Colonies on Mars -- fundamental problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arupel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Mars
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of establishing a colony on Mars, addressing various challenges including the effects of Martian gravity on human health, the reliability of information from popular science media, and the broader implications of colonization efforts. Participants explore theoretical, practical, and speculative aspects of long-term human survival in low gravity environments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concerns about the effects of Mars' low gravity (38% of Earth's) on human organs and overall health, suggesting that organ degradation could limit survival to one generation.
  • Others challenge these claims, questioning the assumptions about organ degradation and the severity of health issues arising from low gravity, asking for evidence to support such assertions.
  • There is mention of anecdotal evidence from popular science programs, with some participants arguing that these sources often contain inaccuracies and should not be relied upon for scientific claims.
  • Participants discuss the potential for long-term health issues faced by astronauts in low gravity, including muscle atrophy and bone density loss, while noting the lack of comprehensive studies on the effects of long-term exposure to low gravity.
  • Concerns are raised about radiation exposure during a Mars mission, given the planet's thin atmosphere, which offers little protection compared to Earth.
  • Some participants suggest that robotic exploration may be a more viable option than human colonization, citing the immense costs and risks involved in establishing a colony.
  • There is a recognition of the unknowns regarding human immunity and reproduction in low gravity, with calls for more research before attempting colonization.
  • Discussions touch on the broader implications of space colonization, including ethical considerations and the motivations behind such endeavors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility of colonizing Mars, with multiple competing views presented regarding the health implications of low gravity, the reliability of popular science sources, and the overall viability of human colonization efforts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of experimental data on long-term health effects of low gravity on complex organisms, the reliance on anecdotal evidence from media sources, and the unresolved nature of many health concerns associated with low gravity environments.

  • #31
Isn't that sophistry? Establishment and resupply of a colony (like Jamestown, for instance) presupposes enormous external state support. One can expect that other nations would vociferously object under the terms of the treaty. And I didn't say it couldn't be done; just that it would be illegal. We've built special secure housing for people, because the law is so often broken.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
I don't get it. If people are confident they can survive on Mars, and are willing to take the risk in exchange for being the first inhabitants on a new planet, who are you on this forum to tell them they can't or shouldn't? Nobody is forcing them or you to go. If it scares you, stay home.
 
  • #33
Because of the moral hazard that their country assumes when they do (the huge expense of ongoing resupply, and the poor prospects of a return journey), and the damage they will do to a pristine ecosystem when they arrive. I'd be fully in favor of PROHIBITING any Americans from landing on Mars. And an international treaty saying the same for other nations. EVENTUALLY, when we have a better grasp of the ecosystem and whatever biome(s) we might find, then I would allow research stations. But not until then, and we're a very long way off that standard.
 
  • #34
There's a thing called "Planetary Protection." Either we live by that as a moral code, or we just bulldoze it all until it looks like Texas to us.
 
  • #35
Timber said:
Because of the moral hazard that their country assumes when they do (the huge expense of ongoing resupply, and the poor prospects of a return journey), and the damage they will do to a pristine ecosystem when they arrive. I'd be fully in favor of PROHIBITING any Americans from landing on Mars. And an international treaty saying the same for other nations. EVENTUALLY, when we have a better grasp of the ecosystem and whatever biome(s) we might find, then I would allow research stations. But not until then, and we're a very long way off that standard.

I agree with you that Mars shouldn't be colonized(until it becomes, if ever, practical to do so), but because the planet is a desolate, frozen rock with no food, air, or (liquid)water millions of miles away from any food, air, and water.

If biomes were to be found, then of course moral objections, but this is unlikely to happen. At best we may find evidence of microbes that lived there billions of years ago.

But, I have no objections to studying and advancing the technology required for colonizing other worlds. If it's possible and feasible to terraform Mars someday far in the future, I'm all for attempting it.
 
  • #36
The fact that Mars is red comes close to proving in itself that at one time it was home to a very large biome. The methane plumes may lead us to absolute proof. Then there's the Viking data, which appeared to find evidence of current-day extremophile bacteria.

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-year-old-viking-life-mars.html
 
  • #37
I say we get there BEFORE the beauracracy catches up.
 
  • #38
phyzguy said:
I don't get it. If people are confident they can survive on Mars, and are willing to take the risk in exchange for being the first inhabitants on a new planet, who are you on this forum to tell them they can't or shouldn't? Nobody is forcing them or you to go. If it scares you, stay home.
That's one way of looking at it but there are people in all walks of life who can be persuaded into actions that put them in danger. Drug dealers use the fact that people can be lured into very dangerous behaviour and so can religious extremists and casinos. Make anything attractive enough and there will always be someone daft enough to take it up.
Who am I to make that comment? A thinking person who has concern for others. My opinion is what it's worth and no more but at least my point is a humane one.
 
  • #39
p1l0t said:
I say we get there BEFORE the beauracracy catches up.
. . . . which was the attitude to destroying the rainforest and for fishing out the North Atlantic Cod etc. etc.. Then leave it to the grandchildren to sort out the result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
  • #40
sophiecentaur said:
Did you not get the Irony?

Does that mean there actually are no "Mars advocates" claiming something like that? Than what was the point of this post?
 
  • #41
sophiecentaur said:
. . . . which was the attitude to destroying the rainforest and for fishing out the North Atlantic Cod etc. etc.. Then leave it to the grandchildren to sort out the result.
Well but Mars is already not suitable for humans. If anything we should send 2/3 of the population there and then maybe Earth will have a chance of being preserved.
 
  • #42
DrStupid said:
Does that mean there actually are no "Mars advocates" claiming something like that? Than what was the point of this post?
I think the point was that all the 'simple' solutions for living on Mars seem to be dismissed as too hard when applied to surviving on a 'broken' Earth. I have to agree with that too. Temperature and gravity are two factors that make living on Earth (even in fall out shelters etc. ) far preferable to any other alternative yet Mars fans still favour the Mars solution.
 
  • #43
p1l0t said:
Well but Mars is already not suitable for humans. If anything we should send 2/3 of the population there and then maybe Earth will have a chance of being preserved.
Or perhaps just have a good war. Alternatively just wait for a massive plague. Horrific circumstances but the outcome could be limited overall damage. People always assume that we can actually do something about it' and it may not always be the case.
PS Cost of a few billion one way tickets?
 
  • #44
sophiecentaur said:
Or perhaps just have a good war. Alternatively just wait for a massive plague. Horrific circumstances but the outcome could be limited overall damage. People always assume that we can actually do something about it' and it may not always be the case.
PS Cost of a few billion one way tickets?
Be careful what you wish for... No sane person would make such a decision unless it was the only hope left for humanity. Which is probably why we will wait until it's far too late.
 
  • #45
Not what I wish. It would be no surprise, though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: p1l0t
  • #46
If you were a stranded humanoid space alien or just some AI; your warp drives had packed up, but you still had some fuel to do short distance maneuvers.
I'd say Earth would look like be a better place to attempt a landing than Mars.
 
  • #47
Thread closed for moderation. This topic has been discussed many times already on PF; there might not be much point in another discussion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arupel and sophiecentaur
  • #48
Thread will remain closed. Thank you to all who participated. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: p1l0t

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
11K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
23K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K