<p>With its impeccable landing on Thursday, NASA's Perseverance became the fifth rover to reach Mars -- so when can we finally expect the long-held goal of a crewed expedition to materialize?</p>.<p>NASA's current Artemis program is billed as a "Moon to Mars" mission, and acting administrator Steve Jurczyk has reiterated his aspiration of "the mid-to-end of the 2030s" for American boots on the Red Planet.</p>.<p>But while the trip is technologically almost within grasp, experts say it's probably still decades out because of funding uncertainties.</p>.<p>Wernher von Braun, the architect of the Apollo program, started work on a Mars mission right after the Moon landing in 1969, but the plan, like many after it, never got off the drawing board.</p>.<p>What makes it so hard? For a start, the sheer distance.</p>.<p>Astronauts bound for Mars will have to travel about 140 million miles (225 million kilometres), depending on where the two planets are relative to each other.</p>.<p>That means a trip that's many months long, where astronauts will face two major health risks: radiation and microgravity.</p>.<p>The former raises the lifetime chances of developing cancer while the latter decreases bone density and muscle mass.</p>.<p>If things go wrong, any problems will have to be solved on the planet itself.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/perseverance-s-pictures-from-mars-show-nasa-rover-s-new-home-953305.html" target="_blank">Perseverance’s Pictures From Mars Show NASA Rover’s New Home</a></strong></p>.<p>That said, scientists have learned plenty of lessons from astronauts' missions to the Moon and to space stations.</p>.<p>"We have demonstrated on Earth-orbiting spacecraft the ability for astronauts to survive for a year and a half," said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.</p>.<p>The general ideas of how to execute a Mars mission are in place, but "it's the details" that are lacking, he added.</p>.<p>One way to reduce the radiation exposure on the journey is getting there faster, said Laura Forczyk, the founder of space consulting firm Astralytical and a planetary scientist.</p>.<p>This could involve using nuclear thermal propulsion which produces far more thrust than the energy produced by traditional chemical rockets.</p>.<p>Another could be building a spacecraft with water containers strapped to it that absorb space radiation, said McDowell.</p>.<p>Once there, we'll need to find ways to breathe in the 95 per cent carbon dioxide atmosphere. Perseverance has an instrument on board to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, as a technical demonstration.</p>.<p>Other solutions involve breaking down the ice at the planet's poles into oxygen and hydrogen, which will also fuel rockets.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/kannadathi-us-scientists-touch-to-mars-landing-953269.html" target="_blank">Kannadathi-US scientist's touch to Mars landing</a></strong></p>.<p>Radiation will also be challenging on the planet, because of its ultra thin atmosphere and lack of a protective magnetosphere, so shelters will need to be well shielded, or even underground.</p>.<p>The feasibility also comes down to how much risk we are willing to tolerate, said G. Scott Hubbard, NASA's first Mars program director who's now at Stanford.</p>.<p>During the Shuttle era, said Hubbard, "the demand was that the astronauts face no more than three per cent increased risk in death."</p>.<p>"They have now raised that -- deep space missions are somewhere between 10 and 30 percent, depending on the mission, so NASA's taking a more aggressive or open posture," he added.</p>.<p>That could involve raising the permissible level of total radiation astronauts can be exposed to over their lifetimes, which NASA is also considering, said Forczyk.</p>.<p>The experts agreed the biggest hurdle is getting buy-in from the US president and Congress.</p>.<p>"If humanity as a species, specifically the American taxpayer, decides to put large amounts of money into it, we could be there by the 2030s," said McDowell.</p>.<p>He doesn't think that's on the cards, but said he would be surprised if it happened later than the 2040s, a conclusion shared by Forczyk.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/biden-harris-congratulate-nasa-for-perseverance-rovers-historic-landing-on-mars-952967.html" target="_blank">Biden, Harris congratulate NASA for Perseverance rover's historic landing on Mars</a></strong></p>.<p>President Joe Biden hasn't yet outlined his Mars vision, though his spokeswoman Jen Psaki said this month the Artemis program had the administration's "support."</p>.<p>Still, the agency is facing budget constraints and is not expected to meet its goal of returning astronauts to the Moon by 2024, which would also push back Mars.</p>.<p>Could NASA be beaten to it by SpaceX, the company founded by billionaire Elon Musk, who is targeting a first human mission in 2026?</p>.<p>Musk has been developing the next-generation Starship rocket for the purpose -- though two prototypes blew up in spectacular fashion on their recent test runs.</p>.<p>These might look bad, but the risks SpaceX is able to take, and NASA as a government agency can't, gives it valuable data, argued Hubbard.</p>.<p>That could eventually give SpaceX an edge over NASA's chosen rocket, the troubled Space Launch System (SLS) which is beset by delays and cost overrun.</p>.<p>But not even one of the richest people in the world can foot the entire bill for Mars themselves.</p>.<p>Hubbard sees a public-private partnership as more likely, with SpaceX providing the transport and NASA solving the many other problems.</p>
<p>With its impeccable landing on Thursday, NASA's Perseverance became the fifth rover to reach Mars -- so when can we finally expect the long-held goal of a crewed expedition to materialize?</p>.<p>NASA's current Artemis program is billed as a "Moon to Mars" mission, and acting administrator Steve Jurczyk has reiterated his aspiration of "the mid-to-end of the 2030s" for American boots on the Red Planet.</p>.<p>But while the trip is technologically almost within grasp, experts say it's probably still decades out because of funding uncertainties.</p>.<p>Wernher von Braun, the architect of the Apollo program, started work on a Mars mission right after the Moon landing in 1969, but the plan, like many after it, never got off the drawing board.</p>.<p>What makes it so hard? For a start, the sheer distance.</p>.<p>Astronauts bound for Mars will have to travel about 140 million miles (225 million kilometres), depending on where the two planets are relative to each other.</p>.<p>That means a trip that's many months long, where astronauts will face two major health risks: radiation and microgravity.</p>.<p>The former raises the lifetime chances of developing cancer while the latter decreases bone density and muscle mass.</p>.<p>If things go wrong, any problems will have to be solved on the planet itself.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/perseverance-s-pictures-from-mars-show-nasa-rover-s-new-home-953305.html" target="_blank">Perseverance’s Pictures From Mars Show NASA Rover’s New Home</a></strong></p>.<p>That said, scientists have learned plenty of lessons from astronauts' missions to the Moon and to space stations.</p>.<p>"We have demonstrated on Earth-orbiting spacecraft the ability for astronauts to survive for a year and a half," said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.</p>.<p>The general ideas of how to execute a Mars mission are in place, but "it's the details" that are lacking, he added.</p>.<p>One way to reduce the radiation exposure on the journey is getting there faster, said Laura Forczyk, the founder of space consulting firm Astralytical and a planetary scientist.</p>.<p>This could involve using nuclear thermal propulsion which produces far more thrust than the energy produced by traditional chemical rockets.</p>.<p>Another could be building a spacecraft with water containers strapped to it that absorb space radiation, said McDowell.</p>.<p>Once there, we'll need to find ways to breathe in the 95 per cent carbon dioxide atmosphere. Perseverance has an instrument on board to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, as a technical demonstration.</p>.<p>Other solutions involve breaking down the ice at the planet's poles into oxygen and hydrogen, which will also fuel rockets.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/kannadathi-us-scientists-touch-to-mars-landing-953269.html" target="_blank">Kannadathi-US scientist's touch to Mars landing</a></strong></p>.<p>Radiation will also be challenging on the planet, because of its ultra thin atmosphere and lack of a protective magnetosphere, so shelters will need to be well shielded, or even underground.</p>.<p>The feasibility also comes down to how much risk we are willing to tolerate, said G. Scott Hubbard, NASA's first Mars program director who's now at Stanford.</p>.<p>During the Shuttle era, said Hubbard, "the demand was that the astronauts face no more than three per cent increased risk in death."</p>.<p>"They have now raised that -- deep space missions are somewhere between 10 and 30 percent, depending on the mission, so NASA's taking a more aggressive or open posture," he added.</p>.<p>That could involve raising the permissible level of total radiation astronauts can be exposed to over their lifetimes, which NASA is also considering, said Forczyk.</p>.<p>The experts agreed the biggest hurdle is getting buy-in from the US president and Congress.</p>.<p>"If humanity as a species, specifically the American taxpayer, decides to put large amounts of money into it, we could be there by the 2030s," said McDowell.</p>.<p>He doesn't think that's on the cards, but said he would be surprised if it happened later than the 2040s, a conclusion shared by Forczyk.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/biden-harris-congratulate-nasa-for-perseverance-rovers-historic-landing-on-mars-952967.html" target="_blank">Biden, Harris congratulate NASA for Perseverance rover's historic landing on Mars</a></strong></p>.<p>President Joe Biden hasn't yet outlined his Mars vision, though his spokeswoman Jen Psaki said this month the Artemis program had the administration's "support."</p>.<p>Still, the agency is facing budget constraints and is not expected to meet its goal of returning astronauts to the Moon by 2024, which would also push back Mars.</p>.<p>Could NASA be beaten to it by SpaceX, the company founded by billionaire Elon Musk, who is targeting a first human mission in 2026?</p>.<p>Musk has been developing the next-generation Starship rocket for the purpose -- though two prototypes blew up in spectacular fashion on their recent test runs.</p>.<p>These might look bad, but the risks SpaceX is able to take, and NASA as a government agency can't, gives it valuable data, argued Hubbard.</p>.<p>That could eventually give SpaceX an edge over NASA's chosen rocket, the troubled Space Launch System (SLS) which is beset by delays and cost overrun.</p>.<p>But not even one of the richest people in the world can foot the entire bill for Mars themselves.</p>.<p>Hubbard sees a public-private partnership as more likely, with SpaceX providing the transport and NASA solving the many other problems.</p>