Actually I think first humans will be in orbit around Mars, not on Mars, exploring the surface in a "shirt sleeves" environment without the danger and encumbrance of spacesuits.
They would explore the planet via telepresence controlling surface rovers using technology like the Oculus Rift and the Virtuix omnidirectional treadmill - both lightweight machines you could easily pack on a spacecraft.
This shows a likely orbit for an early expedition - it is a spectacular orbit for the crew also - a highly eccentric Molniya sun synchronous orbit, comes in close to the poles, nearest point is over opposite sides of Mars twice a day always on the sunny side
I think would be a great orbit to live in, and might well help with some of the "homesickness" of missing Earth - Mars looks far more Earth like from orbit than it would from the surface. And exploring the surface again far more Earth like via telepresence.
You can adjust the colours in the telepresence link so that the Martian skies are blue if you like - they often do with the pictures taken on Mars - because then it is easier for humans to discern colours.
Here is what it's like:
That was speeded up a hundred times.
Here it is in real time during the fastest part of the orbit as they come close to Mars
- you'd have plenty of time to do serious science during close by telepresence. And even at the furthest point light delay is only 147 ms, so you could continue, e.g. to drive rovers on the surface in near real time, throughout the orbit.
Then they'd explore the surface with immersive VR technology like this, but higher resolution and with haptic feedback so you can feel what you are touching.
And explore Mars with remote controlled rovers, vehicles and flying machines like this entomopter
Reason for doing this is
So - whatever you think about whether humans will or should eventually land on the surface of Mars, this is likely to be the first human experience of Mars from close up, I think.
Landing humans on Mars is controversial and a polarized subject.
Robert Zubrin and other Mars colonization enthusiasts argue strongly for it, and lobby politicians and NASA to make it happen - and of course, at present, most politicians and the general public are enthusiastic for the idea, in the States at least.
Most news stories strongly promote this as the only way ahead. So you might get the impression that it is unanimously supported.
But if you read the scientific literature, then you get a different slant on it.
For instance on the topic of the issues of contaminating Mars, then Robert Zubrin has written a paper saying we don't need to be concerned about it.
But nearly all the papers and workshops on this subject say we do need to be concerned about it. In this particular field he is very much in the minority in his view that it doesn't matter, and has written only the one article on the subject as far as I know, in the "Planetary Report" in 2000 which was rebutted immediately by other scientists.
Other scientists, also philosophers, theologieans etc have written papers and reports suggesting that it's far better to explore Mars from orbit or remotely, sometimes going as far as to say humans should never land on the planet at all.
For some reason though, these don't often hit the news.
So - that final step to the surface of Mars would be controversial in the academic community. Also, there would be plenty of justification, under the Outer space Treaty as well as common ethics, for the scientists and public of other countries world wide to protest against something that would make it far harder to study Mars scientifically, and mean humanity might miss out on discoveries about the origins of life, and possible alternative forms that life can take in our galaxy - discoveries that could - potentially - also be of great benefit here, especially in biology and the life sciences.
But whatever you think about that - an orbital mission such as I just described here - that's something everyone can agree is worth doing, so long as it is done carefully, e.g. no atmospheric braking, to avoid even the tiniest chance of the human occupied ship crashing on Mars.
For more background information - about why Mars orbit is safer and cheaper than surface missions - and why many scientists - including Robert Zubrin - now say that it's quite probable there is life on Mars surface - and why many (though not Robert Zubrin) think there is a chance that Mars life might be interestingly different from Earth life and worth studying to see how it compares to Earth life - see my comment to this answer - I put a section about it here but it made this answer over long so have put it into the comments section.
Or take a look at my blog where I cover all of those things in some detail.
Some scientists, even astrobiologists think that Mars is unlikely to have life on the surface. But others say that they think there might be widespread habitats on the surface.
The UV radiation is sterilizing to most microbes, but not to all, some extremophiles can resist it, and it is also blocked out by a thin layer of dust.
The cosmic radiation is similar to levels of the interior of the ISS. Most Earth microbes if kept dormant for some years would soon succumb to it. But there are microbes that can live in reactor cooling ponds, able to actively repair their DNA within a few hours, even after it is sliced into numerous pieces by cosmic radiation - remarkable repair mechanism. They can withstand 5,000 grays, while the yearly radiation levels on Mars (somewhat hazardous to humans and long time sterilizing to most microbes) are only 0.076 grays.
Microbes like this would hardly notice the cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars, so long as they can wake up. The cummulative dose over millions of years is high - so microbes that have been dormant for a few million years would die, but microbes in habitats that have liquid water every year or every few years or centuries would be fine.
More about all this here
Robert Walker's blog
They would explore the planet via telepresence controlling surface rovers using technology like the Oculus Rift and the Virtuix omnidirectional treadmill - both lightweight machines you could easily pack on a spacecraft.
This shows a likely orbit for an early expedition - it is a spectacular orbit for the crew also - a highly eccentric Molniya sun synchronous orbit, comes in close to the poles, nearest point is over opposite sides of Mars twice a day always on the sunny side
I think would be a great orbit to live in, and might well help with some of the "homesickness" of missing Earth - Mars looks far more Earth like from orbit than it would from the surface. And exploring the surface again far more Earth like via telepresence.
You can adjust the colours in the telepresence link so that the Martian skies are blue if you like - they often do with the pictures taken on Mars - because then it is easier for humans to discern colours.
Here is what it's like:
This is done in Orbiter, and shows the orbit - it has a futuristic spacecraft, but I hope to do it again in near future with a tethered assembly of e.g. Space-X Dragon + fuel tank spinning for Mars gravity - or some other similar arrangement.
It's a "Mars capture orbit" - so the delta v to get into it is actually less than you need to get to the Moon. They could have put something like the lunar module into this orbit - and returned to Earth - with a mission similar to the Apollo ones - that is - except of course the humans couldn't survive the six month journey there, with the Apollo technology.
That was speeded up a hundred times.
Here it is in real time during the fastest part of the orbit as they come close to Mars
- you'd have plenty of time to do serious science during close by telepresence. And even at the furthest point light delay is only 147 ms, so you could continue, e.g. to drive rovers on the surface in near real time, throughout the orbit.
Then they'd explore the surface with immersive VR technology like this, but higher resolution and with haptic feedback so you can feel what you are touching.
And explore Mars with remote controlled rovers, vehicles and flying machines like this entomopter
Reason for doing this is
- Frst when exploring a planet, if the main thing you are interested in is the possible past and present biology - then it makes far more sense to explore it from orbit than on the surface.
That's the only way to be sure you don't introduce Earth life to the surface and confuse the searches. - Far safer, no need for the dangerous landing on the surface.
Humans with telepresence robots can explore dangerous and inaccessible parts of Mars which you could never send a human to, in an environment where a stumble that damages your spacesuit could be fatal - Many other advantages. But apart from anything else, is also far cheaper.
Even Robert Zubrin has envisioned a preliminary mission that uses telerobotics in his double athena program.
So - whatever you think about whether humans will or should eventually land on the surface of Mars, this is likely to be the first human experience of Mars from close up, I think.
Landing humans on Mars is controversial and a polarized subject.
Robert Zubrin and other Mars colonization enthusiasts argue strongly for it, and lobby politicians and NASA to make it happen - and of course, at present, most politicians and the general public are enthusiastic for the idea, in the States at least.
Most news stories strongly promote this as the only way ahead. So you might get the impression that it is unanimously supported.
But if you read the scientific literature, then you get a different slant on it.
For instance on the topic of the issues of contaminating Mars, then Robert Zubrin has written a paper saying we don't need to be concerned about it.
But nearly all the papers and workshops on this subject say we do need to be concerned about it. In this particular field he is very much in the minority in his view that it doesn't matter, and has written only the one article on the subject as far as I know, in the "Planetary Report" in 2000 which was rebutted immediately by other scientists.
Other scientists, also philosophers, theologieans etc have written papers and reports suggesting that it's far better to explore Mars from orbit or remotely, sometimes going as far as to say humans should never land on the planet at all.
For some reason though, these don't often hit the news.
So - that final step to the surface of Mars would be controversial in the academic community. Also, there would be plenty of justification, under the Outer space Treaty as well as common ethics, for the scientists and public of other countries world wide to protest against something that would make it far harder to study Mars scientifically, and mean humanity might miss out on discoveries about the origins of life, and possible alternative forms that life can take in our galaxy - discoveries that could - potentially - also be of great benefit here, especially in biology and the life sciences.
But whatever you think about that - an orbital mission such as I just described here - that's something everyone can agree is worth doing, so long as it is done carefully, e.g. no atmospheric braking, to avoid even the tiniest chance of the human occupied ship crashing on Mars.
For more background information - about why Mars orbit is safer and cheaper than surface missions - and why many scientists - including Robert Zubrin - now say that it's quite probable there is life on Mars surface - and why many (though not Robert Zubrin) think there is a chance that Mars life might be interestingly different from Earth life and worth studying to see how it compares to Earth life - see my comment to this answer - I put a section about it here but it made this answer over long so have put it into the comments section.
Or take a look at my blog where I cover all of those things in some detail.
Some scientists, even astrobiologists think that Mars is unlikely to have life on the surface. But others say that they think there might be widespread habitats on the surface.
The UV radiation is sterilizing to most microbes, but not to all, some extremophiles can resist it, and it is also blocked out by a thin layer of dust.
The cosmic radiation is similar to levels of the interior of the ISS. Most Earth microbes if kept dormant for some years would soon succumb to it. But there are microbes that can live in reactor cooling ponds, able to actively repair their DNA within a few hours, even after it is sliced into numerous pieces by cosmic radiation - remarkable repair mechanism. They can withstand 5,000 grays, while the yearly radiation levels on Mars (somewhat hazardous to humans and long time sterilizing to most microbes) are only 0.076 grays.
Microbes like this would hardly notice the cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars, so long as they can wake up. The cummulative dose over millions of years is high - so microbes that have been dormant for a few million years would die, but microbes in habitats that have liquid water every year or every few years or centuries would be fine.
FIND OUT MORE
More about all this here
- Telerobotic Avatars On Mars With Super-Powers ("Teleporting" from orbit) - Search For Life - And Long Term Exploitation
- Why Mars is NOT a Great Place to Live - Amazing to Explore From Orbit - with RC Rovers, and Nature Inspired Avatars
- Could Microbes Transferred On Spacecraft Harm Mars Or Earth - Zubrin's Argument Revisited
- Cosmic Radiation, And UV On Mars - "Swimming Pools For Bacteria" Would Hardly Notice Them
Robert Walker's blog
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