Moon - could be China yes. But their technology doesn't seem to be that reliable after all their lunar rover broke down basically after a few tens of meters.
So - doesn't seem that promising, seems they have a fair way to go to catch up with the 1970s technology of USA and Russia. E.g. the 1970s Lunakhod which roamed the surface of the Moon for months. I think they are a fair way away from being able to land a human safely on the Moon.
The US after all had 10 previous space flights leading up to the lunar landing - and that based on a similar number of flights in Gemini so had a huge amount of experience before they did it. I know that's 1970s technology - but - it had advantages also - somewhat simpler electronics, less to go wrong.
I think even the US would find landing a human on the Moon still pretty challenging to this day, and - as obviously they can't just re-use Apollo hardware - would need to do some serious new work on the design, and probably need to do a fair number of preliminary tests in orbit, and test flights around the Moon and almost landing on the Moon (like Apollo 10) to test all the systems except the landing itself - before they send someone there.
Maybe not the full 10 previous missions of the Apollo program, but wouldn't be surprised if they have to do, say 4 or 5 lead up missions first, just guessing there..
Maybe Russia - am pretty sure they could do it easily if they wanted to. Though they'd need to dust off some old plans and update them with modern technology.
Maybe India - or some other outlier.
As for Mars - I think nobody. Because a landing of a human on Mars is an immediate fail of planetary protection - especially if it's a crash landing.
And I think those who are enthusiastic about landing humans on the surface of Mars - for whatever reason - haven't really thought through the planetary protection implications. Or if they have - they haven't published and shared their findings, why they think you can land humans on Mars without seriously interfering with scientific investigations of the planet and the search for life.
Especially with the news like this,
increasingly seems likely there are habitats on Mars widespread and easy to contaminate, and at least a fair possibility that some of them have life that's lived separately for billions of years.
At least - it is long established that we need to keep Mars clean of Earth life for the robotic exploration of the planet. Why should that suddenly change, that it doesn't matter if we contaminate it, as soon as we decide we want humans to land there?
Why should humans not matter, when we have far far more microbes on us than robots - while the robotic spacecraft have to be thoroughly sterilized? Doesn't make sense.
So - I think they just haven't worked through those implications in detail, and when they do, will be clear that nobody should land on the surface. Though could go to orbit.
As for orbital missions to Mars, well US is way ahead of the field at present, nobody else likely to have the capability in the next few years. Though could be other countries that buy flights on SpaceX. Though - promising as it is, I think is too soon to be totally sure that SpaceX will succeed. Especially with the obstacles for human rating as well.
For instance, Skylon, able to fly to orbit - that may come to fruition before SpaceX if SpaceX is delayed and Skylon goes faster than expected.
If so, we in the UK might be first :). And various other scenarios that could be devised.
But - would be a build up of many other technologies to develop first not just being able to get the mass there, which needs work done in LEO or Moon etc. I would imagine an extra decade or two for that. And that could help level out the playing field between different countries also.
E.g. maybe one country or group develops closed system habitats or artificial gravity first - and making those reliable - then they might well find it easier than another group that just focuses on getting the mass there without paying much attention to human considerations.
So - doesn't seem that promising, seems they have a fair way to go to catch up with the 1970s technology of USA and Russia. E.g. the 1970s Lunakhod which roamed the surface of the Moon for months. I think they are a fair way away from being able to land a human safely on the Moon.
The US after all had 10 previous space flights leading up to the lunar landing - and that based on a similar number of flights in Gemini so had a huge amount of experience before they did it. I know that's 1970s technology - but - it had advantages also - somewhat simpler electronics, less to go wrong.
I think even the US would find landing a human on the Moon still pretty challenging to this day, and - as obviously they can't just re-use Apollo hardware - would need to do some serious new work on the design, and probably need to do a fair number of preliminary tests in orbit, and test flights around the Moon and almost landing on the Moon (like Apollo 10) to test all the systems except the landing itself - before they send someone there.
Maybe not the full 10 previous missions of the Apollo program, but wouldn't be surprised if they have to do, say 4 or 5 lead up missions first, just guessing there..
Maybe Russia - am pretty sure they could do it easily if they wanted to. Though they'd need to dust off some old plans and update them with modern technology.
Maybe India - or some other outlier.
As for Mars - I think nobody. Because a landing of a human on Mars is an immediate fail of planetary protection - especially if it's a crash landing.
And I think those who are enthusiastic about landing humans on the surface of Mars - for whatever reason - haven't really thought through the planetary protection implications. Or if they have - they haven't published and shared their findings, why they think you can land humans on Mars without seriously interfering with scientific investigations of the planet and the search for life.
Especially with the news like this,
increasingly seems likely there are habitats on Mars widespread and easy to contaminate, and at least a fair possibility that some of them have life that's lived separately for billions of years.
At least - it is long established that we need to keep Mars clean of Earth life for the robotic exploration of the planet. Why should that suddenly change, that it doesn't matter if we contaminate it, as soon as we decide we want humans to land there?
Why should humans not matter, when we have far far more microbes on us than robots - while the robotic spacecraft have to be thoroughly sterilized? Doesn't make sense.
So - I think they just haven't worked through those implications in detail, and when they do, will be clear that nobody should land on the surface. Though could go to orbit.
As for orbital missions to Mars, well US is way ahead of the field at present, nobody else likely to have the capability in the next few years. Though could be other countries that buy flights on SpaceX. Though - promising as it is, I think is too soon to be totally sure that SpaceX will succeed. Especially with the obstacles for human rating as well.
For instance, Skylon, able to fly to orbit - that may come to fruition before SpaceX if SpaceX is delayed and Skylon goes faster than expected.
If so, we in the UK might be first :). And various other scenarios that could be devised.
But - would be a build up of many other technologies to develop first not just being able to get the mass there, which needs work done in LEO or Moon etc. I would imagine an extra decade or two for that. And that could help level out the playing field between different countries also.
E.g. maybe one country or group develops closed system habitats or artificial gravity first - and making those reliable - then they might well find it easier than another group that just focuses on getting the mass there without paying much attention to human considerations.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0