As with many of the other answers here, I don't see any point in sending humans to Mars as a place to live. See No Escape From Problems in Space Colonies - Earth is Des Res - Even After Nuclear War or Asteroid Impact
I think main reason for going to Mars is to find out if life ever started there, and especially, if there was a second origin of life there. Mars was as habitable as the Earth, possibly more so, in the very early solar system - but quickly lost its atmosphere and ocean within a few hundred million years. So may have evidence of the way life started.
There's nothing left of that time on Earth because continental drift erased it - all we have are some zircons, hard stones like diamond, which give us some idea of what the early atmosphere was like through trapped bubbles of gas. Almost no chance of finding intact organics from that time.
But - we might find it on Mars - because there is a reasonable chance that, somewhere on Mars, there are organics from the early solar system that's been preserved in a deep freeze for billions of years. There'd be a fair bit of decay because of radiation from radioactive elements in the rocks (e.g. phosphorous) but there would still, probably, be enough survives to have some idea what it was originally, and begin to fill the huge gap in evolution between amino acids and the most primitive cells known. There are probably as many steps of evolution there are there are between the most primitive cells and ourselves.
If we are lucky we might also find present day life on Mars and in the most interesting case, it could be a second genesis of life. That would be an extraordinary discovery if it is, because it would first, show that life arises easily and so is probably common in our universe - and also - give us life with a different basis, different biology to study. That's like going from one dimension to two dimensions, huge increase in understanding of life.
However with this as the reason for going to Mars, then we need to be especially careful not to contaminate it with Earth life. Otherwise we might destroy or muddy the very evidence of what we want to find.
Because of that, I think that humans should go nowhere near the surface, unless we can show, conclusively, that they won't contaminate Mars. Because just a single reproducing microbe on Mars could potentially colonize the entire planet within a few decades. Also humans have trillions of microbes on their bodies in thousands of species, many of them barely understood or not studied at all. So, if a spacecraft with humans in it crashes on Mars, during the risky landing, that would be an immediate fail of planetary protection.
But humans are great for making on the spot decisions. They are not that great for going to dangerous places, because we are fragile, and need tons of life support equipment. They will also contaminate any place they visit with, at the least, dead Earth life, and if it is habitable, as Mars, or parts of it, might be - with reproducing life as well. And - in spacesuits - then they are very clumsy also.
Robots can travel light and indeed, can be made so light they can fly in the Mars atmosphere. And they can be sterilized.
This is an early NASA idea for model plane sized explorers able to fly in the thin Mars atmosphere - see smaller, model airplane sized planes with a camera and a radio.
Robots can also be sterilized, and can go to dangerous places, worst thing happens is the robot gets damaged or destroyed - can be repaired with spare parts from other robots, can be - don't need life support, just electricity or fuel - can be made lighter than humans, any size you like, can be made stronger.
Also they see with digitally enhanced vision, and everything they see is streamed back, so you don't miss anything through inattention. And can be designed for Mars, while humans will always be best fitted for the Earth rather than Mars.
In just about all ways the robots do things better :). Except for decision making and planning - there humans do better.
I think the solution is to send humans to orbit around Mars, taking great care to make sure they can't crash on the surface, and to send robots - with modern technology possibly thousands of light weight ones and a few large complex machines like Curiosity - but with more powerful motors (can do that, even electric batteries like those used on the Moon would do fine to drive tens of kilometers quickly, recharge with thin film solar perhaps as suggested for Mars One) - if you can create power for a human base on Mars you can definitely create power for a robot base.
Then they control the rovers by telepresence, and in hours would do the same work it takes months or years to do right now.
This would be quite expensive but not nearly as expensive as a human landing on Mars, and would give far more science return for your investment because each human explorer can control machines anywhere on the surface in close to real time telepresence.
The other solution is to make the rovers more autonomous so they can drive around and make experiments by themselves with hardly any input from the Earth.
Either way the robots are our eyes and ears and boots on the surface of Mars.
I think both are good ideas. But humans on the surface, no, not now, so many things that are issues with that idea.
See
I think main reason for going to Mars is to find out if life ever started there, and especially, if there was a second origin of life there. Mars was as habitable as the Earth, possibly more so, in the very early solar system - but quickly lost its atmosphere and ocean within a few hundred million years. So may have evidence of the way life started.
There's nothing left of that time on Earth because continental drift erased it - all we have are some zircons, hard stones like diamond, which give us some idea of what the early atmosphere was like through trapped bubbles of gas. Almost no chance of finding intact organics from that time.
But - we might find it on Mars - because there is a reasonable chance that, somewhere on Mars, there are organics from the early solar system that's been preserved in a deep freeze for billions of years. There'd be a fair bit of decay because of radiation from radioactive elements in the rocks (e.g. phosphorous) but there would still, probably, be enough survives to have some idea what it was originally, and begin to fill the huge gap in evolution between amino acids and the most primitive cells known. There are probably as many steps of evolution there are there are between the most primitive cells and ourselves.
If we are lucky we might also find present day life on Mars and in the most interesting case, it could be a second genesis of life. That would be an extraordinary discovery if it is, because it would first, show that life arises easily and so is probably common in our universe - and also - give us life with a different basis, different biology to study. That's like going from one dimension to two dimensions, huge increase in understanding of life.
However with this as the reason for going to Mars, then we need to be especially careful not to contaminate it with Earth life. Otherwise we might destroy or muddy the very evidence of what we want to find.
Because of that, I think that humans should go nowhere near the surface, unless we can show, conclusively, that they won't contaminate Mars. Because just a single reproducing microbe on Mars could potentially colonize the entire planet within a few decades. Also humans have trillions of microbes on their bodies in thousands of species, many of them barely understood or not studied at all. So, if a spacecraft with humans in it crashes on Mars, during the risky landing, that would be an immediate fail of planetary protection.
But humans are great for making on the spot decisions. They are not that great for going to dangerous places, because we are fragile, and need tons of life support equipment. They will also contaminate any place they visit with, at the least, dead Earth life, and if it is habitable, as Mars, or parts of it, might be - with reproducing life as well. And - in spacesuits - then they are very clumsy also.
Robots can travel light and indeed, can be made so light they can fly in the Mars atmosphere. And they can be sterilized.
This is an early NASA idea for model plane sized explorers able to fly in the thin Mars atmosphere - see smaller, model airplane sized planes with a camera and a radio.
Robots can also be sterilized, and can go to dangerous places, worst thing happens is the robot gets damaged or destroyed - can be repaired with spare parts from other robots, can be - don't need life support, just electricity or fuel - can be made lighter than humans, any size you like, can be made stronger.
Also they see with digitally enhanced vision, and everything they see is streamed back, so you don't miss anything through inattention. And can be designed for Mars, while humans will always be best fitted for the Earth rather than Mars.
In just about all ways the robots do things better :). Except for decision making and planning - there humans do better.
I think the solution is to send humans to orbit around Mars, taking great care to make sure they can't crash on the surface, and to send robots - with modern technology possibly thousands of light weight ones and a few large complex machines like Curiosity - but with more powerful motors (can do that, even electric batteries like those used on the Moon would do fine to drive tens of kilometers quickly, recharge with thin film solar perhaps as suggested for Mars One) - if you can create power for a human base on Mars you can definitely create power for a robot base.
Then they control the rovers by telepresence, and in hours would do the same work it takes months or years to do right now.
This would be quite expensive but not nearly as expensive as a human landing on Mars, and would give far more science return for your investment because each human explorer can control machines anywhere on the surface in close to real time telepresence.
The other solution is to make the rovers more autonomous so they can drive around and make experiments by themselves with hardly any input from the Earth.
Either way the robots are our eyes and ears and boots on the surface of Mars.
I think both are good ideas. But humans on the surface, no, not now, so many things that are issues with that idea.
See
- Why Elon Musk's Colony on Mars in 2020s is Unfeasible - What Could We Do - Really?
- No Escape From Problems in Space Colonies - Earth is Des Res - Even After Nuclear War or Asteroid Impact
- Let's Plan For Exploration and Discovery of Space with no End Date - NOT Escape from Earth - Opinion Piece
- Where Should we Send our Rovers to Mars to Unravel Mystery of Origin of First Living Cells?
- Why Mars is NOT a Great Place to Live - Amazing to Explore From Orbit - with RC Rovers, and Nature Inspired Avatars
- Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars - Great Place To Explore
- Can Human Explorers Keep Mars Clean, For Science?
- How Valuable is Pristine Mars for Humanity - Opinion Piece?
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