What's better, 2-3 small mars colony's or one bigger one

[Heimdall5008]

I think a big problem for longterm Mars colonies will be the thin atmosphere. So much smaller asteroids than on earth are a deadly danger for every base, because they won't burn up on atmosphere entry.

Therefore I think some small colonies not that far apart (rover distance) would be the best solution for the beginning. The bases are close engough to support each other, to work together, but you still have local redundancy.

[RockoDyne]

I think a big problem for longterm Mars colonies will be the thin atmosphere. So much smaller asteroids than on earth are a deadly danger for every base, because they won't burn up on atmosphere entry.

Therefore I think some small colonies not that far apart (rover distance) would be the best solution for the beginning. The bases are close enough to support each other, to work together, but you still have local redundancy.

Or settle in a valley/lowlands. Or build horizontally, not vertically. Unless you are worried about impactors leaving kilometer wide craters, it's not going to be any worse to have most facilities on one site.

[xenomorph555]

And if that reactor fails?

Nuclear power is not a long-term solution for a Mars colony of any reasonable (non-Earth) size.

What do you mean, explain what goes wrong in your vision.

[R0cketC0der]

And if that reactor fails?

Nuclear power is not a long-term solution for a Mars colony of any reasonable (non-Earth) size.

If the reactor fails, the colony dies(unless it has a redundant one). However the reason will not be radiation, but the lack of power. Same goes for a lot of other parts that can break, such as the mining tools(assuming it's using ISRU), the oxygen generator, the hull, etc.

Fact is that there is a risk that some part of the colony fails and the whole colony dies, no matter how careful you are. And there is no type of power supply that can't fail.

[Nuke]

a power supply is also a requisite. you cant extract water without it, you cant make oxygen without it. no ifs ands or buts. solar would need to be very large scale to be effective. nuclear reactors are the best option that we have now (im not worried about irradiating mars, its already pretty hot, hot enough to need to extra shielding for your habitat). but i have a feeling a mars colony wont happen till we are in a post fusion world. a polywell or dpf type reactor would be ideal for this situation.

its all about power, you have power and you can do anything. you can colonize mars, you can colonize pluto.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Nuke

[Duxwing]

We should go big or go home because pinching pennies never colonized a planet: build many big habitats, each with multiply-redundant systems, enough people to survive catastrophes, and transportation to each other habitat.

-Duxwing

[cpast]

We should go big or go home because pinching pennies never colonized a planet: build many big habitats, each with multiply-redundant systems, enough people to survive catastrophes, and transportation to each other habitat.

Going big never colonized a planet either. Large projects have failed both because they tried to overeconomize and failed to set large enough objectives, and because they shot too high and failed to ever get enough funding to be completed.