Which Nation Will Be The First To Reach Mars?

[Mark]

Sorry, yes, it is possible Mark, but certainly not feasible with our current technology.
It would take an order of magnitude advanced leap in our current technology to make it feasible.
So, as I said, it’ll never happen.

But wasn't it really not feasible in the 1960's either? They only succeeded because they basically had unlimited funds.

[chuck34]

Sorry, yes, it is possible Mark, but certainly not feasible with our current technology.
It would take an order of magnitude advanced leap in our current technology to make it feasible.
So, as I said, it’ll never happen.

How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

[tfp]

But wasn't it really not feasible in the 1960's either? They only succeeded because they basically had unlimited funds.

I still find it amazing, how the Soviets could even compete with Nasa, nevermind beat them for a short amount of time in the space race, given Nasa had pretty much a blank cheque and the Russians all did it in top secret!

How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

Apparently, like Mark said, theres nothing to physically stop us from going, only the cost!
From what I gather, the plan will have to be to develop a new kind of propulsion - one which is specifically designed to work in the vacuum of space, and not really designed to be used on our atmosphere and all the friction it creates.

[Mark]

Ion drive is suitable for that but it's rather slow. But rockets do work in space and you don't need a lot of fuel, just a short burst to accelerate and to brake then the same in return. The same as the moon missions.

[Sonic]

As I understand it, Ion drive - or impulse drive as I small now call it - has a better top speed than regular propulsion methods, it just takes significantly longer to accelerate.

[Mark]

In space top speed is unlimited except by how much fuel you can carry. The advantage with ion drive is it's extremely fuel efficient.

[chuck34]

Apparently, like Mark said, theres nothing to physically stop us from going, only the cost!
From what I gather, the plan will have to be to develop a new kind of propulsion - one which is specifically designed to work in the vacuum of space, and not really designed to be used on our atmosphere and all the friction it creates.

Yes it will cost a lot, but so has every significant advancement in human history. That cost comes from putting the mass required to get there in orbit. That can be done either in a couple of BIG chunks, or in a bunch of little chunks with on orbit assembly. Other than that there is really nothing stopping us. There is no need to develop new propulsion. Although that will help. VASIMR looks promising at the moment. But that is only for getting from LEO to Mars. There really isn't any better way to get from the ground to LEO right now. Maybe an elevator at some point, but there a lot of unknown unknowns about that to be honest.

What is lacking is the will to do it. And that has always been the problem. That is why Apollo was canceled. Same with AAP, SS Freedom, X-38, and a whole host of other promising projects.

[schmenke]

How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

Sigh..

For starters:

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

In a nutshell...
Consider that mankind currently struggles to get to low earth orbit, let alone the moon.
Consider that the distance to the moon is approximately 400,000kms. Minimum distance to Mars? Approx. 56,000,000kms. That’s about 14,000% further.

It’ll never happen. Seriously.

[Malbec]

In space top speed is unlimited except by how much fuel you can carry. The advantage with ion drive is it's extremely fuel efficient.

Top speed may be unlimited but you also have to shed the speed at the other end and yet carry enough fuel to do the exact same thing in reverse to come home.

[Malbec]

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

Current propulsion systems are adequate but the mission will take longer.

Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Radiation levels will be high and the astronauts will likely have an increased lifetime risk of cancer but they will survive the journey. Radiation levels won't be that different from the ISS where astronauts already spend prolonged periods there.

Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

These challenges are identical to those faced by astronauts on the ISS already and their US/Soviet predecessors. It will not be a problem. Of greater importance is the psychological aspect of complete isolation with no chance of an immediate change in company.

Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

Water can be recycled limiting the amount that has to be taken up, however I agree, this is the single biggest obstacle.

In answer to the OP, I believe China will be first but the US could beat them with an alliance with Russia, ESA and Japan as with the ISS.