It's doubtful we'd send people to Mars as a one-way trip (though some regard that as a reasonable cost-cutting measure). The day-night cycle is almost the same. We don't know what extended time in ~40% gravity would be like, but people have lived for an extended time in zero G, which is a much more extreme change. Sailors on submarines have survived in tight quarters without natural sunlight or wide-open spaces for extended periods of time.
I think you're thinking of a trip to Mars in the most pessimistic terms possible: a small team of explorers with no return trip and they live out the rest of their days in a tiny RV buried under the Martian soil and totally dependent on Earth for supplies and entertainment and no possibility of meeting anyone new.
Consider a different possibility: a smallish community growing into a large community by periodic waves of immigration and shipments of equipment needed to establish self-sufficient infrastructure. Ships travel back and forth, so trips are possible. Living and working spaces are small at first, but are constantly being expanded by continuous construction. You can live and work with interesting people on an ambitious project to establish a permanent human presence in a hostile environment.
We don't really know which of these alternatives is going to be a more accurate description of the situation presenting itself to the first Martian settlers, but we'll have a good idea which it's going to be before sending anyone. And if it looks like it's going to be a miserable experience and way too expensive, well, we can wait another decade or so and let the technology mature.
Okay, but why? What is anyone's purpose for going to mars en masse? Migration to the New World was spurred on by the promise of wealth, resources, and independence from existing governments.
The latter is utterly implausible when you consider the total dependence colonists would have upon supply from the nations they're hypothetically fleeing. The former, well, again I suspect dependence upon supplies from the home-planet puts colonists on an extremely poor footing for negotiation.
I'm just not seeing the case for why large groups of people would feel compelled to make the trip at obscene cost.
When it comes to negotiation, both sides have quite a bit of leverage. Earth (pretending for a moment that it's a monolithic political entity) can threaten to withhold supplies, whereas Mars explorers can do things Earth doesn't want them to because they aren't there to stop them. So, the situation is complicated. Earth may have the upper hand in the beginning, but that dynamic could change as Mars becomes more self-sufficient.
A lot of scientists would want to go. Ordinary people might too if they were feeling adventurous and if Musk is right and we can send people at a relatively affordable cost. There will also probably be a lot of workers to do the things that are physically demanding and not very much fun. If they're paid more to do that work on Mars than on Earth, then it could be a good deal.
Some people might want to stake a claim to some land or participate in the creation of a new government. There might be valuable natural resources like gold or platinum that make the transportation and infrastructure costs worthwhile.
Some old people might prefer walking in ~40% gravity to being confined to a wheelchair on Earth. Some people might be sick of working on made-up first-world problems (like how to get more people to click on ads) and creating shareholder value, and want to do something more challenging and more rewarding. Some people might just prefer the company of the sort of person that would move to Mars.
I think you missed a subtlety in my argument. I'm not saying nobody will want to go to Mars. Obviously some will. I'm arguing that this is an extremely small contingent of people who are willing to make this journey when there's little social or economic reason to go.
> If they're paid more to do that work on Mars than on Earth, then it could be a good deal.
What good is money when you're stuck on a lifeless rock with no atmosphere, and nothing to actually spend that money on? What goods, exactly, do you think people are going to be buying on Mars — consider that the shipping costs alone would necessitate you being paid an absolutely astronomical (ha!) salary for your labor.
> Some people might want to stake a claim to some land or participate in the creation of a new government.
You're missing the greater point. None of this matters when you're occupying a dead, lifeless rock that will be completely and totally dependent upon the governments of the Earth you're trying to escape from.
Life on Earth is hard for a lot of people, for a lot of reasons -- debt, lack of employment, lack of opportunity, social unrest or civil war in the more unstable parts of the world. If you can start over somewhere else where it's possible to have a somewhat middle-class standard of living, it might not matter that much that the environment outside is harsh and inhospitable.
If life on Mars turns into a "work 16 hours a day, every day, to be able to buy your daily ration of CO2 filters from the company store" dystopia, then maybe everyone had better stay on Earth, but if we can at least avoid that scenario, then for a lot of people the prospect of being able to survive and have a stable job and a place to live and a community to be part of is appealing even if it's on a lifeless rock.
It's also not clear that Mars will remain totally dependent on Earth in the long term.
I think you're thinking of a trip to Mars in the most pessimistic terms possible: a small team of explorers with no return trip and they live out the rest of their days in a tiny RV buried under the Martian soil and totally dependent on Earth for supplies and entertainment and no possibility of meeting anyone new.
Consider a different possibility: a smallish community growing into a large community by periodic waves of immigration and shipments of equipment needed to establish self-sufficient infrastructure. Ships travel back and forth, so trips are possible. Living and working spaces are small at first, but are constantly being expanded by continuous construction. You can live and work with interesting people on an ambitious project to establish a permanent human presence in a hostile environment.
We don't really know which of these alternatives is going to be a more accurate description of the situation presenting itself to the first Martian settlers, but we'll have a good idea which it's going to be before sending anyone. And if it looks like it's going to be a miserable experience and way too expensive, well, we can wait another decade or so and let the technology mature.