The idea of Mars is spectacular and wondrous and ecstatic and beautiful. Actual Mars sucks harder than you can possibly imagine.
A small minority - but still plenty of people - would thrive as pioneers on a new planet. We should let them go first, while you and me sit here and watch.
The long-term survival of our species is going to require colonizing other planets in other solar systems.
Once you actually get to mars you're basically locked in airtight library/laboratory for the rest of your life.
The only way what pioneers did is comparable to going to Mars is in that it's a huge risk.
Mars in contrast looks like shit on first sight and I doubt we'll see terraforming equipment on any large scale for a very, very long time.
Anyway I don't necessarily disagree with your point I just don't think the comparison to settlers refutes the idea you were replying to that Mars is very ugly and harsh in every single way (except for the mental notion of doing something unprecedented) for first settlers and likely will be for the entirety of their lives. Quite different from the Americas I think.
There may also be some survivorship bias when it comes to the colonies. First colonies often failed and for quite a while (e.g. Roanoke nearly 100 years after Columbus), so I doubt it was all fun and paradise.
There are many places un-explored on Mars that will indeed provide a beauty unlike anything on Earth. This is an assumed fact, but it is mathematically just as likely to be true as the decision made that Mars sucks, based on current data.
We get there. We explore every bit of it. We find parts of it we can actually live on, quite comfortably - albeit, yes, still in a tank. But there could be parts of Mars we can transform, within a 100 years or so - just like the early settlers of every continent on Earth, ever in the history of mankind - and turn into a habitable place to live.
All it takes is one Martian generation, or two, and maybe there will be Martian-humans who have the conversation "I could never live on Earth, far too strange and unknown .."
We evolved to be interested in the things that keep us alive or can kill us - other flora and fauna and water are the top of that list. We find variations of that endlessly interesting. Rock formations, not so much.
Man wants to conquer Mars but I don't to see the pitiful existence of those poor few fools who sacrifice themselves for our collective egos. Especially the first settlers who can't come back and beg for their lives over the video link constantly.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to jump out of this deep gravity well just to be stuck on another one at our current technology levels. Instead asteroids will be much more inviting and the technology to harvest them will combat the large existential risk from rogue asteroids that is one of main arguments for the colonisation of other planets in the first place.
Mars' atmospheric pressure is 0.6% of Earth's. It's for all practical purposes a vaccum. Liquids boil away. You will die without some kind of suit even if you converted all the gases to nitrogen and oxygen.
Mars has 10% of the mass of Earth. Surface gravity is a third of Earth's. Long-term survival in low-gravity might be possible, but it will not be pleasant and it will mean returning to Earth will be effectively impossible.
Mars will never be habitable unless we assemble a whole new planet.
I can imagine a several large domes to protect people and crops from the atmosphere, but the threat of them being hit by a meteorite seems like a critical issue, unless we also shipped some AA or powerful lasers to combat them.
Compared to Mars, Boston is so hospitable that you could name it Maui instead. I mean, you could practically open your window, look outside, and not freeze-dry to death in seconds.
Mars: for those who want to play basic survival hard-mode.
Differing in situ values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars,[20] with a common value being −55 °C (218 K; −67 °F).[21]
Surface temperatures may reach a high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 °C (120 K; −243 °F) at the poles.[22]
Actual temperature measurements at the Viking landers' site range from −17.2 °C (256.0 K; 1.0 °F) to −107 °C (166 K; −161 °F).
The warmest soil temperature estimated by the Viking Orbiter was 27 °C (300 K; 81 °F).[23]
The Spirit rover recorded a maximum daytime air temperature in the shade of 35 °C (308 K; 95 °F), and regularly recorded temperatures well above 0 °C (273 K; 32 °F), except in winter.[24]
Not necessarily. It should be possible to grow nearly any spice or vegetable, if the greenhouse is complex (and computer controlled) enough.
When you have a couple hundred people or more, living for a year (or more) on a base, it would probably make sense to have great food. There will be so few creature comforts (like you point out), they'll perfect what they can.
That and fancy VR :)
The Biosphere II project suggests otherwise.[1] Running a small-scale closed ecosystem turned out to be far tougher than expected.
People are pretty good at that. Look into native American tribes that lived in the arctic, or ancient peoples who lived in harsh deserts. People would eventually figure out ways of building, living, entertaining, eating, moving, etc. that made the best of what the environment had to offer.
The assumption is that nobody would be interested in making a massive investment of effort and personal hardship to create the potential of a new future.
My hypothesis is actually that the most vocal Mars dreamers are escapists and, as such, have latched on to the idea of Mars vs. the reality of Mars. Go into any forum where living on Mars is discussed, and the focus is on how cool it would be, or how you wouldn't be encumbered by political contingencies, or how much science you could do, or how science-fictiony it would all be. It all revolves around how removed from familiar experience that Mars would be, around how thrilling it is.
As a matter of emphasis, this is just unrealistic. Your bones will be disintegrating and your muscles atrophying. You'll constantly be stuffy. You'll be breathing stale air. There will be toilets, and people's shit will stink. You'll get rejected by girls on Mars, and have the occasional erectile dysfunction. There is no Internet on Mars. Instead of browsing, you'll be unclogging toilets and scrubbing away mold. You are going to pay rent on Mars, and it is going to be really, really high. All for a "future" that belongs to those who will live long after you die.
You live in space right now, and it's a really nice part of space; It has air and food and water and everything. Most of your manufacturing and other work is performed by a local underclass and an overseas underclass at discounted wages.
Mars enthusiasts don't talk about that. They talk about the Dream of Mars. Until the day-to-day realities of living on Mars, and not the romance (which you have even done!), are treated in a realistic manner in the discourse of Mars, I don't think that people are really engaged with the actual endeavor.
Everybody needs a hobby, though. Mine is complaining on the Internet.
... And yes, there are loads of sci fi heads who talk about this stuff without thinking about it deeply. But those are just noisy internet fanboys and fangirls. It doesn't mean everyone interested in this topic is thinking about it in such a shallow way.
I came up with a shorthand description a while back: cross Everest ascent with WWI submarining. Something like that.
If I were younger, with no kids, and had the opportunity to do it, I would seriously consider it. I would want to spend many years training, studying, and doing terrestrial experiments first though. The way to do terribly hard things is not by being reckless; there's already enough unknown unknowns, you want to be as thorough as you can about preparing for the knowns.
We could create large simulated environments here to test things like construction techniques and survival strategies, which would be a very good idea. If the transportation capability materializes, I hope to see teams doing that.
I also think you are underestimating ingenuity, especially very highly motivated ingenuity. The horrible difficulty of life in "stock" habitats would be quite a motivator.
Any long term base on Mars is going to require constant resupply from Earth. So why not leave as much as possible safely in orbit, and make short excursions to the surface when neccessary?
Swap O2 for money and this could describe the life of many city dwellers on Earth. At least you won't have to put up with city traffic!
This is of course false.
You're not suited for life on Mars. That's fine. Don't go.
Other people will, and they'll love it.
It is to those folks that I am guessing his comment is addressed.
I agree with the GP. Most mars-lovers would love a working holiday there, due to the exotic nature of the place. But there's a difference between 'working holiday' and 'rest of your life in a (large) canister'. And you better hope that you get along well with your co-colonists...
Quick server-side interactivity would not work I guess, but there are enough sites without that to keep you busy a lifetime on mars.
6 min ping is acceptable for posting comments.
Well, living in a tin can would suck, but in theory there'd be huge underground caverns with overhead lighting. Maybe even rainforests and lakes in caverns.
Anyway, I'm not sure Mars even makes sense vice the Mercury and Venus ideas floating around.