What chance to you give for many to reach mars in the next 50 years?

50%? 20%? I guess the answer is really what chance is there that a space
race will develop, as there doesn't seem to be any point in going to mars
other than bragging rights.

Well lets see, if we are back on the Moon by 2018, or say 10 years,
which is something we can do and if we do not kill ourselves and if the
USA can continue on about it's current economic path then I would say
the chances of humans on Mars within 50 years to be 100%. Mars is not
that much harder, maybe easier, than living on the Moon.

There is a reason to go to Mars as well, a reason that seems to me to
be undeniable and that reason is for our own survival.
I believe that moving out to live in space is just another test of
nature of the survival of the fittest.


"To ensure the survival of humans, he adds, efforts must be made to
colonize other planets."
"It takes too many resources to send each person into space," he said.
"But unless the human race spreads into space, I doubt it will survive
the next thousand years."
Stephen Hawking

Hawking actually only gives us about 600 years.

Hawking has repeated this several times now including just recently.



Dac wrote:
50%? 20%? I guess the answer is really what chance is there that a space
race will develop, as there doesn't seem to be any point in going to mars
other than bragging rights.

S. Hawking writes:

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/0..._thursday.html


wrote:
Well lets see, if we are back on the Moon by 2018, or say 10 years,
which is something we can do and if we do not kill ourselves and if the
USA can continue on about it's current economic path then I would say
the chances of humans on Mars within 50 years to be 100%. Mars is not
that much harder, maybe easier, than living on the Moon.

There is a reason to go to Mars as well, a reason that seems to me to
be undeniable and that reason is for our own survival.
I believe that moving out to live in space is just another test of
nature of the survival of the fittest.


"To ensure the survival of humans, he adds, efforts must be made to
colonize other planets."
"It takes too many resources to send each person into space," he said.
"But unless the human race spreads into space, I doubt it will survive
the next thousand years."
Stephen Hawking

Hawking actually only gives us about 600 years.

Hawking has repeated this several times now including just recently.



Dac wrote:
50%? 20%? I guess the answer is really what chance is there that a space
race will develop, as there doesn't seem to be any point in going to mars
other than bragging rights.

0%

and we will all go the way of the dodo because of it.

In article ,
Dac wrote:
50%? 20%?

Chance for it being done by NASA and its counterparts: nearly 0%.
They'll never get funding for it. Had they done ISS quickly and
efficiently, the odds would be good; they didn't. Were they doing the
return to the Moon quickly and efficiently, there would at least be a
chance; so far, at least, it looks like business as usual and pork for all
the dinosaurs.

Chance for it being done privately (commercial or non-profit): nearly
100%. Certain other things have to happen first -- notably, a massive
drop in launch costs -- but we're at least started down that road, and
fifty years is a long time.

I guess the answer is really what chance is there that a space
race will develop...

Zero unless another Cold War develops, and not high even then. Don't kid
yourself: the space race of the 1960s was about politics, not space. It
happened only because the competition between the superpowers was briefly
focused on who could do spaceflight more impressively. It's very unlikely
that that will happen again, not least because potential competitors for
the US are aware of what happened last time.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

Zero unless another Cold War develops, and not high even then. Don't kid
yourself: the space race of the 1960s was about politics, not space. It
happened only because the competition between the superpowers was briefly
focused on who could do spaceflight more impressively. It's very unlikely
that that will happen again, not least because potential competitors for
the US are aware of what happened last time.

China?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_space_program
the US opposed China joining the ISS. Hey, way to go!

--
New email address, backwards: com dot ntlworld usual.thing.here marypegg

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:53:46 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_space_program
the US opposed China joining the ISS. Hey, way to go!

....It had to do with the fact that the Red Chinese were refusing to
give the ISS crew employee discounts on any takeout they delivered.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Henry Spencer wrote:


Zero unless another Cold War develops, and not high even then. Don't kid
yourself: the space race of the 1960s was about politics, not space. It
happened only because the competition between the superpowers was briefly
focused on who could do spaceflight more impressively. It's very unlikely
that that will happen again, not least because potential competitors for
the US are aware of what happened last time.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

It can be argued that the space race actually stalled the progress of
human spaceflight. Some say both powers opted for quick solutions to
the problem instead of taking the past 40 years and really developing a
true space infrastructure. I can see both sides of the coin.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

"Gene DiGennaro" wrote:

It can be argued that the space race actually stalled the progress of
human spaceflight. Some say both powers opted for quick solutions to
the problem instead of taking the past 40 years and really developing a
true space infrastructure. I can see both sides of the coin.

Me too. What we don't know is whether developing a t.s.i. could have
been sold and sustained as public policy -- a long incremental haul,
with ROI in the far distance and the gratifying milestones few and far
between.

Oh, well -- now we get to see if it can be sold and sustained as
private enterprise via "angel" investment.