Mars pioneers should stay there permanently, says Buzz Aldrin

He's actually got a pretty valid point.

What we need is incentive. Political freedom (yes like it or not no matter what country you live in at the moment, the fact is you could do with a little more freedom) was the incentive in the past. I don't think things are bad enough for this to be sufficient motivation at this time, maybe I'm wrong. Are there other incentives sufficient for such a commitment?

I agree with zbarlici, and I was discussing this very thing with my wife the other day (I actually discussed the concept of pioneers). The difference, of course, is that our pioneers were either forced to head elsewhere, or had the prospect of a better life. Space holds nothing tangible (except the thrill of discovery) for them at the moment.

Although I have enormous admiration for Buzz, I must respectfully disagree. Many of the first explorers of new regions have gone and come back before settling. If they hadn't come back then how would the others have known to follow?
Not enough is known about the issues that will be faced in such a hostile environment such as dust, radiation and long-term effects of reduced gravity that we should ask people to commit to permanent habitation at the beginning. After the first visitors explore these issues and ways of dealing with the problems are refined, then we can look at colonization.

Economic incentives.

If they found rare minerals or other types of elements on Mars I bet you'd see a lot of corporations start planning their own colonies and excursions to Mars.

My main issue, shared with others, is that human spaceflight drains all other space activity budgets resulting in the cancellation of valuable programs. A very bad thing.

If you want to go to Mars, you had better start learning to speak and read Chinese, my friends.

One thing you have to consider:

The first pioneers hadn't harnessed the power of communication via electromagnetic waves.

If you want to compare the pilgrims to the martian landers than you're missing a very very key aspect.

Early pioneers had to come back to their point of origin because the only way to convey the message was either

a) a bottle in the ocean and cross your fingers
b) send some people back to report

We're not in that situation. Yes it will take minutes or in some cases hours for the message to come through but you won't see periods without communication streching into weeks, months, years. Having a group of people stay on Mars won't put them far out of contact with Earth for long. Getting supplies to them is the logistical problem. In either event we need to afford ourselves a luxury we didn't have pre-industrial revolution and gather more intel on where we're going. At that point I'd agree with Buzz.

One additional problem, 30 people, mostly scientist, say 5, 3 doctors for redundancy, 10 maintenance staff, 5 agriculturalist, 6 utility operators, 4 janitorial staff, 2 communications speciallist, manufacturing, general labor, those will be some very busy 30 people, and it might take more than 5 years to train/crosstrain them.

Average temperature on Mars is minus 53C, and it is very windy and dusty. Hardly a place for humans until the sun start expanding or perhaps it can be terraformed. Terraforming is an interesting idea. There seems to be no way to do it in a human lifetime.

Actually looking for other planet systems and building better spacecrafts could be the most realistic future for mankind.

Terraforming is an interesting idea. There seems to be no way to do it in a human lifetime.

I see several misconceptions in this blog %u2013 things I think I can clear up.

First, about the time requirements for a Mars mission. Using Hohmann transfer orbits for minimum propellant/energy requirements, a Mars mission is a roughly two-year commitment: six months from Earth to Mars, one year waiting for a Hohmann transfer orbit launch window to open for the return trip, and six months from Mars to Earth.

Ion/plasma propulsion could stretch launch windows by two to three months in either direction, once the technology is mature enough to be "man-rated", as they say, but there is a risk involved with going faster: You create more chance of overshooting your target. "Lost in Space" may make a good name for a sci-fi show, but it is a lousy result for a real mission. NLS (Near Light Speed) technology is a seductive idea, but the distances between Earth and Mars are too short for it %u2013 even if we had it as a mature technology. NLS does not change the fundamentals: You still have to speed up and slow down in the real universe, at acceleration forces that humans can survive.

Assume a minimum two-year trip. Based on that, I agree with Aldrin. We need to get resources from Mars while we are there, whether we establish a permanent settlement or not. We may as well put in the work for a permanent settlement, since it is only a little more than the work for basic survival.

If we carry along all of the materials needed for consumption, each human adds four tons of supply-mass to the mission. A better solution is closed-ecological-loop life support systems (CELLSS, for short). Using highly efficient algae genetically engineered to be a complete food and for maximum efficiency in photosynthesis, each person would need roughly the mass of their own body in supplies for the entire mission, including for backup reserves.

People also have expressed concerns over environmental hazards, including radiation exposure, cold, wind and dust. There are good answers for all of these. For radiation on the trip between planets, a radiation shield can be relatively light %u2013 if it is unidirectional and aimed at the Sun, which is the main source of radiation problems. At Mars, underground, a colony can be well-protected. This works for cold, wind and dust, too. During initial setup of a ground-based colony, the inside of a crater provides a natural, omni-directional shield protection against wind and dust. In extreme cold conditions, insulation is the first key to survival; hang on to whatever heat you have. Various technologies that can produce power can help with the cold %u2013 the most convenient would probably be nuclear batteries.

Mars has abundant iron and silica resources that can be used for on-site construction, provided we arrive with good techniques and equipment for pursuing this. Rammed earth and other concrete-like options are possible, as is glass, adobe and more advanced ceramics like amorphous metal sheeting. Once we have things started, we can grow plants to provide more building materials. Bamboo is fast-growing and an excellent material for frameworks %u2013 likely even better in the 0.39 Earth-standard gravity on Mars. Natural latex could also be harvested from rubber trees (or other latex-producing plants, but rubber trees give predictable chemistry and quality). Most plants can be converted to plywood with enough pressure. Natural fiber sources for fabric could also be grown.

The bottom line is that if we think like pioneers before anyone even goes, we can devise good, reliable and flexible solutions to every problem likely to arise. Mars has too much wind? Good! Build high-altitude wind-power systems, like some of the kite-based ideas people have floated lately. Generate electric power to run electric heating elements, and generate the power above where the dust hits.

The other bottom line %u2013 cost %u2013 can be reduced with careful planning using every technological trick we have. Besides, Apollo was the greatest bargain the American public ever got; the U.S. government paid to launch the electronics industry that defined America's economy for decades.

I think more advanced robotics is a better idea than a manned mission. Imagine what robotics will be able to do in 20 years (proposed date for a manned mission). Given the progression in complexity, those machines would be just as capable as people, and we could sent a LOT more of them rather than just a few humans. Ultimately robotics is just going to get more done in less time compared to using people.