What steps need to be taken for successful human colonization of Mars?

[Astronuc]

There are already Mars exploration advocacy groups, e.g. The Mars Society - http://www.marssociety.org/portal .

As much as members of the public push, it's not a priority for NASA or the general public.

D-He³ is attractive for fusion reactor, but the conditions are more challenging than for DT or DD fusion.

 

[Dale]

we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to Mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3

I like this idea. I think the technology developed in establishing a permanent and self-sustaining moon base would be much more valuable than the technology developed for a visit to Mars.

 

[ThienAn]

There are many things to consider to even begin to build a mission to Mars. First, energy, engine exaust, fluid, oxygen, screws, hovercraft, etc. This is the history repeats itself as the reflection of the Cold War. But, one of the safest way to reduce risks is not to do the rendezvous, and not using the Space Shuttle (I think) to provide mor eenergy for both engine and the astronauts. Plus, as you say before, fund, war, political parties, and we never know if something is going to happen, so croos our fingers and wish the program good luck.

 

[ThienAn]

Hey, an idea: a delayed-trip to Mars. A joint programm between U.S and other countries would sastify this idea.

 

[Astronuc]

NASA is investing in the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Cargo Vehicle and Shuttle-derived booster technology. First the moon, and perhaps then Mars.

The booster for a mission to Mars has yet to be determined, but I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead. Possibly modules of ISS if the they hold up or if the could (if necessary) be retrofitted or upgraded.

 

[Danger]

A Skylab type orbital support station would be needed in orbit around Mars. That would have to be sent in advance.

I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead.

I'm wondering about the necessity of that. Wouldn't it be more efficient to send the crew in the station?

 

[Herodotus]

There are just simply too many unknowns at the current time. We still need to conduct tests after we have developed the technology, just as the Apollo program did before it sent man to the moon. And if we do send a space station to Mars, we need to make it self sustainable, before it becomes manned. Otherwise, we would need to resupply the crew.

 

[frankinstein]

There are just simply too many unknowns at the current time. We still need to conduct tests after we have developed the technology, just as the Apollo program did before it sent man to the moon. And if we do send a space station to Mars, we need to make it self sustainable, before it becomes manned. Otherwise, we would need to resupply the crew.

Ok...1969 man landed on the moon but humanity did not! Why? Ok listen to the pitch to the president: "Mr. president we're goanna send three guys in a tin can to the moon just to show those Russians what America is all about! What do you say Mr. president?"

Ok Three guys to the moon in a ship that if one guy farted its a real pain...

A real scientific expedition to the moon would have been very different. There would be many more crew members and most of those scientists, you'd have a doctor on board, yes just like star trek. You would have many more reusable parts to save costs and escalate the missions. Eventually if things really got too expensive you'd invite the rest of the world to indulge in space exploration and help colonize the moon.

The mission to Mars smacks too much of the cold war propaganda that perpetuated fear. Are we to be soo naive that thinking that if the world thought the US was really going to Mars that would gain us respect? A real Mars mission would be done with a really big ship with hundreds if not thousands on board. Such technology would come about from the exploration of the moon where infrastructure and large scale missions that lasted years would have been practiced.

All to sad ladies and gentlemen we have not such experience and yahoo cowboy missions to Mars, if ever attempted, will be responded with a yawn...


Frank

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Ok...1969 man landed on the moon but humanity did not! Why? Ok listen to the pitch to the president: "Mr. president we're goanna send three guys in a tin can to the moon just to show those Russians what America is all about! What do you say Mr. president?"

Ok Three guys to the moon in a ship that if one guy farted its a real pain...

That is ovbiously a gross oversimplification of an historic achievement. While the driving force behind the space race may have been politically motivated, the technical advancements during the projects were staggering in scope, and have gone unmatched into the present day. Flying three men to the moon in a "tin can" is an extraordinary achievement, by any measure.

A real scientific expedition to the moon would have been very different. There would be many more crew members and most of those scientists, you'd have a doctor on board, yes just like star trek. You would have many more reusable parts to save costs and escalate the missions. Eventually if things really got too expensive you'd invite the rest of the world to indulge in space exploration and help colonize the moon.

Not only is this a pie-in-the-sky utopian view of a "scientific expdition," the technical feasability of such a project is beyond our technical capabilities even today, let alone in the 1960's.

A scientific project does not require the entire team to go to the location; sending three men to the moon at a time (2 to the surface) and collecting samples and placing instruments that can then be controlled and analyzed on Earth at the scientists' leisure is a realistic and efficient solution. Only 12 men have ever walked on the Moon, but how many tens of thousands of scientists have scrutinized samples and data collected by those 12 men?

The mission to Mars smacks too much of the cold war propaganda that perpetuated fear. Are we to be soo naive that thinking that if the world thought the US was really going to Mars that would gain us respect?

I don't really see where you're getting any of this. Contrary to your personal interpretation, a mission to Mars would probably be an international effort, with many countries taking part in the design and implementation.

A real Mars mission would be done with a really big ship with hundreds if not thousands on board. Such technology would come about from the exploration of the moon where infrastructure and large scale missions that lasted years would have been practiced.

All I can say to this is there has to be a first step SOMEWHERE. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can even think about running. What you're proposing is creating a permanent scientific facility on Mars, but you can't skip the necessary intermediate steps to get there.

 

[frankinstein]

That is ovbiously a gross oversimplification of an historic achievement. While the driving force behind the space race may have been politically motivated, the technical advancements during the projects were staggering in scope, and have gone unmatched into the present day. Flying three men to the moon in a "tin can" is an extraordinary achievement, by any measure.

Not only is this a pie-in-the-sky utopian view of a "scientific expdition," the technical feasability of such a project is beyond our technical capabilities even today, let alone in the 1960's.

Three men to the moon in a "tin-can" a great achievement by any measure? Excuse me but the trip to the moon is more like the Vikings sailing to the American continent. Small ship, not much creature comforts. Now let's go back centuries before any Europeans could ever make ships that sailed the Vikings to America. When the Chinese decided to sail across vast oceans there were no examples of larger ships comparable for the task they imagined. But they could take the principles of the ships they had developed to build big ships. And they did build big ships before any Europeans.

So my point here is there are and were principles and methods know then and now that would make a more robust exploration of the moon. For instance; utilizing multiple launchings to airlift systems for the mission. To clarify: Something like skylab that could carry many more crew members and for longer durations would have been more ideal. This would mean that the Staturn V would be used as the large cargo lifter that would place in orbit the heavy gear and fuel. Now you only need to place a skylab like ship in orbit once after that it's a matter of air lifting fuel for any future missions. A Saturn 1b is used just to airlift a capsule carrying the crew intended to fly to the moon. The capsule does not fly to the moon but remains in Earth orbit until the crew return from the moon. So the skylab size ship carries the crew in style to the moon. Now you may argue what about the lander and the moon cart! Yes, yes I haven't forgotten those parts. As I mentioned earlier the Saturn V is the heavy lifter, it could be used to air lift the lander or landers depending on the complexity of the mission into orbit separately and then landers dock with the skylab ship in Earth orbit.

The scenario I describe above was very possible at the time and would have been a much more robust exploration of the moon.

A scientific project does not require the entire team to go to the location; sending three men to the moon at a time (2 to the surface) and collecting samples and placing instruments that can then be controlled and analyzed on Earth at the scientists' leisure is a realistic and efficient solution. Only 12 men have ever walked on the Moon, but how many tens of thousands of scientists have scrutinized samples and data collected by those 12 men?.

And such a task can be performed by a machine, which by the way is how the Russians brought back rocks from the moon. This approach is by far much more economical. While some may argue the point to sending men to the moon was to develop technologies for humans to survive in space. Low Earth orbit missions, skylab, russian space station, etc have done far more productive work to understanding the problems of survival in space than any moon mission.

All I can say to this is there has to be a first step SOMEWHERE. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can even think about running. What you're proposing is creating a permanent scientific facility on Mars, but you can't skip the necessary intermediate steps to get there.

No you're wrong...We should have the abilty to do backward flips by the time we decide to take on a mission to Mars...

 

[Topher925]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

 

[LowlyPion]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

Certainly there is no rush to get there now is there? Neither is there any rush to terraform it before we even may know what would be there and whether or not terraforming is possible before the sun would incinerate us all - even if on Mars.

Remember that terraforming the Earth took a considerable amount of time and went through a number of epochs in developing an atmospheric medium that would facilitate the chemistry we all enjoy. Even short circuiting evolution and going for the end point of creating a suitable environment on the planet is a daunting task. Such trivial concerns as what weather will develop with a more robust atmosphere may present extraordinarily difficult trade-offs.

 

[mshinavar]

Knowing what we know now about these little rovers, their capabilities, and the puzzles they face, the next generation of rovers could be designed to be WAY more capable, but not cost a whole lot more. Our technology is advancing apace, and the next generation of rovers could be lighter, faster, more agile, and more durable.

to some extent I disagree. How much bigger can we make a rover, that is capable of making it to Mars on the current boosters? would it be "not a whole lot more" to place an upperstage transfer engine in LEO, just so this tin can can make it there? It would be hard to fighter jockey it in there like Apollo, when signals have a couple minutes of lag on them

then if you get to the moon with a 20,000 lb rover, how do you land? Pheonix was already too heavy for the standard inflatable bag idea. I've talked to people at JPL, that said when the sky crane idea was proposed, it was viewed as the worst idea ever. hovering with rocket power? yea right... (although all of space problems are minimizing the number of single point of failures, unlike airplanes where they are almost nonexistant)

Phoenix used a Delta II Heavy to get 775 lbs on mars. what if you wanted a vehicle that could move more than a mile on Mars (slight understatement, but nevertheless a vehicle that could get somewhere semi distant) it would probably be in the 3000lb class, probably similar to the most wild off road vehicle we have on Earth. But that's 4 times as massive at liftoff, short of doing the calculus, i would venture a guess that its not as simple as 4x the launch vehicle. for example, IIRC, the shuttle on the first stage requires 12 lbs of propellant to add 1 lb of payload. this would follow the same trend.

it might not be "that much more" to build a bigger rover based off the technology base and experience we have developed with our various rovers over the last decade or so, but more often than not, the payload is the inexpensive part of a space operation.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Three men to the moon in a "tin-can" a great achievement by any measure? Excuse me but the trip to the moon is more like the Vikings sailing to the American continent. Small ship, not much creature comforts.

We obviously disagree greatly about the historical and technological significance of the Apollo missions.

So my point here is there are and were principles and methods know then and now that would make a more robust exploration of the moon.

I think your subjective definition of "more robust exploration" is somewhat contrary to the requirements and goals that were set at the time of the Apollo misisons, and they aren't really in-line with exploration goals for Mars that have been proposed by NASA. When you say robust, in what way? Have you done a trade-off study to determine your propsed method is indeed the best method (how do you even define the "best") or at leat as good as you claim? Launching a bunch of stuff into orbit to be assembled and then sending it to the moon doesn't necessarily sound like a slam-dunk to me.

Again, it seems to me that you think the only "worthwhile" manned scientific exploration mission as one where all of the scientists and equipment are carried along in laboratories that either orbit and/or land on the moon. This seems like it would be inefficient and technically unreasonable when compared with other options.

And such a task can be performed by a machine, which by the way is how the Russians brought back rocks from the moon. This approach is by far much more economical.

Are you sure? If you measure the economy of the missions by how much moon rock they brought back versus how much the programs cost, Apollo wins by a VERY large margin.

Apollo Estimated Cost- $25.4 billion (upper estimate)
Total Moon Samples Returned- 381.7 kg
Cost/Weight- $66.5 million per kilogram

Luna Estimated Cost- 4.5 billlion
Total Moon Samples Returned- 0.326 kg
Cost/Weight- $12.2 billion per kilogram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_missions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_program

 

[Integral]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

5yrs

A more reasonable number would be 500yrs. How can we possibly create a working ecosystem on Mars if we cannot maintain the one we have here on earth? Far more important that sending cowboys in tin cans to nearby by barren rocks is leaning to live on the Earth. Any expedition to the solar system will be entirely dependent on supplies from Earth so it is essential we be able to maintain a "home" base.

 

[frankinstein]

I think your subjective definition of "more robust exploration" is somewhat contrary to the requirements and goals that were set at the time of the Apollo misisons, and they aren't really in-line with exploration goals for Mars that have been proposed by NASA. When you say robust, in what way? Have you done a trade-off study to determine your propsed method is indeed the best method (how do you even define the "best") or at leat as good as you claim? Launching a bunch of stuff into orbit to be assembled and then sending it to the moon doesn't necessarily sound like a slam-dunk to me.

Again, it seems to me that you think the only "worthwhile" manned scientific exploration mission as one where all of the scientists and equipment are carried along in laboratories that either orbit and/or land on the moon. This seems like it would be inefficient and technically unreasonable when compared with other options.

Your objective for the moon missions are much too short sighted. It's not only about exploring the moon that we want to achieve but to also learn how to survive in space for long periods of time, inclusive of alien worlds such as the moon. Within that context not only is the exploration of the moon by more individuals with skills and experience to personally look, see and "feel" the alien world are possible, but the ROI on developing the knowledge base and experience for the eventual colonization of space is much higher as compared to a tin can landing on the moon. Taking my approach benefits by solving the kinds of problems that would be encountered for long stays on the moon, Apollo missions lack this kind of benefit because the objective was a very short term one.

Are you sure? If you measure the economy of the missions by how much moon rock they brought back versus how much the programs cost, Apollo wins by a VERY large margin.

Apollo Estimated Cost- $25.4 billion (upper estimate)
Total Moon Samples Returned- 381.7 kg
Cost/Weight- $66.5 million per kilogram

Luna Estimated Cost- 4.5 billlion
Total Moon Samples Returned- 0.326 kg
Cost/Weight- $12.2 billion per kilogram

Here again you're short sighted, your comparison limits the amount of rocks that can be sent back by a machine. This is a ludicrous assumption. The fact that it would take more fuel and added equipment to send men to the moon only inhibits a manned mission to carry back material to earth. A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

Frank

 

[LowlyPion]

5yrs

A more reasonable number would be 500yrs. How can we possibly create a working ecosystem on Mars if we cannot maintain the one we have here on earth? Far more important that sending cowboys in tin cans to nearby by barren rocks is leaning to live on the Earth. Any expedition to the solar system will be entirely dependent on supplies from Earth so it is essential we be able to maintain a "home" base.

As a point of curiosity what process could even be driven to create the volume of just the gases that Mars would require? Where would the energy come from to drive the necessary reactions? I don't see us heating up mountains of perchlorates and releasing O2. Mars albedo ranges from .2 to .4 and developing clouds would do little to help harvest what precious sunlight is even available. (Forget for a moment the not inconsiderable task of releasing Martian water sources.) The point being that just where is the energy coming from to overcome the entropy there to be more favorable for human habitation?

 

[FredGarvin]

Your objective for the moon missions are much too short sighted. It's not only about exploring the moon that we want to achieve but to also learn how to survive in space for long periods of time, inclusive of alien worlds such as the moon. Within that context not only is the exploration of the moon by more individuals with skills and experience to personally look, see and "feel" the alien world are possible, but the ROI on developing the knowledge base and experience for the eventual colonization of space is much higher as compared to a tin can landing on the moon. Taking my approach benefits by solving the kinds of problems that would be encountered for long stays on the moon, Apollo missions lack this kind of benefit because the objective was a very short term one.

Here again you're short sighted, your comparison limits the amount of rocks that can be sent back by a machine. This is a ludicrous assumption. The fact that it would take more fuel and added equipment to send men to the moon only inhibits a manned mission to carry back material to earth. A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

You are all over the place. In the same post you made an argument that the ROI for manned missions includes the experience of individuals learning to live in space. Now you turn around and say that it is more economical for unmanned missions the size of Apollo? What is it?

YOU made the statement that the Russian method of retrieving moon rocks was more economical. ME proved that incorrect by pointing out the economics. How is that short sighted?

I think you need to start backing up some of your wild *** claims with some kind of reputable data.

 

[frankinstein]

You are all over the place. In the same post you made an argument that the ROI for manned missions includes the experience of individuals learning to live in space. Now you turn around and say that it is more economical for unmanned missions the size of Apollo? What is it?

YOU made the statement that the Russian method of retrieving moon rocks was more economical. ME proved that incorrect by pointing out the economics. How is that short sighted?

I think you need to start backing up some of your wild *** claims with some kind of reputable data.

Wow...You're failing to understand the context that each argument is addressing...Unmanned space exlporation is more economical in comparision to manned missions if the objective is simply to collect data and not solve problems for humans to live in space. To solve the problems for colonization of space requires a much different approach than the Apollo missions...

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Frank

 

[Topher925]

As a point of curiosity what process could even be driven to create the volume of just the gases that Mars would require?

Hence the purpose of terriforming. Send some hybrid grass and some plants over there and start them off in an isolated green house until they can firmly root themselves in the martian soil. It would require and incredibly large amount of resources to terraform a planet artificially so why not do it with biology? Life is a phenomenon that exists because of adapting itself and its environment.

And by 5 years, I meant, start experimenting in 5 years. Obviously you will not be able to terraform an entire planet in that short of time. Hell, it would take me 5 years just to grow a tomato.

 

[FredGarvin]

I'm not failing to comprehend anything. You're operating with two vastly different paradigms. You can't run a space program like that. If you had unlimited funds that's one thing. NASA has to maintain one central driving goal. You're talking about sending up massive unmanned missions the size of Saturn V at the same time as developing the terraforming abilities on the moon.

The next aspect is that you assume that the data collected on current missions does nothing to support future missions and the knowledge base. That is completely false. There is not one "simple" task to perform that can be taken for granted in space. Why do you think there so many flights leading up to Apollo 11? every aspect of that flight was tested and tried prior to.

I'm still waiting on your backing up of statements like:

A real scientific expedition to the moon would have been very different. There would be many more crew members and most of those scientists, you'd have a doctor on board, yes just like star trek.

Actually, that one is going in my sig line because that is just too precious to pass up.

Three men to the moon in a "tin-can" a great achievement by any measure? Excuse me but the trip to the moon is more like the Vikings sailing to the American continent.

The scenario I describe above was very possible at the time and would have been a much more robust exploration of the moon.

And such a task can be performed by a machine, which by the way is how the Russians brought back rocks from the moon. This approach is by far much more economical.

Apollo missions lack this kind of benefit because the objective was a very short term one.

A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting quotes that have no technical basis in reality. Start talking actual technical aspects and not just "ideas." The devil is in the technical details that you are simply casting aside.

 

[FredGarvin]

Hence the purpose of terriforming. Send some hybrid grass and some plants over there and start them off in an isolated green house until they can firmly root themselves in the martian soil. It would require and incredibly large amount of resources to terraform a planet artificially so why not do it with biology? Life is a phenomenon that exists because of adapting itself and its environment.

And by 5 years, I meant, start experimenting in 5 years. Obviously you will not be able to terraform an entire planet in that short of time. Hell, it would take me 5 years just to grow a tomato.

If they are correct about finding perchlorates in the water at the pole, that may be a very tough thing to do.

 

[LowlyPion]

Hence the purpose of terriforming. Send some hybrid grass and some plants over there and start them off in an isolated green house until they can firmly root themselves in the martian soil. It would require and incredibly large amount of resources to terraform a planet artificially so why not do it with biology? Life is a phenomenon that exists because of adapting itself and its environment.

Not to be contentious here but after you have some weed growing in a 4 sq meter pup tent with some as yet identified moisture and atmosphere, what is your plan for the remaining 1.43 x 10^14 sq m of the planet?

 

[frankinstein]

I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting quotes that have no technical basis in reality. Start talking actual technical aspects and not just "ideas." The devil is in the technical details that you are simply casting aside.

I'm not casting aside anything. You've taken personal offense to my postings, so be it. If you can't see how resources such as the Saturn V, Saturn 1b, Skylab, Lunar Module, etc could have been used differently, its your lose. Not seeing how political pressures thwarted the moon missions while ironically being the impetus for them proves I'm right about you. If the approach I describe were taken how likely would it have been that the US tax payer would have allowed a resource floating in space to just linger doing nothing? How much more likely would international involvement be requested by congress to sustain the lunar missions?

When the car is parked in the garage you're more likely to drive it than if you had to build a car every time you decided to take a trip...

If you need a feasibility study for that one then you truly are lacking common sense. :-)

Frank

 

[Topher925]

Not to be contentious here but after you have some weed growing in a 4 sq meter pup tent with some as yet identified moisture and atmosphere, what is your plan for the remaining 1.43 x 10^14 sq m of the planet?

I'm sensing some skepticism about my brilliantly thought out plan? Basically assuming a hybrid plant can be manufactured to thrive on Mars all you would have to do is plant it and let it grow. Basically the same thing that happens on Earth with crab grass or dandelions. Just plant it and hope it lives, and over a period of several years/decades/centuries and maybe a few more species introduced the atmosphere should start to look similar to Earth's. Algae did it to earth, why can't grass do it to mars?

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm sensing some skepticism about my brilliantly thought out plan? Basically assuming a hybrid plant can be manufactured to thrive on Mars all you would have to do is plant it and let it grow. Basically the same thing that happens on Earth with crab grass or dandelions. Just plant it and hope it lives, and over a period of several years/decades/centuries and maybe a few more species introduced the atmosphere should start to look similar to Earth's. Algae did it to earth, why can't grass do it to mars?

Do you have any candidates for what you would plant? I mean even crab grass needs a little water.

And I ask not so much out of skepticism (of which I have more than enough for both of us) so much as interest in commercializing it.

Think of all the fun you could have just terraforming the Atacama - the desert in Chile - right here on terra firma - where the Nasa Mars explorer types go to try out equipment and practice searching for life. Not to mention turning the areas around Las Vegas into a savanna.

I surely hope the 2019 landing won't be counting on a splashdown on a soft grassy field.

 

[Topher925]

Pion, I have no idea. I am certainly no biologist. But assuming there is a soil that can grow plants, I'm sure it can be done. After all life can thrive everywhere from volcanic vents 20,000ft deep in the ocean all the way to the Himalayas. What kind of plant or w/e can do it, I have no clue. Some kind of fern or something?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...your comparison limits the amount of rocks that can be sent back by a machine.

The fact that it would take more fuel and added equipment to send men to the moon only inhibits a manned mission to carry back material to earth. A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

I haven't assumed anything, I simply showed you that the United States' manned mission to the moon returned a factor of 1000 more material than the Russian robotic missions did, and at a cheaper "dollar per pound." You however are assuming that a robotic mission can be designed which collects the same amount of material a human could (while having the same inductive reasoning dictating sample collection) in the same weight taken by a Human pilot. This assumption is contradicted by historical precedent.

People are the most adaptive system you can put on a ship. Their power source is independent of the ship's power source, and they are much more likely to be able to overcome and/or fix unforseen problems on the ship, they are energy efficient, and can be used for a variety of roles.

 

[LowlyPion]

This assumption is contradicted by historical precedent.

This may be true - historically. However advances in technology and computing and communication have given us tools to manipulate, perceive, project, interact, over vast reaches of space - how ever slowly - the speed of light notwithstanding.

I think you may over value human presence weighed against the cost, when the human would have to be provided for and sustained over a period of many months. When the cost of transport is essentially doubled by the requirement to bring the human back alive as opposed to the economy of bringing back any sampler material - should the decision even be made to do so.

 

[LowlyPion]

Pion, I have no idea. I am certainly no biologist. But assuming there is a soil that can grow plants, I'm sure it can be done. After all life can thrive everywhere from volcanic vents 20,000ft deep in the ocean all the way to the Himalayas. What kind of plant or w/e can do it, I have no clue. Some kind of fern or something?

All of the things you describe require some sort of exchange media with its environment. With the atmosphere of Mars standing at about 1% of Earth already and air density on Earth already at 1/1000 the density of water, and the water media apparently (at the surface anyway) currently locked up in permafrost, it seems that the real problem to overcome in order to support life process, is the development of an active and effective media for transferring nutrients and waste with the environment.

This lack of reactivity with a potent media, or if there may be a sustainable reaction exchange with the Martian atmosphere, at best it may be conducted in an cold environment, with an atmosphere 1/100 th of Earth, with only 1/2 as much sunlight as Earth to support chemical processes. I'd say whatever the chemical reactions, one should require patience, as whatever reaction may occur would likely be in slow motion with Earthly expectations.