Indeed 2023 is almost tomorrow. And we are note ready - technically speaking - for several reasons for such a manned mission to Mars : one problem for instance to be solved is that of planetary protection to avoid biological contamination of the red planet!

Something similar has been done before. Centuries ago, sailors ventured on the oceans. Without communication or sophisticated navigation devices. Settlers left Europe, Africa and other parts of the globe to the new world. Of course, it was chaos in the beginning. People got lost, died, etc etc.

Same will probably happen with this trip to mars.

I personally like the idea but the chance that it will fail is huge. Also if the settling of people there is successful, conflicts and problems will succeed between the members.

Good luck fellow Marcians!

Daring and pioneering. Risks and stakes are equally high. I respect those that are willing to accept them.

"One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind!" as said by Neil Armstrong holds so valid in this era too. This is the ultimate mission. Allowing so many researchers to observe and calculate parameters and deduce results for the betterment of humanity and the continuation of our existence. Scary it is, let's salute those souls who would finally get to travel to Mars and do something that we all would owe them indefinitely.

Technically --- YES. Physically ---NO

By 2023 rocketry will be able to send humans to Mars. they will carry their food and sufficient energy to keep them warm for a short period.

To stay; there isn't the infrastructure and habitat to to keep the astronauts alive. the temperature on Mars is usually well below those temperatures on Antarctica. Agriculture is not possible unless in hot houses and with sufficient Oxygen. All these ingredients must be locally provided to make long term habitation. Not feasible by 2023. Supplies from Earth can only make every 2 years because of the orbits between Mars and Earth.

In summary --- not feasible in the near term.

I have been tentatively working on a new propulsion idea that might make it easier. Still some years of development so it may not change the 2023 deadline. But it may cut the round trip time if all goes well. Watch this space - or that space.

Quite right Hugh. New propulsion methods will make a human VISIT feasible but not to live there. For colonization of Mars we may have to consider terraforming or find an cheaper means of sustenance viz. warmth, oxygen, and the requisites for farming and self sustenance.

Nicholas, your opinion diverges from the opinion of the Mars One guys who believe that it will be also physically feasible, otherwise what's the point of this mission? Do you think that they underestimate the difficulties?

Yes Vyacheslav, I have completely different opinions on prolonged missions to Mars and have presented a few papers to international Conferences and to universities. I do not subscribe to TV promotions nor to publicity seekers. The Mars One mission is a one way trip with no chance of return --- and it is for 4 applicants only. The difficulties are enmerated below:

1) Four candidates cannot sustain themselves under a hostile environment, because there is no infrastructure to sustain them. Supplies from Earth will only reach them every 2 years, after a prolonged 9 month journey (less with faster propulsion of at least several weeks) and will be limited by weight constraints.

2) No facilities for any serious medical conditions among the astronauts.

3) Radiation: is a killer in outere space beyond the Van Allen Belts. NASA has calculated the safe days for astronauts and they are about 180 days for males and much less for females.

4) The new residents of Mars will have to be in space suits for lack of Oxygen and for warmth.

5) Energy from the sun? insufficient because of Mars being further away from the sun. Currently some energy can be obtained via solar cells for commuication only and as such, is insufficient to provide heat for agrculture, hot houses, andfor living quarters; assuming that 4 residents will be able to find structures locally to built themselves a home.

6) Oxygen? where will they get it from when their carry-on supply runs out !!

A long tetrm solution was promulgated by and ex-NASA scientist who wrote that: initially, automated rockets will be sent to Mars with materials to build an abode, then followed every 2 years with other rockets to continue bulding the infra structure for oxygen etc. After that humans will be sent who will stay for 2 years and be brought back biannually i.e. a supply ship first then followed by humans. And alternatingly.

That would be feasible, but it will be much later than 2023.

When we prepare our vision for MPV competition from The Mars Society, many times in our group was a hard discussion about a responsibility of team on the Earth for persons in the way. I think that proposition of the Mars One is not complete. What will be have persons for them without a famous name in history ?

Idea flight to Mars is very interesting. But they are a lots of problems. One a biggest is not a technically but psychologically. 4 persons all time, no space, no return. One wrong situation, someone could get to depression, and then ?

Mars One don't write: we will help you every time. they write your choice your problem, we only seeing.

Regarding depression: I think that's why they are supposed to carefully select and train only 4 persons from mankind.

I too, but, we never can predicted all what could be happing.

Selection and training is very important. When I read a results of Salut, Mars-3 and last 500-days missions, many times is show that good relationships between crew members is mainly point of success of mission. In one of Salut mission also were the best, but that wasn't enough.

I feel we should talk about manned moon missions first as the moon experoment has already been done.To stay sometime in a foreign planet is as good as Mars.The advantage is people can also return back. Long travel like a year time will never go well with normal human beings. Moon is a beutiful planet why are people forgetting about it?Conquest of new lands were done earlier but the motivation was for the uplift of ones own country men, how does Mars mission motivate?

Selecting and training of candidates for long missions are feasible; but the fundamental requirement for settling Mars is sustainability and whether those going there can survive. We have not yet solved the debilitating effects of radiation that are 91 times that on Earth; much higher when there are sun flares. The question of food supply is a major issue because in bitter cold nothing can grow. The need for Oxygen needs to be resolved, and the need for coomfortable shelter. One cannot live in a space suit, nor in a small domed habitat.

The infra structure for sustainable living needs to be resolved first before sending humans to their doom. Getting back to the Moon seems to be the best test case to resolving such issues, and its proximity to Earth makes it more feasible for rescue operations if needed.

IMHO the project is not feasible at all, except as a publicity stunt. At least everything they plan to do in space. The crew can be selected and trained on Earth by 2023, but the mess they will get into en route let alone on Mars will be something they can not prepare for. Most of the trouble will come from non-tested technology.

There are right now _no_ rockets big enough to launch people further than LEO, and there will scarcely be time to develop such things by 2023. I suspect that 1) the overall will to have this done is not nearly as overwhelming as in the Apollo era, and 2) regulations and laws about testing and getting licences are probably more strict than in those times, and 3) all things built are more complicated than earlier (meaning that more things can go wrong). This all leads to more and more delays and setbacks. And no, it's not a matter of just building a larger fire cracker... Even a replica Saturn V couldn't be built - even if there would be blueprints for it.

Say then that they manage to develop this new rocket. There will also be need for the crew vehicle, and several supply vehicles. Those can of course be developed simultaneously with the rocket, but they also need to be tested in space. Meaning that the rockets have to work properly by the tiime they send up the to-be-tested vehicles. And testing needs to be done on several types of vehicles - one for the trip, a descent stage, and some living quarters that can withstand the martian environment. And then they need to have some on-site factories and facilities to keep the crew alive. None of these things exist yet, none of them are in full development, nor are they in reality anything but ideas or prototypes of prototypes of prototypes. Nobody even knows how to extract or harvest enough water or oxygen from the Martian environment, or even how to search for good places to extract. Without local resources the mission just will not work - it's unfeasible to transport everything there constantly. Oh, and long-term radiation exposure for the duration of the trip needs to also be researched - nobody has done that in practice yet either.

NASA Mars mission development has so far taken maybe five to ten years from the very start to launch. Crewed mission is MUCH more complicated than a robotic mission, especially if the aim is to keep the crew alive.

Sorry if I sound like a pessimist, I just tried to take all the unknowns I could think at this hour (2 am) into account... :)

Jarmo, you are realistic, not pessimistic. I agree with you said.

I think he is a bit too pessimistic. For example, if my propulsion system, or other game changers around similar to mine work, we could cut travel time drastically. One other contender is Shawyer's EM drive, which recently was apparently replicated by prof. Yang Juan in China

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/propellentless-emdrive-research.html.

If his system works as well as he claims it can, then a ship could travel at a good fraction of g/-g the whole way there with not too much propellant on board. That would mean travel time of only a few weeks or even days. Sounds too good to be true, and it's early days on the testing, but with some luck we could be there by the mid 20's.

The descent vehicle propellant or fuel used must be able to perform in the given Mars environment especially temperature extreme conditions. If return back is planned it is like sizing a new vehicle from Mars to Earth. An orbiting space station over Mars is necessary to mitigate the problem to a certain extent. Still more fuel will be required to come back to Earth. I wonder in the present scientific world how the learned people are attracting the would be aspiring astronauts ! Mars is a fiery and aggressive planet from astrological views ; still people fall for like moths attracted to fire. Of course as humans we are eventually really considerate.

Hugh, I beg to differ. Regardless of the propulsion system all the vehicles, living quarters, factories, and other life supporting stuff I was talking about earlier needs to be developed and tested. Travel time doesn't play a part in that at all. New propulsion systems are cool, good, and part of the solution, of course - don't get me wrong. In any case, they need to be tested too, and they _can not_ be incorporated on the fly to the rest of the package.

JFK proposed "getting a man on the Moon and safely back to Earth" in 1960 (61?), and the country achieved that in 8-9 years, after rigorous work, testing and lots of failures. They had about 400000 people and 20000 companies working towards that single goal. MarsOne doesn't have resources like that, not by a long shot. They really can't buy off-shelf stuff to achieve their goal. Everything needs to be custom made. And I do mean everything.

And mind you, the aim is to achieve something that is several magnitudes more complicated than just getting to the Moon and back. Getting people safely to Mars and enabling their later days there (alive, preferrably) is a very complex project.

NASA is the only organization that has sent anything of calibre to Mars. The propulsion system used is still inadequate to send humans to Marseither one way or return. NASA has also considered and pioneered various propulsion systems and they are not ready yet for a Mars One expedition which is being considered hardly a decade from now.

Other plans and iseas are on the conjecture stage particularly those that consider cold fusion; and idea that has never been replicated.

Saturn-V was the best vehicle during an era when computers, communication and guidance systems were just starting to build up exponentially as we are now witnessing. Actually Moon mission was just like Mars mission as we are talking off now. In the modern era Shuttle is the best vehicle design one can think of from various considerations, namely re-usability, multi-start, astronaut friendly. docking easiness, and practically proven beyond doubt for long space missions. It had also the largest useful payload capacity of 30 tonnes and a safe returnable payload of 70 tonnes with the astronauts back to Earth. The only improvement one can think of is to replace the solid boosters with Russian technology of very high liquid engine boosters.

With such an immense technology vehicle at hand it is sad that this vehicle is now shelved. If at all a mission to Mars is to fructify Shuttle is the only nearest and feasible space vehicle one can think of. NASA would have known and would have considered all space exploration possibilities beyond doubt and definitely they would not have contemplated a one way route to MARS with live human payload.

I feel the main problem is finding a proper descent and ascent vehicle with a workable propellant in MARS environment, manoueverable guidance and docking mechanism from a foreign planet to an orbiting platform on MARS or otherwise is the real problem. The hostile atmospheric conditions, habitat etc are the ones to follow later to be pursued or given up

What you say Sandaresan is somewhat feasible. A similar vehicle can be built with different shaped wings to suit the rarified Martian atmosphere, and somehow can be modified on its return to Earth's atmosphere. But such a shuttle requires a long landing strip for landing on Mars and the sophisticated guidance system to land it. I f you recall, the shuttle has no fuel for its return trip to manouver it onto a specific runway. It glides down. We are back into the required infrastructure to be in place so that humans can land safely on to Mars.

Sir Nicholas,

I was feeling that the 30 tonne payload capacity of space shuttle be used for MARS only. This 30 tonne payload will be a specially designed vehicle for MARS environment which will come back to Earth orbit by docking with the shuttle.

You have a great idea of having e.g. a 30 tonne Martian lander or orbitor aboard the shuttle. There has been ideas of having midway stops on route to Mars, fuelling stops and possibly a change of crew. That is in the distant future. The shuttle payload must also include sufficient fuel for a return trip to Mars. Another suggestion is to send fuel to the ISS and park it there. A similar situation in orbit around Mars, so that fuel is available for the journey. All this can be done but not in time for the Mars One proposed journey. This infra-structure has to be in place before any human trip can be contemplated.

sir, Nicholas,

The use of ISS is the correct perspective with shuttle used conjointly. I also had this in mind but refrained from it. No doubt about your suggestion and I am convinced this is the only route.

In 2007, I wrote a detailed, technical 600-page book entitled "Human Missions to Mars" published by Springer in Germany. It is available from amazon.com and other book sellers. This book clearly shows why Mars One is not going to happen before about year 2080. The book covers topics such as propellant requirements for getting there and back, timeline for a Mars mission, life support requirements, radiation effects, use of in situ resources, habitats, mass and power requirements, orbit insertion, landing, etc. You can also find other info on http://www.spaceclimate.net.

I think the time frame of humans landing on Mars is more appropriate than in the next decade.

Donald Sir,

Thanks for the information on you text book.

Before spending money on sending anyone to Mars, I think we need much more solid research on the impact of radiation damage, particularly to the brain, and how to best reduce the impacts. Otherwise we will have astronauts who will have real trouble thinking and functioning.

Radiation on Mars is 90 times higher than on Earth on a regular basis. If there is a solar event and the astronauts are not protected, radiation is a killer in a few days. That is the main isuue to be researched before humans can travel to Mars or contemplate living there

Mans' limit has no bounds is a popular saying.Fantasies can become a reality is another saying. Technology can pursue till the end of the Earth is also a good saying but not to the end of the universe.There is limit what a human body can endure but Aliens can. Fiction is good for the mind and refreshing. But in all mans' technological pursuits the meaning of a program, correct hypotheses properly validated, and technological feasibility, cost effectiveness all are considered and then only any mission has been embarked.

A most wonderful vehicle like space shuttle has been shelved possibly due to cost effectiveness and due to some other known reasons.

When none of the consideration in Mars mission is clearly available it could be a good discussion for young budding scientists of the future. For the proven lot each one will have a variety of reasons not favoring the program.

One among many such reasons is that ; will any man in Mars would like to don the heavy space suits life long ?

In the name of science which is actually achieved by only a handful of extraordinary persons is profusely appreciated by the entire mankind. The caliber of the astronauts and technicians that are made is only through Herculean efforts of Olympic proportions. Now we are enticing the larger fun and peace loving citizens of the world a chance to embark on a promising exciting future!

Very philosophical indeed, Sundaresan.

Don Rapp. How do thing change in your analysis if going to Mars is ONLY one way?

Right now I am working at 150% effort on design of a payload for the 2020 Mars Rover so I don't have time to elaborate. But basically, things are a lot easier. Probably, the requirements are reduced by more than a factor of two.

OK. thanks.

Also note the Mars 2020 instrument PreProposal briefing is this Monday.

I would add this briefly. Long before we think about sending humans to Mars, NASA ought to exploit the vast near-surface water resources in certain moderate latitude regions on Mars as discovered by the gamma ray spectrometer on Mars Odyssey a decade ago. That would have a great positive effect on improving the prospects for an eventual human mission to Mars. The NASA Mars Program needs to get off its fruitless search for life – which isn't there, and begin a new era of search for water resources – which are there. I propose an entirely new philosophy for the next several decades of Mars exploration. Find the water – not the ancient water which supposedly suggests lif – but the present water that will support life if we ever send humans there.

If we send humans to Mars, is it for an exploratory visit or to colonize? if a visit is prolonged and becomes akin to settling there, then we must research how we can sustain those adveturers on a long term basis --- meaning providing long term warm shelter, food production and safeguards against radiation. It also means finding potable water. Donald is right in stating that NASA is still obsessed with determining whether there ever was life on Mars at some era.

On November 18 2013 (orm thereabouts) NASA will launch MAVEN [Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN] to orbit Mars in the upper atmosphere and determine its contitiuents and why the atmosphere on Mars is depleting.

We need such knowledge in advance before sending humans out there.

Steady and sure are the hallmarks of successfully sending humans to Mars. Before colonizing the planet, first we have to send a scouting mission who would come back with the realities of Mars. Scheduled for 18 November, NASA would be launching MAVEN ( Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) which is really an orbitor that would ascertain why Mars lost its atmosphere etc. This is the prelude to determine whether the atmosphere on Mars can be changed.

In the interim, Christopher, your suggestion is starting a colony on the Moon is most appropriate. The Moon is nearer Earth for dealing with emergencies, and radiation, and from which to vault on to Mars. We can learn how to cope with lower gravity, food supplies, recycling, and sustainability on a long term basis.

I also envisage that before truly colonizing Mars, we would have permanent half-way stops of space habitats orbiting along the Martian route that will be kept supplied with essentials. Martian travellers would hop from one orbiting stattion to the other, until a permanent self sustaining habitat can be built on Mars. This would enable two-way traffic.

Earth has evolved with all the living things, plants , animals, capable of living in land and sea, and the great human beings and its wonders are being beautifully portrayed in the discovery channels, animal planet etc etc. We are lost in the wonders of life here in this Earth, and still the origin of life and secrets of its source and working are only superficially explained. Now man ALONE wants to start a colony in Mars sans plant life and animals both land and sea borne; and a time limit has been setup!

No proper launch vehicles in sight, environmental effects far from friendly, and for people around it is the talk of the town.

Dreaming and acting like visionaries are fascinating and once the daylight dawns and we allow the bright soothing sunlight on the earth to shine on us, then the dreams are forgotten and are never to be told again.

Of course nowadays scientists are considered close to God, as many earthly achievements have been made to make people convinced that all what is said is true and possible. As said Man has landed on the moon forty six years back and then there is a big blank. Is man made evolution sporadic and works in quantum leaps?Who are the real spokesman for the scientific community, is it the country's policy making that dictates possibility and impossibility? Or is it the few wise individuals who can prophecy technological progress?

We believe Science and philosophy go hand in hand with truth, and any distortion on this aspect would not not be kind.

The space station as existing now and only made with tremendous efforts can be made into a living colony to satisfy man's curiosity of space. There is a lot of difference between man in a space station and men landed on the Martain surface. The space station man has not lost his kinetic energy which is capabable of making him to return to the Earth, while the Martain man will have no energy and he is static. He will have to build his own vehicle and means to at least dock with an orbiting Mars platform.

True Sundaresan. There must be an orbiting docking station before a human landing on Mars be contemplated. The landing on Mars, whether humans on board or not will be a chemical propulsion landing. On route to Mars, can be a different mode of propulsion, e.g. an ion engine.

I think that the recent posts, particularly that of C. Adcock, ought to be put under a new category: science fiction. The statement: "sending a manned mission to Mars by 2023 is viable, starting a colony there at that time maybe not so viable" is just so much stuff and nonsense. Read my 600 page book on "Human Missions to Mars" to find out why NASA isn't going to do that until 2080.

Very true Donald. But I am more benign on the sci-fi statements because, at least, they may give direction to the pragmatic scientists to engineer it into reality.

Unfortunately, the Mars One project is one of those missions, and in my opinion should be prevented from occurring in a decade's time, and the protagonists even prosecuted, and the idea be left to be just a marketing ploy and attention seeking.

There are some who think that going to Mars and settling there is akin to the Pilgrim Fathers who migrated to the American shores to find hospitable climate, abundant forestry, water, wild life, land to easily cultivate etc... and all they had to do is build cabins and settle !!!! I wish they would wake up to the realities of outer space.

The Oregon Chapter of the Mars Society says:

"When the initial settlements are set up, there will most likely be a few clusters of small settlements. As time goes on, they should spread out. The more spread out the developing townships are, the more likely they will develop their own culture. In the beginning, townships will be dependant [sic] upon each other for shared resources, such as food, water, fuel, and air. Once a more stable infrastructure is set up on Mars, then people should be encouraged to set up more isolated townships. In any area were colonization or expansion has occurred, one important item that cannot be ignored is the law. Some form of law will be needed on Mars. Looking at the system that was used in the old west, we can see that whoever enforces the law can have difficulty completing his job. The 'sheriffs' on Mars must be trustworthy individuals that the majority of people agree on. They should not be selected by the current form of politically interested members of society; this only encourages corruption. Instead, some sort of lottery system of volunteers should be allowed. As for the law itself, it should be set in place to guarantee all of the basic rights of everyone, from speech to privacy."

While these zealots are already concerned with establishing law and order on Mars, this humble writer is merely concerned with getting there and back safely.

I believe that mars one mission may be hypothetical for the time and funds they have but I would object on saying it is not feasible or is childish. There is no current plan for mars in any of the space organisation. Private entrepreneurs like Bas Lansdorp and Dennis Tito took an initiative to try something different. There are a lot of precursor missions that needs to be conducted before one can realize any big mission to mars. I believe that government organisations should come together with these space enthusiasts to make things possible. Even if plans doesn't work out or get delayed there will always be new discoveries that will be led by these missions.

Dear A Jain: This is not a matter of belief systems. You need to look at all the requirements and impediments as I did in my 600 page book.

Dear Donald, I totally agree with you. Every big mission needs an initiation and then can be taken further once basic essentials are taken care of. My only point here is, if the mission is done collectively with the active involvement of Government, Private and Public, things will be achieved faster. Apollo 11 was done when many facts about space travel were unknown, but so much was learned and improved with the following Apollo missions.

Kindly stay focussed on the issue of getting humans to Mars safely, and their long term survival. We are moving offat a tangent.

I have a basic question as to what man will achieve in sending some humans to Mars?

Does research mean proving ones capability as a show of strength?The Mars mission goes against the meaning of life and creation and it is science of vanity, and no use to the common man.Saying it will one day help the future of mankind is tall talk.NASA had understood this that is why the two greatest launch vehicles on the Earth namely the Saturn V and space shuttle has been shelved In spite of being so close and yet very far away. People outside can talk about the limitless scope of science as it is the present language of the human gods.

NASA is the greatest space hub of the twentieth century, and the amount of space technology generated is stupendous and many would call it including myself as one of the abodes of God. The documentation has been so rigid and tight which makes the reports generated eternal. There had been a very fair amount of knowledge sharing which the whole world is grateful.

Strangely due to national policies many aviation and space wonders like Saturn, shuttle, F-16 and more have been abandoned. In France the Concorde and there could be others.

Scientists should differentiate between real capability and the inevitable national policies behind great pursuits regarding space exploration. While scientific achievements can be discussed in a public forum, the nations' policy is not purely scientific. This is where the scenario of possibility and impossibility exists.

Nuclear and defense programs are the prerogative of a nation which is obviously not public. In the last century the reported literature says that around 90 percent of the budget was allocated for defense and only a bare 10 percent was diverted to peaceful scientific explorations on which this thread can talk about.

MARS program if it is meaningfully embarked given the tremendous uncertainties will involve budget proportions which any private funded body can barely think off.

But surely whether any mission is possible or impossible, its pros and cons can be discussed and a sure judgement can be made.

This is a MEDIA project, masquerading as a serious space exploration project. Any serious technical review can poke holes in this large enough to drive a comet through. Just look at their website and ask, Who are these people? The "team" has more marketing experience than space experience. That should tell you all you need to know. They can't possibly have the technical credentials necessary. They just need to make it look like they do.

So this is a TV project, folks! They plan to make millions by going through the motions, completely acting like it's real. They will make millions even if, or when, they are called out for their true motives. They say they are "non-profit", but this is also part of the deception. Read closely and you will find mention of the Interplanetary Media Group, a for-profit company -- that will be pocketing all the media revenue, which is the only real goal.

Is it a hoax? Not yet, which is the real stroke of brilliance. It's all just talk and graphics. It would become a hoax when they have to demonstrate the technology. But I'll bet they never plan to. They are just going to build it up, focusing on "crew selection" and lots of talk, and then setting up a "test environment" where the selected crew has to live in mock-ups of the space colony -- all on reality TV. Right there, they will have made their millions, long before any first scheduled launch. Brilliant.

Many mistakes even intelligently done by man become the base and platform for the enterprising and opportunistic few as the common man lives on here say and is carried away.This is science at the lowest and pains all who value truth.

I tend to agree with Donald Rapp. There are many issues that have to be resolved, not just technical but biological (radiation effects). A solution will eventually be found but not in the timeframe of a few years. More likely, decades.

I am very keen to see the first humans on Mars in my lifetime, but I don't think that we will have a permanent settlement within 10 years (although I would really love to see this happen in such a short time), but I guess there are too many technical hurdles to be overcome. However, I suppose that there will be some new scientific insights and interesting technological application from this endeavor.

Anyway, humankind will always rely on bold endevours such as this in order to move forward - so, I say: let's try it (if it does not turn out to be too dangerous for the humans involved).

I too would like to see humans on Mars within my lifetime. There are more than technical problems to deal with. It is the orbits. Earth travels at 29.87 km/s versus Mars at 24.19 km/s. Almost at the same speed but Mars being on the outer orbit takes about 2 years for a complete orbit. Hence once humans depart Earth on their flight there is no way of catching up with Earth, until some 2 years later.

The technical issue we must consider is whether we can get to Mars AND RETURN within a short window of time to get back to Earth before having to wait for about 2 years. This means a much higher rocket speed to carry the payload of astronauts and their sustainance, that we don't have as yet .

Another issue to be addressed is the radiation factor that we have not solved as yet on prolonged missions.

All THREE!

The second edition of my book: "Human Missions to Mars" is now in press and is expected to be available for sale around January 2016. This is an updated and expanded version of the first edition, published in 2008. This book of over 600 pages and well over 100 drawings and graphs, presents the history of planning for human missions to Mars: more than 100 studies over 60 years, mission studies, and detailed up to date reviews of critical technologies: radiation, low g, propulsion, life support, aero-assisted entry descent and pinpoint landing at Mars, habitat design, ISRU, etc. It is shown that the technical hurdles and costs have been grossly underestimated and the truth is we will not send humans to Mars for many decades to come. For further info, contact me at [email protected]. See my qualifications at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~drdrapp/

Getting to Mars by human visitors is technically feasible for brief periods by the 2030's. The infra structure for continuous habitation is not. A retired NASA engineer considers it would be possible to colonise Mars by 2080 thereabouts. The infrastructure has to be in place before human habitation can be considered. Some real facts about the Martian environment:

Environment: summer temperatures around their equator hovers around freezing during daytime and is minus 170 C at night. twice as cold as Antarctica.

Oxygen: there is no oxygen to speak of. It has to be continuously manufactured.

Food Supply: nothing can grow at these temperatures. A warm habitat must be built so at least one can take off their space suits to eat, bathe and when nature calls.

Radiation: it is 91 times that on Earth; and when there is a solar flare e.g. lethal doses can harm the Mars residents without adequate shielded shelter.

All the above have to be in place first. Sorry !!! there is no hardware around the corner to buy a screw or a piece of wood when needed. There are no trees on Mars. It would take some 2 years for the next supply rocket to arrive. And the cost of $200,000 per kg is prohibitive.

Commercial enterprise? How??? Mars One project was relying on SpaceX to provide the supply rocketry .... but 2 of their Falcon rockets blew up recently. Virgin Galactic? very entrepreneurial and their only aircraft was designed just to venture into space very briefly to sample weightlessness, is not a viable option.

Follow the NASA program where the next rocket will blast off on 4 March 2016 and on board is InSight a Martian rover bigger and more complex that Curiosity that will provide more answers for their next building blocks.

Surely we have the technology to soft land living beings in Mars even though they could be momentarily alive or perhaps live even longer. The Martian civilization will be then the  new starting point which will have to wait for ages to perhaps soft land  their progeny back to Earth. It is like some few men stranded in a vast desert dreaming of landing in the moon during a moonlit day. Science is not of the handfuls but of a vast majority of people from various spheres contributing as one. Fantasy and space movies have been nicely made for the young to dream off not on the beauty but the strange and eerie weirdness associated with it such as ghost stories always haunt everyone . Man likes to fantasy things and will always remain such when man cares not to understand the real domains of science and his limitations.

An interesting question:

The Mars One mission: feasible, scary, realistic, ?

Does anyone from you conduct research in this area? Does anyone of you investigate the problem of a planned manned space expedition to Mars?

Dear Vyacheslav Zholudev, Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.

The topics that are the subject of discussion are particularly important and scientifically important and in the context of human life.

I wish you all good and best regards

Apparently a manned mission to the planet Mars is now technically possible.

Researchers working on space exploration programs argue that it is technically possible that humans already have the necessary technology to carry out a two-year manned mission to Mars.

First of all, it is necessary for the US President to issue a program of a manned mission to Mars.

A similar program in the 1980s was announced by then US President John F. Kennedy.

The plan of a manned mission to the moon was fully realized at that time.

However, the current mission to Mars, technically possible, would require large financial outlays for the implementation of this mission.

Perhaps it would be necessary to organize an international consortium that would organize an international manned mission to Mars.

Maybe it could also be an international crew of this mission?

Then mission costs could be spread over several countries and it would have global significance in terms of international cooperation.

The previous analogous manned space mission, i.e. the manned expedition to Earthly Princes in the 1970s, had the significance of political rivalry between the then US and the Soviet Union.

It was a symbolic technological race.

Is the planned manned mission to Mars also inspired by this type of international competition, eg between the US and China, or possibly also some other countries?

China is rapidly developing technologically, aspiring to become a global powerhouse in a few years time. 1 not only in the scope of production of various goods and economic growth but also in the matter of having the most modern innovative technologies implemented in various economic applications.

In the US, a very large, historically high public debt can be a significant finns barrier to finance and thus the USA will organize a manned mission to Mars in the next few years.

If this mission to Mars is mainly inspired by this new international rivalry in terms of having technological capabilities, it is currently difficult to predict which country will win the race and be the first to organize manned missions to Mars?

In view of the above, I ask you with the following question: Should a manned mission to Mars, which could be implemented in a few years, be an international mission, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of international rivalry of the leading economically and politically largest countries?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

A manned mission to Mars is not a simple statement. Personally it should be an international mission. The contributors to the InSight landing and its mission was truly an international venture by countries who are advanced to hat level. NASA is always recruiting and training new astronauts for various missions and they are from the various contributing countries; and here political rivalries would manifest. they would be allies to the leading country in this field with the facilities to do the launch, sustain the mission throughout, and do the retrieval upon return.

I would surmise that financial and then political issues would be prevalent and with rivalry to keep it moving. if the leader does not do it, then the rival would with the accolades that would ensue.

Space station orbiting the Earth is itself a very well coordinated venture with the major players participating. It is perhaps a test of human endurance to the limits. More than this is expecting too much.

Humans are born to live on earth and that itself is becoming a nightmare with weather changes

According to the saying, the mother of inventions is needed, this technological competition between the main technological powers and the largest economies in the world will lead to a real manned mission to Mars. Most likely, this mission will take place at the end of the 1920s or early 1930s. XXI century.