You never know. 10 years from now Elon Musk runs for president and makes it a priority, it might happen. People like to have clear goals when they vote. We have the money, but not the organization.

At the end of the day most people are not productive and money is wasted. We're all tired sick and getting older. Right now all of society's resources are being dedicated to nice retirements for the old.

1) Free healthcare, that's a luxury that doesn't do anything. You're over 70, 90 percent of health care spending is spent on you, but it isn't getting you healthy and back to work.

2) Pensions. The main problem isn't actually health care, it is money for the non working. Most states spend a large portion of their taxes supporting retired people. Famously at one point almost everything in Brazil was just for paying money to non working ex government workers, it can balloon in to a huge problem. Not as bad here, but the same issue.

3) Rent seeking. Because the old and sick don't want to work (of course, I wouldn't either) they take a lot of resources through rent seeking. The biggest portion of that is literally rent. They own all the land and houses and charge a fortune so they can enjoy their retirement without working.

Fundamentally you want men on Mars? You have to reallocate resources to production of space ships and colony support. That means cut health care in half and focus the spending on the under 70, that means no longer having pensions, as people should save for their retirement. That means more focus on cheap new housing to lower the cost of existing stock and reduce rent. All the rich and the powerful are not interested in Mars, they are interested in the opposite, free healthcare, pensions, and high rents.

I don't see us ever getting to Mars in my lifetime. Not without political will to choose where the money flows. And the government controls about half of it.

When the space race happened in the 60s, the US government barely spent money on health care or pensions, and rents were at record lows... because the government spends so much in those areas, that's where people are employed. We don't work building things. We take care of old people. Everyone I know that has any money works in health care.

Think of it this way, Biden just announced 300 billions dollars for wealthy graduates in debt relief. That could have payed for a moon base. But people don't want it, they want free money instead. Wasted money on useless educations could cut the cost of education in half. It's our choice, moon or wasted money. If this was a game, you only have so much productivity, and you have to allocate it to building a base on the Moon or Mars, or not.

That would have paid to double NASA's funding for the next 10 years. Nope.

That's why the main thing Elon is doing is trying to cut costs. Cheap travel to the moon is the goal of SpaceX.

I raise you one better, 500 billion should be more than enough for the defense budget.That would save that amount of money each year. Even so there are better ways to spend that money. Given that there are more than enough problems down here as well. Mars and the moon are far less habitable than even the most extreme places on earth and are very difficult to remain habitable. But sure for some experiments a moon base could be useful.

Well the military budget is actually very small now compared to historically. Last time the US really cut spending, it caused the Korean war (most people don't realize that the US almost stopped spending after WW2 and only went back up because of Korea). I'd rather the US keep at least a small deterrent. The loan money is useless and will go to rampant consumption and inflation. At least the military has a purpose.

I just looked it up. Current military spending is 1/3 what it was just 60 years ago. I think because so much spending has been added to the Federal government budget for SO MANY THINGS that people don't realize that military spending is actually not that high. It has also dropped by almost 40 percent since the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan started.

These are 2020 numbers but all U.S. discretionary spending is only ~2 trillion. Meanwhile mandatory spending is ~ 5 trillion. 

You want to go to Mars? Lots of money out there. Mandatory spending is retirement money and health care mostly. Social security is what it is called. If people just manage their own retirements through savings, and living with family members, raising the retirement age to 70, that would free up almost 2 trillion dollars per year in funds. You don't even have to touch the wasteful end of life health care spending. 

2 trillion per year could get you to Mars. Pretty sure.

So you want to cut pensions just so you can send some people to Mars. I don't think the general public will respond well to that. Last time I checked the military budget of the USA alone is bigger than the rest of the world combined, that is including its (very frugal read European, aside from France and UK) allies.

Even if they halve the budget no country in their right mind would invade a US ally, let alone US itself. As for non allies, we can't stop the Russian federation and the Chinese on that end anyway. Chi a still has their illegal islands and Russia still bombs the shit out of Ukrain every day.

I rather invest 2 trillion a year in availability of sustainable energy and a conversion to a circular economy. So that our own planet remains habitable instead of turning it into a wasteland. We are doing quite the opposite si far and we are now seeing results. From massive draughts, to enormous wildfires in Russia and a ever expanding Sahara desert.

When we fixed most issues on this blue orb, sure let's go to Mars, but till then we might want to spend our very limited funds a bit different. Otherwise we might not even have a functioning economy long enough to make it happen. For example how well would the world economy react if the Port of Rotterdam (by far Europe's biggest harbour) and Amsterdam would be no longer functional, cause of a flood.

It could happen if the waters rise with 2 meters for which only 5% of East Antarctica has to melt. Or less if due to a hotter north eastern Atlantic Ocean, tropical storms can also reach Europe. A small hurricane has already reached the Assores in 2019. Many coastal infrastructure in Europe isn't build for these kind of events and the downfall of some European countries and quite possibly the flooding of at least 40% of homes in NL would put the world economy in a big crisis.

Ask Bungie.

NASA current target is late 2030's/early 2040's. I think there likely to be some delays as there usually are so my guess would be mid 2040's /late 2040's. This is a assuming between now and then we don't get a president that for what ever reason anti NASA and cut the program.

A very brief summary of plan
The very early plan is for them to go and come back so not a one way trip as some other people in this thread suggested. As for supplies the plans call for dropping off 25 tons of supplies using unmanned missions too mars before the astronauts are sent so enough supplies for there time on the planet and for the return trip. 2 people would always remain in orbit over mars and 2 would be on surface. they would have a vehicle to take them back and forth from surface to there ship in orbit. A vehicle on the ship to get to surface and a vehicle that waiting for them on surface that was delivered on one of the unmanned missions.

A article with a brief summary of the plan I typed above
https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-astronauts-mars-mission-30-days

and for the complete briefing that NASA gave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4nmO222i8&ab_channel=NASAVideo

Agreed, hence Nuclear Fusion first, then Hydrogen fuel cell economy and desalination plants, then Mars.

Of course advances in Nuclear Fusion will be very useful for space travel as well.

Cutting on pensions does nothing. All that money that goes into keeping old people alive goes right back into the economy. It's not lost, old people buy things, leave the rest of their money to their children who buy things. Health care pays for the lives of the doctors and their dependents (although wages and prices in healthcare are out of control in the USA, but that's a problem with big pharma having too much influence on politics)

The military budget also employs many many people, it's a sort of welfare as well. Not as efficient as other sectors though: $1 billion in military spending creates approximately 11,200 jobs, compared with 26,700 in education, 16,800 in clean energy, and 17,200 in health care.
Not much gets produced and what gets produced creates more work, fixing people or fixing the mess left behind.

Cutting on the military budget is the most efficient. Military budget is a sink hole. Pension funds at least still create money for new business ventures and we've just seen how important healthcare is to keep the world running through a pandemic.

The point I was making wasn't about what I want. The point is we can go to MARS but we have too many people that want free money so it can't happen. If you want consumption and not investment, then that is what you get.

You want healthcare for the about to die or houses. Do you want retirement money or investment in infrastructure and going to MARS. I already know most people are politically messed up and can't even talk about it.

Almost every country on the planet is poor for a reason, they don't actually want to invest in themselves and they don't want to build. They want the government to give themselves power and money, and that's it. That's why they can't grow. Nobody can actually sit down and think "how do I invest this money to grow our productivity". And it's not just rich people. As I said almost half the Brazil budget at one time was just loans and interest and government pensions. No reason for it to be that way. That's why Brazil is still a poor country.

As for a green energy utopia, we have technological limitations so just because you spend a trillion doesn't mean you have cheap batteries for example. 1 Trillion per year can make a lot of windmills, but it can't make the energy and maintenance cheap. We've spent a trillion, it didn't cure AIDS either. I think we ALREADY have the technology to live on Mars which is why 1 trillion per year would probably accomplish the goal.

Several trillion dollars per year are spent on health care that doesn't put people back to work and money for retirement they don't need (it isn't even means tested). Up to us what we do. What we want.

Elon Musk president and people actually CHOOSE to forgo some consumption and we can go to MARS. What do we get instead? AOC has $100,000 car, and $1 million home, with a $200,000+ per year income and she intentionally doesn't pay off her student loan so she can complain about it. Government is about to give her $10,000 LMAO. That's how "people" want the government to spend half a trillion dollars. Wasted. So rich students can buy more stuff.

And most student loans are taken out by rich people or rich families because the terms are the best. The same way rich people get car loans even though they could just buy the car outright. I spent $100,000 on university tuition alone (living expenses ouch extra) to become a high school teacher which was silly. I could have worked as a teacher the year I graduated from high school. University is actually about stopping people from working, not about helping them learn so they can work. It's about keeping you out of the workforce.

The last thing government teachers want is for a bright kid out of high school to be allowed to work. No. You have to spend 5 years in university for undergraduate. Then 3 for masters. Then 2 more for "post degree" certification. 10 years later and you're poor and old and then you're allowed to work. It is messed up. I could have saved $200,000+ dollars and earned $500,000 in salary at least and been almost 1 million USD richer instead of wasting time in university proving that I could teach kids math. It isn't about making you a good teacher or helping the students. It is about providing lots of money to university educators and workers for 10 years that nobody would willingly pay if it wasn't subsidized.

^ sure, but why would we even spend trillions of dollars to get to Mars in the first place? I suppose some are bound to the idea that humans would one day grow out of Earth due to populational pressure or resource demands. That made a lot of sense in the 50s or the 70s, but now most developed countries have shrinking populations and energy requirements. So... *shrugs*

You could argue instead that is to ensure human survivability but on Mars, the soil is so toxic that it can't even be accurately simulated on Earth since it would be too hazardous to handle. The air is colder than Antarctica's and orders of magnitude drier. And the dust is so thin that it would get into sealed suits and habitats. I hope explorers enjoy breathing in the equivalent of asbestos with chlorine while taking the radiation equivalent of the worst spots of the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Also, have I mentioned that in the Biosphere habitat experiments, the participants turned on each other, and some had critically low oxygen levels due to unforeseen design flaws? Imagine that happening for real...