Mars To Stay

[Comrade Jenkens]

As much as I want it to succed, I just don't think its feasable at the moment. There simply isn't the money or political will to get such a mission going.

Purely technologicly speaking though it would be possable though

Power generation would also be a problem but the best bet would be to bring a nuclear reactor along as they can produce power for 20 years or more. Incredably dense uranium deposits have recently been discovered on mars so more fuel could be mined.

Geneticly engineered plants or even some unmodified ones have been proven to be able to live in mars like conditions so maybe crops could be grown without too much shelter which could cut down costs.

Water wouldn't be a problem in certain areas as ice could be melted. Oxygen could also be extracted from the water.

Living underground would be the best bet to avoid the radiation. 3D printing would enable the colonists to make use of the local rock to build with.

It would be better to have at leat 10 or more colonists to provide social interaction to keep their mental health in a good condition.

[Karriz]

They are going to send a whole bunch of unmanned modules before even trying a manned mission, so I see two possible outcomes:

1) They come to the conclusion that the technology isn't ready yet, and postpone the manned launch beyound 2023.

2) Everything works fine and they go for it.

Either way, no harm done, even if the outcome number 1 is more likely.

I'm not going to hold my breath, since they don't even have a contract with SpaceX yet. In fact, it seems like SpaceX has its own colonization plans, which will probably be better thought of.

[AstronautGeologist]

Yeah right. Us Earth-dwellers are going to end up watching them sit around with their bones and muscles decaying into nothingness. It'll be grisly.

[WestAir]

Mars has gravity. They can even bring P-90X with them to stop muscle atrophy.

[Person012345]

with current technology we can certainly send people on a one way trip to Mars and land them safely on the surface.

We can even do so reliably and repeatedly, IF we put in enough effort to send those repeat missions.

And there's the problem, we won't. After one, maybe two, missions get there the novelty will have gone, people lose interest, the media no longer pay to cover the cost (which is how they plan to finance it, Big Brother style "reality tv" coverage of the settlers taking a pee and arguing about who's going to have to don their space suit to walk out to the hydroponic farm to get lunch for everyone), and the program is abandoned.

IF/when someone dies, there might be a revival of interest but at the same time the investors will be torn between the drama media value of a "rescue mission" and the risk of being sued for damages by the next of kin (no number of disclaimers and other forms denying right to compensation can prevent that), and in the end the lawyers will win out, the Mars 1 company gets sued for every cent it's worth, and the settlers are left to die on Mars, finding their radio link with earth suddenly severed one day.

I'd LOVE for a program to settle Mars to go ahead, and private funding to be the way to do it, but it will just never work as long as the above remains true for our society.

I didn't say we couldn't do it. I said that there are flaws in doing it. Not in the technology, but in the people.

[Person012345]

So what are these painfully obvious flaws then?

You know, that people are morons, won't understand properly what it will be like, will want to come back and of course they can't. Plus as mentioned above, public interest will start to wane. What then? Will space X fund everything out of their own pocket? Or will they have some way of getting out of it and abandoning the colonists to their fate (there are ways you can do this without making it look like that's what you're doing). What of children born on mars?

[CoriW]

Well I figured I'd go ahead and say my thoughts in this thread.

I honestly think it's 100% possible.

Water on Mars? Frozen water ice. Check

Oxygen on Mars? Acquired from water, and atmosphere is 0.13% Oxygen. Check

Food on Mars? Possible to grow food on Mars, some in greenhouses some out in Mars atmosphere. Check

Radiation protection? Soil. Check

Expanding the base for future population growth? Mars has lots of Iron on it. Check

So technologically everything is good to go. Almost

The sad part is that it's not that simple. The good thing is that the people going to Mars will have 9 whole years of training under their belts, which is a good start, they will know everything they would ever possibly need to in order to survive there long term. They'll also already be getting along with each other for the most part, since during the 9 year training period if two people are found to not get along with each other either the group doesn't get to go or somebody in the group gets replaced and training starts all over again.

So we have 4 highly trained individuals that get along relatively well with each other, what's the problem? Well the first problem is the phycological challenges of 4 people being secluded for 2 years all alone with an entire planet to themselves for 2 years while waiting for the next mission to come with 4 more people. However let's assume they're able to keep busy and don't get fed up with each other, after all they will have the following things to do.

- Keep everything up and running.

- Do research requested from Earth

- Explore

- TV and Internet (Yes they will have TV and Internet, it will however have up to a 40 minute delay depending on the location of Mars at the time.)

So at this point, every 2 years 4 more people will arrive with additional knowledge and training under their belts, until the colony is between 24 - 40 people. Once the colony has expanded to be self sustaining with 24 - 40 people I think that there would be little phycological challenges as there would be enough socializing and such to keep from everybody getting fed up with each other. At this point 12 - 20 years will have also passed since the original colonists arrived, so children would also likely be around by then.

Now if they can get to that point, bravo, because at that point I think the mission would be a complete success! However as I said earlier... "The sad part is that it's not that simple."

So now that we've covered the good, let's go over the bad. First I'll also say that it has been officially said in the Mars One FAQ (Don't ask me where, that FAQ is massive, I'd be lucky to find that part again.) that there will be NO LAWS in the Mars colony, which does make sense because it's not like we can send someone to arrest people on Mars. The colonists will have to come up with their own rules and laws.

1) The individuals get fed up with each other in the capsule during the 5 month trip to Mars... This is completely possible.

2) The individuals get fed up with each other some time during the 2 year waiting period for the next mission to arrive. This is also completely possible.

3) Some time during the additional 5 - 9 missions to Mars the groups of 4 split up into cliques and start disliking each other. This would probably eventually cause fighting to break out in the colony.

4) Suicide, knowing your going to spend the rest of your life on a different planet and never see your friends or family in person ever again would be quite a bummer. However this probably wouldn't kill off the entire colony, probably only some.

So these are all the things that could go wrong on the colonists side of things, now let's look at what could go wrong Earth side.

5) Funding, this one could prevent the project from even beginning in the first place, because funding from a reality show isn't exactly the most effective business model ever. The project and show will need a lot of interest and support to even get off the ground, their initial estimate is 6 billion dollars (USD) with each subsequent mission costing an additional 4 billion dollars (USD), keep in mind these numbers also keep some margins just in case. However that totals at 42 billion dollars (USD) over around 20 years or so to get an end result of a 40 person self sustaining Mars colony.

However with that being said it could be possible because of the long duration of the project, and this leads us directly into the last thing that could go wrong.

6) Public Interest, this is even more important than funding in this case because the funding comes pretty much as a direct result of public interest. If there is no public interest, there is nobody watching the reality show, and the result is no money.

The public interest is likely to be relatively high at the beginning of the project, enough to fund the initial 6 billion dollar (USD) mission? Maybe. However over time the reality show will likely get less and less interest, everything that happens on in will eventually just be the same old thing that's happened before. But let's say they get the 6 billion dollars (USD), it's likely that the reality show won't be able to hold great interest for the following 18 years or so to fund the rest of the mission.

-- IN CLOSING --

So that is just my input on the subject. The idea Mars One is proposing is actually pretty sound, but the biggest problem with their business model is the funding source, which isn't all that reliable.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in complete support of Mars One, no matter how unlikely it may be, I really like the idea of Mars being developed and I hope that somebody gets a Mars colony going in my life time, whether it be Mars One or another project.

[The Stinger]

You know, that people are morons, won't understand properly what it will be like, will want to come back and of course they can't. Plus as mentioned above, public interest will start to wane. What then? Will space X fund everything out of their own pocket? Or will they have some way of getting out of it and abandoning the colonists to their fate (there are ways you can do this without making it look like that's what you're doing). What of children born on mars?

You mean Mars One right instead of SpaceX.

Thats why they evaluate the applicants, they will also be subjected to a secluded environment similar to the Mars outpost.

What if they run out of money? They are self sustaining, so they don't need money to survive. They (might) need communications with Earth for various reasons.

I can imagine, when the shows stops, some space agencies might step in(or even during the show) do offer in exchange for the exploration of Mars.

What about the children? That's a whole debate in and of itself. But with out reproduction there is no colonization.

[Cryocasm]

42 billion dollars are nothing to countries today, that's not even close to the money stolen each year by assholes politicians from tax payers.

[jwenting]

42 billion dollars are nothing to countries today, that's not even close to the money stolen each year by assholes politicians from tax payers.

yes, but that's all being used for good causes like making Muslims feel good about their past and telling your children that they're pests who are destroying the planet and should be exterminated, not wasted on such useless frivolities like colonising other planets, finding new sources of raw materials, and increasing the sum total of human knowledge...

[karolus10]

During cost estimations, many people seems to forgot that Mars to stay aren't just trip to mars without any means of return, this is colonization mission ,so they need hardware to set-up a base (staging point for further expansion) that would last years if not decades... mars one look more like one-way camping trip .

Round trip to mars is pretty small undertake vs permanent stay, if we send people and hardware there it is no turning back (you can't cancel colonization under way).

Edited June 11, 2013 by karolus10

[Rocketscience101]

A few months ago I would've done it, but now I realize that I have a family, and a life to live. I think another company needs to think of a similar idea, yet with a return plan, that one I would sign up for in a heart beat. They need to go with people, who have nothing here. No offense to those who feel that way, but if you have nothing i.e. a family, a job, a girlfriend, or something that you would need to take care of here on Earth. These people are those who have a better option on Mars than with what they have here on Earth. Again no offense to anyone, its just that is how I feel about this matter.

[The Stinger]

But a round trip still needs to be self sustaining.

Actually the best way to colonize Mars might be Mars Direct.

Every succeeding mission adds their landing vehicle to the growing base.

[Kerbface]

A few months ago I would've done it, but now I realize that I have a family, and a life to live. I think another company needs to think of a similar idea, yet with a return plan, that one I would sign up for in a heart beat. They need to go with people, who have nothing here. No offense to those who feel that way, but if you have nothing i.e. a family, a job, a girlfriend, or something that you would need to take care of here on Earth. These people are those who have a better option on Mars than with what they have here on Earth. Again no offense to anyone, its just that is how I feel about this matter.

I reckon if they do a Mars to Stay mission, that may change at a later date, say 15 years later, and give the crew the option to return in a launch vehicle to orbit, where they will stay in an orbital rotating station to slowly reaccomodate their bodies to higher gravity levels, before being sent back to Earth.

[Nibb31]

Self-sustaining life support has never been done yet, even here on Earth. We have theoretical models, but we haven't even experimented them. It's a tough nut to crack before anyone can be sent on a one-way mission to another planet. 30 years locked in a 10m² hab module, eating only hydroponic tomatoes and drinking recycled urine will make anyone depressive.

Also, a sustainable colony means that people will have to start making babies in space. We don't know if that is even possible with the radiation and gravity environment on Mars. There is simply no knowledge on the subject and it's certainly not ethical to start performing human pregnancy experiments before we have a certainty that there is no risk for the mother or child.

Colonization or one-way trips simply make no sense. They are pointless, dangerous and unethical. The first missions to Mars will have to be round trips for exploration and science. We hardly know anything about Mars.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Nibb31

[karolus10]

Sending food supply wouldn't be such big problem in early years, but Yeah... I don't see first couple of missions to be one-way, but stay missions will the next step.

Also small habitats are fine for shorter missions, but permanent base would require more real estate for working and living.

[The Stinger]

Self-sustaining life support has never been done yet, even here on Earth. We have theoretical models, but we haven't even experimented them. It's a tough nut to crack before anyone can be sent on a one-way mission to another planet. 30 years locked in a 10m² hab module, eating only hydroponic tomatoes and drinking recycled urine will make anyone depressive.

Also, a sustainable colony means that people will have to start making babies in space. We don't know if that is even possible with the radiation and gravity environment on Mars. There is simply no knowledge on the subject and it's certainly not ethical to start performing human pregnancy experiments before we have a certainty that there is no risk for the mother or child.

Colonization or one-way trips simply make no sense. They are pointless, dangerous and unethical. The first missions to Mars will have to be round trips for exploration and science. We hardly know anything about Mars.

Self-sustaining life support has already been proven, look at the ISS. But of course the astronauts on the ISS don't grow their own plants. You can use hydroponics, it's being used by commercial plant and vegetable companies.

With 1/3rd of the Earth gravity there's no reason to think that a woman wont have a normal pregnancy. On Mars the radiation only comes from above and is partly block by the atmosphere.

They won't be stuck in a small habitat module, the base will have additional module connected to it with each arriving group. There's also the additional hydroponics units, which are supposed to be larger than the habitat modules.

They can also drill for water on Mars. Not that there's anything wrong with drinking recycled urine, because it's just water. Actually everyone on Earth is drinking recycled urine, only difference on Mars is that it doesn't include animal urine.

It's more dangerous to send people back than to let them stay, as space is much more unforgiving than than Mars.

We hardly know anything about Mars? What gives you that idea? It's the most examined and studied planet next to Earth.

[John FX]

I remember hearing about the plan to send an advance craft with 5T of hydrogen that would be combined with co2 in the air to make 100T of fuel. Missions like that could prepare infrastructure and abate the need to get everything done just after landing.

[Nibb31]

Self-sustaining life support has already been proven, look at the ISS.

The ISS isn't self sustaining. It relies on supplies, fuel, water and spare parts delivered on regular basis.

But of course the astronauts on the ISS don't grow their own plants. You can use hydroponics, it's being used by commercial plant and vegetable companies.

Simple hydroponics isn't enough. You need high-yield hydroponics and high-nutrition varieties, which will come at the expense of crop variety. Hydroponics work on Earth, but we have no knowledge of how those particular varieties perform in low-gravity/high radiation environments. Are you willing to risk your life on them? What if they turn out being inedible? What if you lose your entire crop from some kind of disease? What if they don't produce enough?

With 1/3rd of the Earth gravity there's no reason to think that a woman wont have a normal pregnancy. On Mars the radiation only comes from above and is partly block by the atmosphere.

You don't know that, because nobody knows anything about partial gravity pregnancy. We know about full gravity and a little bit about micro-gravity, but we have never done any biological experiments in partial gravity, so we have absolutely no idea about what to expect. It's like studying the properties of ice and steam, and extrapolating the properties of liquid water without ever seeing any.

We are only just getting the first results from MSL on ambient radiation on Mars surface. We do know that radiation has a much stronger effect on the developing cells of a fetus or a child than on a grown adult, therefore the acceptable radiation levels are much lower. We simply don't know anything about the effects of cosmic radiation on a developing fetus.

There are simply too many unknowns at the moment, and we need to do a lot more science before we can find out if humans can safely live and reproduce on Mars.

They won't be stuck in a small habitat module, the base will have additional module connected to it with each arriving group. There's also the additional hydroponics units, which are supposed to be larger than the habitat modules.

Yeah, that's still a pretty small horizon. Base modules will have to be shipped from Earth, with mass constraints, therefore small. Cosmic ray shielding means that walls will have to be thick with very few windows, so there won't be much to see. You can have inflatable greenhouses, but again, they will have to be shielded to protect the crops, with artificial lighting.

Don't count on using local materials and construction in the early decades. Mining and construction is hard. Mining wearing a space suit is harder. Specially designed heavy equipment will have to be shipped from Earth, with mass constraints and a huge expense, yet most supply missions will be bringing basic survival supplies in priority.

Combine that with the lack of food variety, entertainment, social opportunities, any hope of a better life, and the tremendous cost of actually going there, and it really doesn't look like a very appealing life for most people.

They can also drill for water on Mars.

Again, we have never done it. There are spots where it might be possible in theory, but as long as we haven't surveyed the sites, tested the techniques and developed a reliable system to use ISRU, we can't depend on it for the survival of a one-way expedition.

It's more dangerous to send people back than to let them stay, as space is much more unforgiving than than Mars.

No, because living on Mars for a lifetime will expose you to more risk than a 9 month transit.

We hardly know anything about Mars? What gives you that idea? It's the most examined and studied planet next to Earth.

Yet we still hardly know anything. Did you know that MSL is the first time we have actually measured cosmic radiation on Mars? We have never done any sismological studies, any biological experiments in 0.3g, any drilling beyond a couple of centimeters, any atmospheric sampling, any ISRU experiments, or even any proper meteorological surveys... There is so much more we need to know before we can assume that we can survive on Mars for more than a few months.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Nibb31

[Kerbface]

0.3g

I'm sure you realise and just wrote the wrong thing, but since I see this figure so often I thought I should point it out because it seems like a lot of people are getting it wrong. Mars is 0.371G, which is a lot closer to 0.4G than 0.3G. People just seem to try and recall it any only get the first number so they end up rounding down. May seem unimportant but I'd bet it would matter in regards to how well people's bodies would operate in the long term.

[jwenting]

I'm sure you realise and just wrote the wrong thing, but since I see this figure so often I thought I should point it out because it seems like a lot of people are getting it wrong. Mars is 0.371G, which is a lot closer to 0.4G than 0.3G. People just seem to try and recall it any only get the first number so they end up rounding down. May seem unimportant but I'd bet it would matter in regards to how well people's bodies would operate in the long term.

And matters a lot too if you want to lift back out of that gravity well and into orbit because you want to go home (not that the idea is for them to go home, but people are speculating here about initial manned two-way missions, kinda silly when you could land the craft and use its components to build your base).

[The Stinger]

The ISS isn't self sustaining. It relies on supplies, fuel, water and spare parts delivered on regular basis.

I know the ISS isn't self sustaining, but it shows you can setup a self sustaining environment.

Simple hydroponics isn't enough. You need high-yield hydroponics and high-nutrition varieties, which will come at the expense of crop variety. Hydroponics work on Earth, but we have no knowledge of how those particular varieties perform in low-gravity/high radiation environments. Are you willing to risk your life on them? What if they turn out being inedible? What if you lose your entire crop from some kind of disease? What if they don't produce enough?

Tests on the ISS already have shown that plants grow just fine in zero gravity, they grow just like they do in 1g.

You don't know that, because nobody knows anything about partial gravity pregnancy. We know about full gravity and a little bit about micro-gravity, but we have never done any biological experiments in partial gravity, so we have absolutely no idea about what to expect. It's like studying the properties of ice and steam, and extrapolating the properties of liquid water without ever seeing any.

We are only just getting the first results from MSL on ambient radiation on Mars surface. We do know that radiation has a much stronger effect on the developing cells of a fetus or a child than on a grown adult, therefore the acceptable radiation levels are much lower. We simply don't know anything about the effects of cosmic radiation on a developing fetus.

There are simply too many unknowns at the moment, and we need to do a lot more science before we can find out if humans can safely live and reproduce on Mars.

There's also no reason to think there would be a problem. The only big problem is radiation, which you can shield yourself from.

Yeah, that's still a pretty small horizon. Base modules will have to be shipped from Earth, with mass constraints, therefore small. Cosmic ray shielding means that walls will have to be thick with very few windows, so there won't be much to see. You can have inflatable greenhouses, but again, they will have to be shielded to protect the crops, with artificial lighting.

Still that's not a 10m² space in 30 years. Soil can help to shield against radiation, so most of the base could be underground.

To compensate for the few windows, you can use external cameras which broadens your view of the surrounding area.

Don't count on using local materials and construction in the early decades. Mining and construction is hard. Mining wearing a space suit is harder. Specially designed heavy equipment will have to be shipped from Earth, with mass constraints and a huge expense, yet most supply missions will be bringing basic survival supplies in priority.

Of course mining would take a long time, but that's not the main priority. But like with anything, you start small, so you don't need to ship huge equipment from Earth. Maybe none at all in the long run.

Combine that with the lack of food variety, entertainment, social opportunities, any hope of a better life, and the tremendous cost of actually going there, and it really doesn't look like a very appealing life for most people.

As the base expands the food variety can expand too.

Entertainment can be uploaded to the base computers, just like video messages from loved ones and other communications.

A better life is subjective, if you want to be a settler on an other planet then this all seems very appealing.

Again, we have never done it. There are spots where it might be possible in theory, but as long as we haven't surveyed the sites, tested the techniques and developed a reliable system to use ISRU, we can't depend on it for the survival of a one-way expedition.

Digging up water from the soil, heating it up to extract the water and dumping the soil doesn't sound like a hard thing to do.

No, because living on Mars for a lifetime will expose you to more risk than a 9 month transit.

You also have the return trip.

According to the Mars One site:

The 210-day journey Mars One settlers will take, amounts to radiation exposure of 386 +/- 63 mSv, considering these recent measurements as standard.

Mars's surface receives more radiation than the Earth's but still blocks considerable amount. Radiation exposure on the surface is 30 µSv per hour during solar minimum; during solar maximum, dosage equivalent of this exposure is reduced by the factor two.

If the settlers spend on average three hours every three days outside the habitat, their individual exposure adds up to 11 mSv per year.

Now let's say they are 28 when they blast off and become the average age of 75. That's 47 years on Mars. 517 + 385 = 902

That under every space agencies limit.

On the return trip you have to deal with zero gravity again. Failure of equipment is a bigger problem in space.

Also micro meteorites are a greater threat. Among other threats.

Yet we still hardly know anything. Did you know that MSL is the first time we have actually measured cosmic radiation on Mars? We have never done any sismological studies, any biological experiments in 0.3g, any drilling beyond a couple of centimeters, any atmospheric sampling, any ISRU experiments, or even any proper meteorological surveys... There is so much more we need to know before we can assume that we can survive on Mars for more than a few months.

Insight will change that. What about all the biological experiments on the ISS which are in zero gravity? Curiosity has an atmospheric sampler and weather sensors.

I think you under estimate how much we actually know about Mars.

[Fractal_UK]

The fact is though that although we have many of the individual pieces of technology required to make an attempt at the colonisation of Mars, few them have actually been utilised together in the kind of circumstances that potential Mars colonists would be facing. I have no doubt that humanity will derive enormous benefits from in-situ resource utilisation on other planets and asteroids within our solar system and that the sooner we develop such technology the richer (both scientifically and economically) we will be as a species but Mars One is not going to be the project to demonstate this.

While it likely has fewer benefits in terms of ISRU directly (though certainly still many), it seems to me that a better approach would be to demonstrate the concept of a self-sustaining colony on the moon with a view to preparatory work on either Phobos or Deimos before colonisation of Mars. This way, such concepts would have been properly prototyped before being applied to Mars in a life or death situation. Additionally, preparatory work on one of the Martian moons would likely simplify an emergency-return capacity to the first Martian astronauts - then you need only land small craft capable of delivering the colonists to a larger return vessel on the surface of one of these moons.

There are severe ethical considerations with sending off a group of people to another planet with no way to come back, especially when their ability to survive without ongoing support from Earth is essentially non-existent. That's before we consider the long-term damage that could be done to space exploration in general if the mission did turn into a disaster - public opinion could end up hampering manned space flight for a generation if the public perception becomes that manned space exploration is merely an expensive way of killing astronauts.

It is better to proceed a little more slowly, cover all of the angles and do this scientifically. The colonisation and exploitation of Mars should be a scientific and engineering endeavour, not done in the name of reality TV.

[The Stinger]

With the 1/6th gravity of the Moon and the 1/1666th gravity of Phobos it's not a wise idea.

[Nibb31]

I know the ISS isn't self sustaining, but it shows you can setup a self sustaining environment.

No it doesn't.

Tests on the ISS already have shown that plants grow just fine in zero gravity, they grow just like they do in 1g.

No, they grow differently, which might have an impact on the yield of the crop. We don't know. And as I said, you can't extrapolate results in partial gravity from experiments in microgravity. They are two different environments and we have zero experience in partial gravity biology. Microgravity has negative effects on some biological functions. We don't know what level of partial gravity is safe in the long term. Do we need 1.0G, 0.6G, or is 0.371G enough? We simply don't know.

We need to study the environment before we risk human lives on theoretical extrapolations.

There's also no reason to think there would be a problem. The only big problem is radiation, which you can shield yourself from.

There's no reason to believe everything will go well. When you design a space mission, you always design it so that things won't go wrong. Then you assume they will, and design around them. Then you assume that your fixes will go wrong too, and you design more contingencies, and so on... It's not the rockets that make spaceflight expensive. It's the engineering.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

The shielding issue is similar. We know that there is cosmic radiation, but we can't design a base without knowing the shielding requirements, and we can't know those requirements without doing more experimentation. We simply don't know yet if we can overcome the radiation issue.

Still that's not a 10m² space in 30 years. Soil can help to shield against radiation, so most of the base could be underground.

How do you do that? Earth moving and digging equipment is heavy. A bulldozer or an excavator is typically 40tons. How do you send it to Mars surface? You also need it to be a special-built design to be low maintenance, electric, shielded, and to work in vacuum. It's going to cost billions... Who is going to pay for it and for why?

To compensate for the few windows, you can use external cameras which broadens your view of the surrounding area.

In that case, you might as well build your bunker in a desert somewhere. There is no point in living on Mars if you're going to live in an underground bunker with TV screens for the outside view. You can do that on Earth for much cheaper.

Of course mining would take a long time, but that's not the main priority. But like with anything, you start small, so you don't need to ship huge equipment from Earth. Maybe none at all in the long run.

You can't make something out of nothing. You're talking about digging an underground base and now you say that you don't need heavy equipment. How are your colonists going to dig? With shovels in space suits?

As the base expands the food variety can expand too.

How does your base expand with no supplies from Earth and no heavy equipment? How do you expand your food variety? Magic?

If you do rely on supplies and hardware from Earth, who pays for it? For what ROI?

A better life is subjective, if you want to be a settler on an other planet then this all seems very appealing.

You can have a much more pleasant experience for a fraction of the cost by settling in Antarctica or on the Ocean floor. You don't need to go to Mars if you can live the same thing on Earth.

Digging up water from the soil, heating it up to extract the water and dumping the soil doesn't sound like a hard thing to do.

In space, everything is much harder. You need to develop new techniques and special tools for every engineering task you can imagine. Those are not unsurmountable problems, but you've got to try them out a few times to figure out what works and what doesn't in practice. Mundane stuff like breaking a drill bit or lubricating a hinge can become a huge issue when you have to don a space suit, prepare an EVA and fix things wearing space suit gloves. It takes time and a lot of money to design around that sort of stuff. You underestimate the engineering effort by several orders of magnitude.

Now I can understand the point of a scientific outpost that would spend several months on Mars, with crew rotations, on a model similar to the ISS or to the Scott Amundsen base in Antarctica. It would be mostly government funded, maybe with some private sponsorships. It wouldn't be self sustaining, it would need resupplies, the crew would rotate, and it would provide lots of science.

I would personally prefer a Moon base first though, to develop the techniques and experience of working in partial gravity, ISRU, hydroponics, EVA techniques and hardware, etc...

However, there is no point in a one-way colony for the next couple of decades. It serves no purpose, the cost would be tremendous, and there is no incentive for anyone to pay that much money.

ETA: What Fractal_UK said. Thanks mate.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Nibb31