What nation will land humans on mars first?

[ScienceRocks]

What nation will land humans on mars first? Seeing how America doesn't seem serious about it, I'll say China round 2036???

 

[Two Thumbs]

It will be a group effort

wasting that kind of money would mean skimming from scores of nations so people don't go nuts about the waste of a one way trip

 

[DarkFury]

What nation will land humans on mars first? Seeing how America doesn't seem serious about it, I'll say China round 2036???

Well if the Jews go first the muslims will follow just to kill them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

China's not even close. Best bet is the U.S. Private companies are about as far as NASA right now. It'll be a battle between NASA, SpaceX, and Lockheed Martin.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It will be a group effort

wasting that kind of money would mean skimming from scores of nations so people don't go nuts about the waste of a one way trip

Why not build a reusable planetary ship in order to make hundreds of missions? And science and exploration is never a waste.

 

[SpinDr79]

I know it's part of our instinct to want to explore and lots of people say "why did we go to the moon?... Not so we could look for valuable resources or for intelligent life or even to find clues that may help us to piece together Earth's origin... But just to say we did it as part of a mostly polotical game with the soviet union." We have already been to Mars a couple times. There is no evidence that life ever existed there, there are virtually no resources that we can use from that planet, and our technology is not advanced enough to make it a reasonably timely trip. Maybe a trip to Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, one day where we at least know there is water would be of more use. As far as Mars goes I would agree with you that America at the moment lacks the ability to pass simple legislature let alone have a push towards a human mission to the Red Planet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I know it's part of our instinct to want to explore and lots of people say "why did we go to the moon?... Not so we could look for valuable resources or for intelligent life or even to find clues that may help us to piece together Earth's origin... But just to say we did it as part of a mostly polotical game with the soviet union." We have already been to Mars a couple times. There is no evidence that life ever existed there, there are virtually no resources that we can use from that planet, and our technology is not advanced enough to make it a reasonably timely trip. Maybe a trip to Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, one day where we at least know there is water would be of more use. As far as Mars goes I would agree with you that America at the moment lacks the ability to pass simple legislature let alone have a push towards a human mission to the Red Planet.

By trying is how we get the technology in order to climb this mountain. Not one thing has been done by sitting on ones ass and saying we can't. So you really believe there's no resources on mars? lol. There's enough water on mars to cover the entire surface in 36 feet of water. The resources of our solar system alone could pay for all of our exploration if we do it right. It is the I CAN'T attitude that holds us down.

Of course we will have to beat the attitude to get the ball rolling.

 

[SpinDr79]

I know it's part of our instinct to want to explore and lots of people say "why did we go to the moon?... Not so we could look for valuable resources or for intelligent life or even to find clues that may help us to piece together Earth's origin... But just to say we did it as part of a mostly polotical game with the soviet union." We have already been to Mars a couple times. There is no evidence that life ever existed there, there are virtually no resources that we can use from that planet, and our technology is not advanced enough to make it a reasonably timely trip. Maybe a trip to Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, one day where we at least know there is water would be of more use. As far as Mars goes I would agree with you that America at the moment lacks the ability to pass simple legislature let alone have a push towards a human mission to the Red Planet.

By trying is how we get the technology in order to climb this mountain. Not one thing has been done by sitting on ones ass and saying we can't. So you really believe there's no resources on mars? lol. There's enough water on mars to cover the entire surface in 36 feet of water. The resources of our solar system alone could pay for all of our exploration if we do it right. It is the I CAN'T attitude that holds us down.

Of course we will have to beat the attitude to get the ball rolling.

Hey if technology evolves to allow us to travel much much faster from the desire to explore Mars then of course that would be wonderful. I tend to focus on stressing the importance of finding actual signs of life... Of which on Mars there has been none. Tell me how resources on Mars would pay for the bills? Only asking out of curiosity/to learn.

 

[westwall]

Mankind is the first creature to have the ability to get off this rock. We absolutely HAVE to be able to do so before the next big boulder drops in on us and wipes out either civilization, or mankind, or both. A massive space program is the best way to do that. Space exploration, and the technology derived from it are never wasted. In fact, if we had a vigorous space program the wealth generated from it, would clean up the national debt within a few decades.

 

[HenryBHough]

Iran.

At least one person blown off Earth when they start playing with the nukes Obama wants to give them for Christmas will likely land somewhere on Mars.

Not in any condition to report back, mind, but not all that bad because there'll be nobody left to answer the red phone. Especially not the absent-minded Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Too bad Ralph Kramden isn't still alive. He sent Alice to the moon before NASA and it didn't cost us anything.

 

[S.J.]

When we get all the liberals out of office and sanity is restored, the U.S. will put a man on Mars. Otherwise, it'll be one of our enemies, and it won't be for peaceful purposes.

 

[SpinDr79]

Started off as a cool post and turned to partisan hatred/ idiotic comments... Who saw that coming??? Just once would like to see valuable dialogue

 

[bripat9643]

What nation will land humans on mars first? Seeing how America doesn't seem serious about it, I'll say China round 2036???

It will never happen in America so long as Democrats think NASA was created to prove that anthropogenic global warming is true.

 

[SpinDr79]

What nation will land humans on mars first? Seeing how America doesn't seem serious about it, I'll say China round 2036???

It will never happen in America so long as Democrats think NASA was created to prove that anthropogenic global warming is true.

Ummmm ok so are you trying to throw in a climate tangent to debate about something you think you're more well versed in or do you actually think that the majority of democrats think NASA was formed for that reason? If you've ever read Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson they consistently and blatantly called the Republican party as the "Anti-Science party," and from reading carl sagan books myself it appears his reasons for supporting NASA are based in searching for understanding what we don't know about the cosmos by just looking through a telescope, to enlighten those who are trapped in their box of theology without questioning, to search for intelligent life. I haven't met any Dems who feel the way you have expressed, and please don't tell me you don't "believe" in climate change or just use semantics to support right wing thought processes that deny evolution or obvious laws of nature

 

[SpinDr79]

That was intended for bripat

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What nation will land humans on mars first? Seeing how America doesn't seem serious about it, I'll say China round 2036???

China makes sense. Red country, red planet, too many people they wouldn't mind throwing a bunch away

 

[rightwinger]

I will say, probably nobody

Getting humans to Mars and safely returning them to earth is extremely expensive and not worth the risk

What we have learned in the last decade is that we no longer require humans to do these missions. We will work on robots who can do the same mission with no risk of loss of life and they are able to stay on the job for years without life support

 

[rightwinger]

If you had asked me in 1969 how long before we walk on mars, I would have responded ten years

Since 1972, we have not even sent a man to the moon. The main reason has been.....been there, done that. There is no real enthusiasm in gathering more rocks

Mars has a unique challenge. Not just the months to get there, but the gravity that makes it difficult to return to earth. Think of sending a large rocket and fuel all the way to mars just so you can get your men back

Our rovers have been doing a great job. Why send men all the way to Mars just to collect rocks and bring them back to earth? You can land your own little lab right on Mars, do the analysis there and send the results back to earth. I would like to see drones sent that can hover around the surface, land, take samples and move on

The future of space exploration is not in Buck Rogers and Star Trek......the future is R2D2

 

[Steven_R]

There used to be a saying that about "no bucks, no Buck Rogers." I think the reverse is equally valid: "No Buck Rogers, no bucks." Until there is a real need to get humans to Mars (or back to the moon or the asteroid belt or wherever), there simply won't be any push for it. Political oneupsmanship in the Cold War was enough to get us to the Moon, but now, what's the pressing need?