We don't survive in Antarctica in self-sustaining habitats. Antarctica missions only survive because they get regular outside support which wouldn't be available on Mars.
That's the equivalent of what you want to do in regards to Mars. We don't have the technology to make sending people to Mars anything more than a very expensive form of assisted suicide.
1. And with the hundreds of billions of dollars that such a colony would cost, what exactly would they be doing that robots couldn't do more efficiently in terms of risk and cost? 2. The Moon can be easily supported from the Earth. We certainly can establish a Moon base easier than a Mars base and we'll actually get something humanity can use out of the deal.
Because of basic orbital mechanics. There are only certain periods when Mars and the Earth are in position of insertion burns to occur. Those periods are years apart.
And? Resupply missions a couple of years apart are not an issue if they're planned that way. Nothing about Mars makes resupply missions impossible.
Except that's exactly what you want to do. You are saying "Oh there might be something there that robots and probes can't study and even though we have no evidence that such a thing exists, we should send people anyway just because."
So any Mars colony would be a single point of failure away from total catastrophe? What if one of those supply missions fails?
Sure, but there is a very limited window for such resupply -- the short Antarctic summer. The bases are mostly on their own during the long Antarctic winters. Pretty much exactly as it would be for the Moon or Mars.
You are deep into the "no we can't", aren't you? The most basic precaution would be to have each resupply mission deliver enough supplies to last through the next two resupplies, so if a launch window is missed, no problem. You just keep the colony stocked with four+ years of supplies. Then there are emergency measures like rationing. And let's not forget that the colony would become more self-sustaining with every passing month. At some point the sorts of things coming in on resupply wouldn't be stuff that is critical in the short-term. They might be luxury goods (books, coffee, entertainment devices) or stuff that is useful but not critical (spare parts, a new machine of some sort). So missing a resupply might be inconvenient, but not fatal. We've done this sort of thing before. The example of Antarctica keeps coming up. The only real difference is the length of the supply chain and the time between resupplies. Both of which are manageable issues.
I'm deep in the "it's not worth the risk or cost until our technology improves". When we have fusion powered spacecraft with enough Delta-V to do an insertion burn from Earth orbit to Mars regardless of orbital positions and in a short period of time (1 to 3 months), then it will be time for a Mars colony. Until then, we should be focusing our efforts on the Moon and asteroid mining.
Those are extremely limited (in terms of capacity) and extremely rare, because of the danger and difficulty of flying into the Antarctic winter. As far as I know, there has never been a case where such an airdrop was necessary to save a station. I'm not even sure such airdrops would be capable of doing something of that magnitude. Obviously, it is riskier going to Mars than Antarctica. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It doesn't mean we can't achieve a reasonable safety tolerance.
So say that, instead of acting as if this is impossible. *Shrug.* Why not wait until we have developed teleporter technology and can just beam there? Waiting for an as-yet-uninvented technology to materialize is a recipe for never doing anything. If fusion power was nearer on the horizon, I'd agree. It's not. So the realistic decision is "Go to Mars with the technology we have, or don't go at all." It is POSSIBLE to go to Mars with the technology we have. Given that, I would rather attempt it now (after the preliminary step of putting a base on the Moon), then wait for a technology that may never come to pass. In the end, we agree on the broad approach: Moon first. I'm happy to focus on that, and put off the Mars debate until it's more relevant. Maybe by then we'll have fusion power. At the very least we'll have more experience in non-Earth habitats.
Fusion power with helium-3 is easy. The problem Is that Earth has basically none of it. The Moon has helium-3 in abundance (though not as much as Jupiter or Saturn). Your all or nothing position is ridiculous. We should continue going to Mars WITH ROBOTS until our technology improves and then we send people.
If fusion power was easy -- with or without helium-3 -- we would have it already. We've put enough research money into it for the past four decades. And we produce enough helium-3 to run a few test reactors. The problem isn't the fuel, it's controlling the reaction, particularly the plasma. It's not "all or nothing". It's just deciding that "good enough" is better than waiting for a "perfect" that may never arrive.
The amount of helium-3 used in those test reactors was functionally the entire supply available on the Earth. And those test reactors worked. Fusion power can be achieved economically at scale with helium-3. It cannot be without it. Meaning your assertion is false. It would be like claiming in the 1800's "If internal combustion were easy - with or without oil - we would have it already."
Um, link please? We have never had a fusion reaction that was a) sustainable and b) produced more power than was put into it. With or without Helium 3. Again, some sort of link to back up your assertion? Helium 3 has some advantages as a fuel (namely, somewhat higher efficiency and less radioactivity) but one disadvantage is that it requires higher temperatures and can be more difficult to control. I've not seen information suggesting a conventional D-T reactor cannot achieve economical industrial-scale output. I think you are wrong about Helium 3 being the only way to achieve a workable, economical fusion reactor. I will reserve comment until you provide the links requested. But your analogy works for my other point. Your requirement that we wait until we have fusion power before going to Mars is like claiming in the 1800s that we should wait until we have cars to settle the West.
