, on anything? Sure, we can point to some military and economic campaigns, but even then each was secretly or overtly looking out for their own self interests at the cost of the other members of the collective. Your contention that the major powers of the earth are going to cooperate at this level is at odds with what history reveals to us about ourselves.

Can you imagine a political rival shooting down a commercial Mars colony ship? I can, because in a couple of decades that colony could present an existential threat to them, like our missiles do today. Or what if a company had no geopolitical allegiance at all? All of Earth would let them just ... leave? Make a new government out of our reach? With new weapons we cannot control or even counter? No way...
Click to expand...

For this line of logic to have any chance of becoming reality, you have to make two big assumptions.

First you have to assume that such an enterprise (a colony on Mars, or the moon) could be self sustaining. That is a enormous stretch.

The second assumption is that such a colony could grow strong enough to have the spare resources to develop plans and weapons to threaten Earth. That's another huge stretch. Making oxygen, growing food, maintaining airlocks, etc, will be far more important things to the people on such a colony.

The thought that such a colony could threaten Earth makes for good sci-fi book/movie plots, but not much else.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
I expect we'll be mining asteroids before we have footprints on mars.
Click to expand...

Just drilling the first hole to anchor to an asteroid is a non trivial problem.

You can't push against the asteroid with a drill. If you do, you float away from it.
 
LittleRiver said:
Just drilling the first hole to anchor to an asteroid is a non trivial problem.

You can't push against the asteroid with a drill. If you do, you float away from it.
Click to expand...
These are problems that have to be solved. I don't think there is anyway we will have effective exploration/commercialization of space without first having space-based manufacturing which will absolutely require mining asteroids. There really is no sustainable way to get water and iron out of the planet's grasp any other way.
 
shoengine said:
These are problems that have to be solved. I don't think there is anyway we will have effective exploration/commercialization of space without first having space-based manufacturing which will absolutely require mining asteroids. There really is no sustainable way to get water and iron out of the planet's grasp any other way.
Click to expand...

Mining asteroids is a neat sounding idea, until you look at the cost of the engineering effort required to make it happen. That was the point I was making, we take drilling a hole for granted here on Earth but on an asteroid it becomes an engineering and economic challenge.

Same thing with a colony on Mars, it's a neat sounding idea until you look at the costs of developing it and trying to sustain it over time. The argument that we need to be on two planets as an insurance policy in case this one becomes uninhabitable is ridiculous. If Earth dies, a colony on Mars would die afterward due to lack of support from Earth.

The idea of a self sustaining colony in the harsh conditions of Mars is a great sci-fi story line, but not much else. That will be the case until there is a massive shift in our knowledge that opens up new ways of generating power and lifting loads into space. Even Einstein's brilliance 100 years ago did not open up the path to make colonizing another planet feasible or sustainable.
 
LittleRiver said:
Mining asteroids is a neat sounding idea, until you look at the cost of the engineering effort required to make it happen. That was the point I was making, we take drilling a hole for granted here on Earth but on an asteroid it becomes an engineering and economic challenge.

Same thing with a colony on Mars, it's a neat sounding idea until you look at the costs of developing it and trying to sustain it over time. The argument that we need to be on two planets as an insurance policy in case this one becomes uninhabitable is ridiculous. If Earth dies, a colony on Mars would die afterward due to lack of support from Earth.

The idea of a self sustaining colony in the harsh conditions of Mars is a great sci-fi story line, but not much else. That will be the case until there is a massive shift in our knowledge that opens up new ways of generating power and lifting loads into space. Even Einstein's brilliance 100 years ago did not open up the path to make colonizing another planet feasible or sustainable.
Click to expand...

I do believe that we will someday have self sustaining colonies on the moon or Mars. But it will not happen in any of our lives time-frame. I would say at least 100 years into the future.
 
No matter how many romantics envision it, it won't happen without significant money and a country's backing. I don't see NASA and the US doing it.
LittleRiver said:
Mining asteroids is a neat sounding idea, until you look at the cost of the engineering effort required to make it happen. That was the point I was making, we take drilling a hole for granted here on Earth but on an asteroid it becomes an engineering and economic challenge.

Same thing with a colony on Mars, it's a neat sounding idea until you look at the costs of developing it and trying to sustain it over time. The argument that we need to be on two planets as an insurance policy in case this one becomes uninhabitable is ridiculous. If Earth dies, a colony on Mars would die afterward due to lack of support from Earth.

The idea of a self sustaining colony in the harsh conditions of Mars is a great sci-fi story line, but not much else. That will be the case until there is a massive shift in our knowledge that opens up new ways of generating power and lifting loads into space. Even Einstein's brilliance 100 years ago did not open up the path to make colonizing another planet feasible or sustainable.
Click to expand...

It would be easier to fix whatever woes befall our own planet than to try to make another planet inhabitable.

Climate change is the big fear these days - there's this concern that the oceans will rise 2 inches and flood the luxury condos in Miami, or the polar bear will go extinct. Due to the existing climate, mars already lacks these things. Overpopulation will cause some unpleasantness for sure, but I'll bet that it's a dream vacation compared to living on mars under a plastic bubble eating your own poo.

I don't see a good reason to attempt to colonize another planet. If you know of a safe way to dump nuclear waste on the dark side of the moon, well now you've got my attention.
 
passedpawn said:
I don't see a good reason to attempt to colonize another planet. If you know of a safe way to dump nuclear waste on the dark side of the moon, well now you've got my attention.
Click to expand...

Despite what Superman tried to tell us, there is no dark side of the moon. There is a far side of the moon (relative to the earth), but all sides of the moon end up exposed to sunlight in the course of the lunar month.
 
LittleRiver said:
Same thing with a colony on Mars, it's a neat sounding idea until you look at the costs of developing it and trying to sustain it over time. The argument that we need to be on two planets as an insurance policy in case this one becomes uninhabitable is ridiculous. If Earth dies, a colony on Mars would die afterward due to lack of support from Earth.

The idea of a self sustaining colony in the harsh conditions of Mars is a great sci-fi story line, but not much else. That will be the case until there is a massive shift in our knowledge that opens up new ways of generating power and lifting loads into space. Even Einstein's brilliance 100 years ago did not open up the path to make colonizing another planet feasible or sustainable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I should point out that I don't believe that humans will *NEVER* step foot on Mars and/or even colonize Mars. But it's both a technology and an economic problem that won't be solved by 2040, OP's original poll question.

Economically it makes no sense with today's technology. And the technology required to develop to get to the point where it makes sense economically is far more than 2 decades out.
 
In a few more decades there will be so much man made waste and debris orbiting the earth that no manned space flights will be safe (in relative terms) to undertake.
 
It's a big universe. Think of all of the advanced civilizations that may be out there living on super-earth size planets with gravity so strong that escape velocity can't be achieved at all via hydrogen based fuels. They don't even have the option of departing their planets, unless perhaps they attempt to do so via nuclear blast propulsion.
 
bwarbiany said:
Despite what Superman tried to tell us, there is no dark side of the moon. There is a far side of the moon (relative to the earth), but all sides of the moon end up exposed to sunlight in the course of the lunar month.
Click to expand...

Wait, but, but... what if the dam breaks open many years too soon, and if there is no room upon the hill, and if my head explodes with dark forbodings too?

 
LittleRiver said:
When have all major powers truly gone together, in parity, on anything?

First you have to assume that such an enterprise (a colony on Mars, or the moon) could be self sustaining. That is a enormous stretch...
Click to expand...

By “parity” I mean more like the cold war’s parity. Parity not in cooperation, but in capabilities... a competition. A race on somewhat even footing can progress, someone leapfrogging the pack would not be tolerated.

And you’re right of course about the difficulty of anything offworld being self-sustaining. That’s... a long way off. And that is the critical point that the powers here cannot allow to come to pass.

It’s going to be all fun and games for quite a while, until suddenly it’s not.

IMHO!
 
Horseflesh said:
By “parity” I mean more like the cold war’s parity. Parity not in cooperation, but in capabilities... a competition. A race on somewhat even footing can progress, someone leapfrogging the pack would not be tolerated.

And you’re right of course about the difficulty of anything offworld being self-sustaining. That’s... a long way off. And that is the critical point that the powers here cannot allow to come to pass...
Click to expand...

I just can't buy that argument, and I don't think history supports it.

What about when the USA leapfrogged way ahead of everyone else in manned spaceflight? We put boot prints on the moon, and not just one mission, we did it successfully over and over. That was a big deal. The world responded with an amazing outpouring of support, not with the type of response that you are proposing.

How about the formation of the USA? In your logic England would still be trying to bring us under control, for doing something that could not be tolerated (creating a new entity, that could potentially grow strong and be a threat). England did fight to hold onto her colony, but in the end had to let it go its own way. Since then England has been a close partner and military ally of the USA.
 
Tolerating boots on the moon, a few missions in frail ships, is really different than having a functional civilization hanging over your head. It was a great leap but it was also far short of orbital weapons--an arms control topic that was negotiated, I think.

I don't think the England example makes your case: there was a fight, and they lost. If they calculated that round 2 would have worked out for them, I am sure it would have happened.

The fact that England is not attacking us today does not, IMHO, support the idea that the USA will happily let someone else set up an untouchable space-based weapon at some point in the future.

But anything too interesting, for good or ill, is likely to be long after we are gone... I'm with you on that. Musk may get his wish to retire on Mars but it will be a reality TV stunt, not a new nation in the making. Sustainability is the real hurdle, like you said.
 

Similar threads

Dland
Reminder, check and tighten contacts on cords
Replies
1
Views
381
Broken Crow
Broken Crow
R
How many styles of beer do you have
Replies
22
Views
623
jdauria
jdauria
dbsmith
Dumbest things you have done while kegging
Replies
19
Views
1K
Graham H
G
Clint Yeastwood
Duotight and CO2: Hand-Tight not Enough?
Replies
8
Views
970
DuncB
D
R
Helles style
Replies
18
Views
1K
Brooothru
Brooothru

Latest posts

Back
Top