The first Mars explorers: who will they be?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

It's a safe bet that some of them are in high school now. Lets say that the youngest astronauts to go to Mars will be between 25 and 30 and that the older ones between 40 and 50. If the mission is to take place in 2030; then it only follows that some of them haven't been born yet, or are toddlers and that the 50 year olds are currently in university... wonder who it'll be???

[suttsteve]

We won't make it to Mars by 2030. We might make it back to the Moon by then, but we, probably, won't actually get to Mars until, at least, 2070.

[Hutch]

Most likely Chinese.....

[Chip]

We won't make it to Mars by 2030. We might make it back to the Moon by then, but we, probably, won't actually get to Mars until, at least, 2070.

I'm inclined to think that we'll have the technology to go to Mars (on paper, in computers, some hardware, prototypes, etc.,) long before we'll actually have a mission.

[Humphrey]

I wioll be one of the first explorers. They need a experienced planetary leader there.

[Jpax2003]

We won't make it to Mars by 2030. We might make it back to the Moon by then, but we, probably, won't actually get to Mars until, at least, 2070.

If so, it will be due to politics or economics. The technology to go to Mars already exists.

[beck0311]

I agree with Jpax2003 the technology isn't the real issue. The only thing that I wanted to add is that we sent, mostly, test pilots to the Moon. I think that NASA (or ESA, or whoever goes first) may consider looking at submariners for the trip to Mars, they may be emotionally quite well prepared. Just a thought.

[Andromeda321]

It's a safe bet that some of them are in high school now.

Ok, issue solved, I've plans to go to Mars anyway.
My thinking is you would probably have someone in the mix who is a geologist (or very knowledgeable in that field). The only scientist who made it to the moon was a geologist.

[Antice]

Ok, I'l toss in a bone...
I think that a Mars landing team should atleast consist of:
* A team leader with a major in Engineering and a minor in psychology (the trip is very long... strange things happens with people cooped up together for too long)
* A pilot with 20 - 30 years experience. (preferably test pilot maybe)
* A Medical doctor. (preferaby one specialized in Trauma perhaps)
* An experienced Geologist (preferably with a minor in agriculture if one brings Hydrophonic watts on the trip)

[somerandomguy]

Ok, I'l toss in a bone...
I think that a Mars landing team should atleast consist of:
* A team leader with a major in Engineering and a minor in psychology (the trip is very long... strange things happens with people cooped up together for too long)
* A pilot with 20 - 30 years experience. (preferably test pilot maybe)
* A Medical doctor. (preferaby one specialized in Trauma perhaps)
* An experienced Geologist (preferably with a minor in agriculture if one brings Hydrophonic watts on the trip)

And a journalist to document the whole thing.

(actually though, wouldn't it be nice, if we're gonna send a couple dozen people or something, to include someone who can write?)

[Zachary]

I will be the first to land on Mars. The Zetans will give me a lift there when a pole shift destroys the Earth next year, and I'll live off all that vegetation which NASA and the ESA are so eager to cover up.

[Jpax2003]

In some books I've read about sending crews to Mars they always seem to think it will be a small mission like Apollo, to keep costs and complexity down.

I think the opposite is true. Since the distances and times are many times larger, I think the crew should be many times larger. This increases mass and logistics, but does not necessarily increase complexity. A larger crew also increases flexibility. Instead of sending 3-8 people to mars, we should send 30-80 people. Sure we could be successful with less than a dozen explorers, but we could multiply that success many times over with more people with more tools and experiments over a larger area over a longer time frame.

I would have a ships complement of 4-10 Naval officers with about 10-20 more ship's crew. Then we should have civilian scientists of several disciplines (astronomy, geology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc) totaling 30-50. Then we should have some other civilians of non-scientific disciplines (reporters, documentarians, etc.) of maybe 10. We might might want to have atmospheric flight operations conducted by Air Force personnel separate from ship's complement (for landing and reconnaisance piloting).

Sometimes to make it bigger, you need to make it giant.

[daver]

In some books I've read about sending crews to Mars they always seem to think it will be a small mission like Apollo, to keep costs and complexity down.

I think the opposite is true. Since the distances and times are many times larger, I think the crew should be many times larger. This increases mass and logistics, but does not necessarily increase complexity. A larger crew also increases flexibility. Instead of sending 3-8 people to mars, we should send 30-80 people. Sure we could be successful with less than a dozen explorers, but we could multiply that success many times over with more people with more tools and experiments over a larger area over a longer time frame.

I would have a ships complement of 4-10 Naval officers with about 10-20 more ship's crew. Then we should have civilian scientists of several disciplines (astronomy, geology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc) totaling 30-50. Then we should have some other civilians of non-scientific disciplines (reporters, documentarians, etc.) of maybe 10. We might might want to have atmospheric flight operations conducted by Air Force personnel separate from ship's complement (for landing and reconnaisance piloting).

Sometimes to make it bigger, you need to make it giant.

The Mars mission in the Disney short consisted of several nuclear powered ships (they looked like giant umbrellas (umbrellae?)), each with a crew of perhaps a dozen people. So a large mission isn't a new idea. There's a definite advantage to sending several smaller ships (for one thing, you can do small crew exchanges en route, which would help break the monotony. The main reason would be the increase in redundancy--if one of the ships has problems you could split its crew among the remaining ships).

[devil's advocate]

I'll be up there. I intend to become a test pilot, following in the family footsteps, Grandpa and an uncle both tested for the US, but the idea of going to Mars has always drawn me.

From where I stand, test pilots should lead the missions. In an emergency, who better to pull a spacecraft out than one with the "right stuff".

[Oops]

The first words to be spoken on Mars should be "It wasn't me!"

[Charlie in Dayton]

"The First Mars Explorers: who will they be?"

I do believe the names you're looking for are Biff Starling and Sandy Moondust...and they're already there! =D> 8-[

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

back in the 60s those big brains in the US and Russia were considering a One-way ticket, that was before the sucess of the Viking Landers. Some of the brave new volunteers offered to go on a one-way trip for the good of mankind, one of these men now leads the NASA projects on mars today...with brave people like these we will set foot on mars a lot sonner than you think!




but there is one question that is very hard to answer..
"The First Mars Explorers: who will they be?"