FYI - EconTalk just had an episode on this topic: https://www.econtalk.org/zach-weinersmith-on-space-settlement-and-a-city-on-mars/

Zach Weinersmith on Space Settlement and A City on Mars - Econlib

Loss of taste for most foods, vision problems, loss of muscle mass and bone density. In light of these and the many unpleasant our outright dangerous effects of space travel on human physiology, science writer and cartoonist Zach Weinersmith wonders: When it comes to the dream of space expansion, what exactly do we hope to […]

Please put the acceptance criteria in the description, not some random comment

Th definition below (1 person on Mars continuously for a year) isn't exactly what I would have called a colony - you could count the ISS as a space colony by those lights - but it does seem pretty credible as a scientific or PR endeavor by any number of governments, not to mention the world's richest and most unpredictable man.

Please update the description with the definition of colony.

Having a large human colony on Mars by 2050 is not very likely. Building a settlement where people can live long-term on Mars is really hard. We would need major new technology for things like making fuel, growing food, building shelters, and protecting from radiation. Right now we do not have all these capabilities (Clifford, 2021). It is extremely expensive like the Apollo mission and dangerous to send enough people and supplies to Mars too. Unless scientists make huge sudden breakthroughs, the 2050 timeline is too ambitious. A more realistic goal could be sending crews to visit Mars for short times by 2050. This would let us learn and practice for possible future colonies farther in the future. Overall, Mars will not be ready for large, permanent human settlements as soon as 2050 with today’s limits.

Clifford, C. (2021, August 2). Why we won't have a human colony on Mars any time soon. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/01/why-we-wont-have-a-human-colony-on-mars-any-time-soon.html

@PrafulPatil I would also bet no on this particular bet, but for different reasons than you stated. The cost for any one government to sustain would be too great unless circumstances changed resulting in a shift of the priority of our resources. I believe we already have the technology to get to Mars given that we got to the moon and back with technology that is less sophisticated than our outdated smartphones. The issue is that the definition is that at least one person(s) has to be there for one or more years meaning that we would have to have someone on Mars by the end of the year 2048 at the latest. I think one indicator we can observe the progress of getting to Mars more effectively is to see how the development of the supporting roles are progressing. According to NASA in an article from 2020, this includes communications, power, inflatable heat shields, etc. Without the proper support systems, it doesn’t matter if we can get there or not.

@PaulHawes9221 Hey Paul, essentially we are not as technologically advanced as we believe we are already. The Apollo was a different mission altogether, US wanted to beat USSR in Space race. but Mars mission is about viable colony, its not about landing for brief moment, click pictures and fly back to earth. Also more countries need to collaborate on resources and knowledge to do take this endeavor.

give me mars or give me mana

give me mars and @Stralor's mana!

Can you define what a mars colony would entail?

@PC Continuous habitation by at least one human.

@Elspeth Can we say continuous > 1 year?

That's how I was thinking for this market:

@Elspeth Yes.

@Elspeth does this mean that this resolves NO if there's no one on Mars in 2049? Or if someone lands on the last day of 2049 will you resolve YES if he's still there on the last day of 2050?

@jim This will resolve NO if no one is on Mars in 2049 and there hasn't been a colony before then.