I understand the scientific issue of Mars, but in terms of colonization / exploration, I see no reason to drop down Mars's gravity well. With that much deltaV, the asteroids are open to us and we can use high specific impulse low thrust engines in the asteroid belt. With Mars's atmosphere providing so little radiation shielding, Mars has little radiation advantage over the asteroids in terms of human habitation. The outer asteroids have substantial volatiles - without the price of the Matian gravity well. While current rocketry prices are far too high, Mining on Nickel-Iron asteroids may eventually be profitable for some siderophile metals.
I understand the scientific issue of Mars, but in terms of colonization / exploration, I see no reason to drop down Mars's gravity well. With that much deltaV, the asteroids are open to us and we can use high specific impulse low thrust engines in the asteroid belt. With Mars's atmosphere providing so little radiation shielding, Mars has little radiation advantage over the asteroids in terms of human habitation. The outer asteroids have substantial volatiles - without the price of the Matian gravity well. While current rocketry prices are far too high, Mining on Nickel-Iron asteroids may eventually be profitable for some siderophile metals.
Have to disagree with you on this one. Mars is worse on every front to other options.
1. Colonizing the oceans (seasteading) is plenty hard enough, but if successful can scale MUCH faster than colonizing Mars.
2. If solar system exploration the goal, a Moon base is far more useful as a launchpad for missions to other parts of the solar system.
3. If Martian science is really the goal, robots are far cheaper. And yes, designing better robots and AI has lots of spillover benefits as well.
4. If the search for life is the goal, we should be visiting the ice moons of the gas giants, not Mars.
Mars is worse no matter what you want to do.
Learned much from that interview. Thanks.