[bearnard1212 (OP)]

Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.

The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.

Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.

[Bored chemist]

the water is 100% radioactive,

No it isn't

I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.

Yes we do.

[Janus]

Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.

The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.

Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.

While radiation levels on Mars are higher than those on the Earth ( an average of 8 rad/yr vs 0.62 rad/yr) and would be unhealthy over long term exposure, we are not talking about sitting next to an unshielded nuclear pile levels.
Besides, that isn't how radiation works.  Just being exposed to radiation doesn't make something "radioactive". 
For water on Mars to be unsafe due to radiation, it would have to be contaminated with a radioactive element*. (which like any other contaminant be filtered out.)

*or having a higher than normal H3 vs H1 content.  But since H3 only makes up a trace amount of  all Hydrogen, and any process energetic enough to convert H1 in a water molecule to H3 would rip apart the molecule, this is not likely.

[evan_au]

If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive

The kinds of radiation are:
- high levels of ultraviolet: Protected by a spacesuit (which you also need due to near-zero atmospheric pressure).
- high levels of cosmic rays: Could be protected by building sleeping quarters underground, or putting a layer of dirt over the base
- Apart from that, there is just the usual rates of radioactive decay due to Uranium, Potassium and Thorium etc that you find on Earth. Except that these elements may be distributed more uniformly on Mars, due to the thinner crust and continental drift of Earth

Surface water is unstable in the low atmospheric pressure of Mars (it sublimates).
- So the water would be mined from below the surface of Mars, where it has been somewhat protected from cosmic rays.
- The first step in refining is to raise the temperature a bit, so pure water distills off, leaving dry dirt

Since transport to Mars is expensive, the idea is to ship equipment which can build stuff from raw materials found on Mars.
- Water: Mined
- Breathable air: Refined from water with solar power
- Rocket fuel from water and carbon dioxide (with solar power)
- Construction materials: Mined on-site
- This equipment would be shipped to Mars before humans arrived, so they could build up stocks of essential supplies, ready for the colonists.

NASA recently ran a competition to design buildings that could be made on Mars from local materials.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive

The kinds of radiation are:
- high levels of ultraviolet: Protected by a spacesuit (which you also need due to near-zero atmospheric pressure).
- high levels of cosmic rays: Could be protected by building sleeping quarters underground, or putting a layer of dirt over the base
- Apart from that, there is just the usual rates of radioactive decay due to Uranium, Potassium and Thorium etc that you find on Earth. Except that these elements may be distributed more uniformly on Mars, due to the thinner crust and continental drift of Earth

Surface water is unstable in the low atmospheric pressure of Mars (it sublimates).
- So the water would be mined from below the surface of Mars, where it has been somewhat protected from cosmic rays.
- The first step in refining is to raise the temperature a bit, so pure water distills off, leaving dry dirt

Since transport to Mars is expensive, the idea is to ship equipment which can build stuff from raw materials found on Mars.
- Water: Mined
- Breathable air: Refined from water with solar power
- Rocket fuel from water and carbon dioxide (with solar power)
- Construction materials: Mined on-site
- This equipment would be shipped to Mars before humans arrived, so they could build up stocks of essential supplies, ready for the colonists.

NASA recently ran a competition to design buildings that could be made on Mars from local materials.

Yeah, I`ve read that Elon Musk wants to send an uncrewed mission to Mars as a recon project. I far as I remember he wants to do that in 2024 and in 2026 crewed mission is about to be sent to Mars. I don`t know it for sure and I don`t know if it`s possible to happen.

[alancalverd]

0.2 mm of lead in your suit or vehicle will reduce the doserate of penetrating radiation  to levels commonly encountered on Earth. A couple of feet of soil will have the same effect and also provide significant insulation to reduce heat loss from your living quarters. Not sure if Mars has a hot centre (and why not?) so a deeper tunnel or geothermal bore hole will provide extra heat. The requisite technologies for survival were developed centuries ago by the Inuit and more recently by miners in Coober Pedy.

No point in erecting buildings above ground. The landscape doesn't change and there's nobody else around, so a photograph is as good as a window. All you need is a flagpole so you can find your way back home after an expedition.

[charles1948]

Perhaps the colonisation of Mars might offer one advantage:

We could fight our wars on Mars.

For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.

Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth.  Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.

There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert,  since it already is to start with.

I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?

[hamdani yusuf]

Perhaps the colonisation of Mars might offer one advantage:

We could fight our wars on Mars.

For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.

Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth.  Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.

There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert,  since it already is to start with.

I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?

Mars colonizers would disagree.

Why would they fight the war in the first place? Reminding them that they have common international goals and showing them objective reality should be a more efficient method to prevent wars.

[evan_au]

We could fight our wars on Mars.

I would prefer it to be treated more like Antarctica - each country develops their own base, and they are willing to help each other out if they get into trouble.
- The whole thing is done in the context of a treaty which bans military activity, specifically including nuclear weapons
- And an associated treaty protecting Fauna & Flora

The hardest part may be the ban on disposing of nuclear waste.
- In the case of Antarctica, it is possible to keep supplying diesel fuel. Not possible for Mars (plus there is no natural oxygen to burn it).
- In the case of Antarctica, it was possible to remove the US nuclear reactor, and clean up the mess it made. Not possible for Mars.
- So the whole settlement will probably need to run on solar power (wind power being very diffuse there)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Measures_for_the_Conservation_of_Antarctic_Fauna_and_Flora

[alancalverd]

Why national bases? Doesn't that just export the filth of politics to another planet? Rule 1: no flags. Now get on with the science, which is what we came here for.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.

The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.

Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.

While radiation levels on Mars are higher than those on the Earth ( an average of 8 rad/yr vs 0.62 rad/yr) and would be unhealthy over long term exposure, we are not talking about sitting next to an unshielded nuclear pile levels.
Besides, that isn't how radiation works.  Just being exposed to radiation doesn't make something "radioactive". 
For water on Mars to be unsafe due to radiation, it would have to be contaminated with a radioactive element*. (which like any other contaminant be filtered out.)

*or having a higher than normal H3 vs H1 content.  But since H3 only makes up a trace amount of  all Hydrogen, and any process energetic enough to convert H1 in a water molecule to H3 would rip apart the molecule, this is not likely.

Yeah, I was wrong about the contamination of the water on the red planet.
The type of radiation present on Mars is not due to any radioactive materials present on the Red Planet, but is due to regular exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind, plus it receives occasional lethal blasts that occur with strong solar flares.
Contamination versus Exposure:
However, a body of water exposed to radiation is not necessarily contaminated with radioactive material.
For water to be contaminated, radioactive material must be present; either floating on or dissolved in the water. Since cosmic and solar radiation is delivered in the form of rays, it simply passes through the water and does not contaminate it or make the water radioactive.

[alancalverd]

Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.

(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.

(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.

(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay  exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.

[Bored chemist]

(b)(iii) This planet is doomed- for example, by a star that's going to go red giant- and we need to practice getting to another one.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.

(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.

(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.

(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay  exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.

I still don`t understand why we should go there and waste a lot of money on this project. Yes, we need to expand our boundaries of space-traveling and develop our technology. But as for me, it would be better to invest in other space projects that would be very useful for humans.

[Bored chemist]

I still don`t understand why

Because...

this planet is doomed- for example, by a star that's going to go red giant- and we need to practice getting to another one.

[evan_au]

as for me, it would be better to invest in other space projects that would be very useful for humans.

What projects do you think are useful for humans?

Overall, I think we can agree that getting a COVID-19 vaccine deployed is useful for humans in 2021 (which will drift into 2022+ for many of the intermediate and poor nations)
- The politicians will look back and see that we have spent a lot of money on COVID-19 vaccines, and they will want to wind back all science research for the next decade to pay for it

The Chinese have a long-running goal to put taikonauts on the Moon
- Donald Trump had a sudden enthusiasm to have astronauts on the Moon to greet beat them
- We know about Biden's COVID policies, but it's unclear what his space priorities will be.
- At present, the ISS is looking for commercial buyers, otherwise it might be de-orbited as early as 2024

In contrast, Elon Musk will continue to look forward, and will look for new and innovative ways to put astronauts on Mars...

[alancalverd]

The Chinese have a long-running goal to put taikonauts on the Moon

I read this too quickly. Chinese takeouts on the Moon? Best laugh of the day.

As for projects useful to humans

1. Abolish religion

2. Reduce the human population

Then our descendants can enjoy life on the planet for which they evolved, for as long as the sun shines.

[hamdani yusuf]

Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.

(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.

(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.

(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay  exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.

As far as I know, currently Mars is lacking of native conscious beings. The only known form of consciousness there are artificial and came from earth. So I think it doesn't need anything, including humans.
Making Mars a habitable planet takes a lot of time. There are many things need to study with a lot of unknowns and uncertainties. If we wait for earth to become intolerable before we start exploring there, we wouldn't have enough time to do that and face the risk for human extinction. Maybe that's acceptable for you, but certainly not for many others.

[alancalverd]

A zillion years ago, Mars was the Garden of Eden but conscious beings rendered it uninhabitable and colonised Earth.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

(b)(iii) This planet is doomed- for example, by a star that's going to go red giant- and we need to practice getting to another one.

We still can save it. There is no such planet like Earth in the whole Solar system. It`s much easier to preserve Earth than trying to colonize other planets where it`s impossible to live.