Colonies on Mars -- fundamental problem

[arupel]

I believe it is the CEO of Amazon that would like to establish a large colony on Mars, making the safe assumption that some extinction event on Earth will get us anyway.

While there are numerous difficulties to this, there is one, I did not see mentioned, which makes this impossible. The gravity of MARS is 38% that of Earth.

While we could wear lead suits of Mars to alleviate bone degradation, we simply cannot do anything about the degradation of our organs because of this low gravity.

At best, we could survive a generation.

Is this just a pipe dream of a very rich man or is there some feasibility to such a colony?

 

[phinds]

I suggest a forum search. This topic has been beaten to death here on PF

 

[Bandersnatch]

we simply cannot do anything about the degradation of our organs because of this low gravity.

At best, we could survive a generation.

You've made several unsubstantiated assumptions here:
- living in 3rd of Earth's gravity leads to degradation of internal organs
- it is severe enough to cause death of organ failure
- the fatal changes have time scale of one generation
- the problem is insurmountable

Can you provide evidence for these claims? What made you think what you said is true? Start from the top.

 

[JLowe]

I would think this to be one of the least of our worries in establishing a colony a Mars.

 

[arupel]

The statement comes from a program on the science channel. I would assume their information comes from reliable sources and is correct.

But it also makes sense. Life began about 4 billion years ago under Earth's gravity. It takes only one organ, say the heart pumping blood under low gravity conditions for a much extended time, to screw things up.

I believe that the conditions of Earth gravity for complex evolution and organ development, for hundreds of millions of years, puts severe constraints on where we could colonize.​

Astronauts have been in space for year(s?) with only bone growth. But put them in a low gravity environment for 10-20 years, and fatal health problems could occur (my assumption).

Micro organisms would stand a better chance. (the fewer parts, the less that something can go wrong).

Anyway, whether or not my statement is true, there is, I believe, some verification on an experimental level, say an sufficient complex animal in space for an extended time is needed to answer this question

 

[Bandersnatch]

I would assume their information comes from reliable sources and is correct.

That's anecdotal. If you want to discuss this, you should provide some reliable basis for discussion. Maybe look up if the programme listed its sources. Or look at papers written by the scientists who were making this claim.

To you it sounds sensible. To me it sounds like an extraordinary claim. All I've ever seen concerning effects of low gravity are effects of living in zero-g (space stations, not 1/3rd g) on bone density and muscle tone. And IIRC those are a problem only insofar as returning to high-g environment. Why would reducing the strain on the heart muscle, or any other organ, cause it to fail? I would think it should increase longevity.

So, you see, we have opposite intuitions. Which only shows that intuition, especially when applied to such an alien domain, is not a good basis for having a discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

The statement comes from a program on the science channel. I would assume their information comes from reliable sources and is correct.

I would not.

 

[phinds]

The statement comes from a program on the science channel. I would assume their information comes from reliable sources and is correct.

To expand just a bit on what Russ said, I've watched numerous "science" programs on the Science Channel and never have I watched one that did not have obvious mis-statements, many of which were egregious. Some of the statements were by reputable physicists who would NEVER EVER say what they said on those programs in the presence of fellow physicists. Pop-science presentations can be a lot of fun to watch (I watch them all the time) but they are entertainment, not education.

 

[arupel]

I would agree that TV programs can be outdated.

However, Wikipedia - no experiment has been done to evaluate effect of long term low gravity on health.

But it has been repeatedly noted that astronauts over long term stays can suffer osteoporosis and loss of muscle mass'

From Kevin Fongs' book "Extreme Medicine," Penguin Press.
Dr. Fong hold degrees in medicine, astrophysics and engineering.

The heart works against gravity, pushing blood vertically through the carotid artery away from the heart to the brain.
Without this work the heart and the heart become deconditioned, slowing turning athletes into couch potatoes.

How this effects the brain is another question (my own).

Deprived of the need to work against the force of gravity, the body becomes deconditioned, etc. (he lists other serious consequences of low gravity on the body).

I looked at other sources, If you are not due for funding, suspicions are raised about radiation:
A 3 month trip to Mars will expose passengers to a lot of radiation.
The very weak atmosphere of Mars is no shield against radiation (unlike Earth's).

Scanning the literature, there are so many difficulties against colonization, that I doubt, that the way this planet, the way that it is going, will have the resources to accomplish such an event. We are better off with robotics.

The best effort would be the simulation of the Martian environment expected for colonizers, to the extent possible, on say monkeys, or other more convenient mammals before making the effort for colonization. If such an effort has good results and there are workable solutions for revealed problems, then an effort towards colonization might be considered.

The other major obstacle is money. Colonization, full blown, is not a billion dollar effort, it is a trillion dollar effort.

 

[Chronos]

Undoubtedly, survival in zero and low G environments has been an issue since day 1 of our space faring forays. Nor only are we [humans[ genetically programmed for a 1G environment, there are a host of other issues to that conspire against long term survivability. Low G obviously induces atrophy of the entire musculoskeletal system and we have good reason to believe this is not a good thing . Not to mention we have little to no knowledge of the potential consequences on things like immunity and reproduction. The sample size is far too small to enable any reliable conclusions. That does not mean these, or other challenges are insurmountable, but, it does imply considerable hubris to plop a colony on Mars and expect a happy ending given our current state of knowledge. As Q once said to Picard "space is filled with wonders and riches beyond your wildest imagination, but, it ain't safe."

 

[phinds]

I would agree that TV programs can be outdated.

Outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with it. My comments are correct for programs made yesterday. You're missing the point.

Again, pop-science presentations are entertainment, not education.

 

[sophiecentaur]

it does imply considerable hubris

That is par for the course. It's like the WW1 trenches when they pushed thousands of men at a time, over the top to die and then called them "heroes". It is as if the word "hero" makes it worth while for those guys who would have been more than happy to have stayed at home. The arm chair astronauts seem to have a very loud voice when it comes to the politics of space colonisation. No doubt it will come in due time but the cost benefit would need to change a lot before it would be really justifiable.

 

[p1l0t]

The real irony is that solar power is readily available and a realistic power source on Mars but the atmosphere is already full of CO2...

 

[russ_watters]

The real irony is that solar power is readily available and a realistic power source on Mars but the atmosphere is already full of CO2...

I don't follow.

 

[p1l0t]

I don't follow.

Renewable energy is a viable option but it doesn't matter if you pollute anyway. I guess my point we can live on submarines and space stations and just about anywhere in a simulated environment.

 

[sophiecentaur]

At a price.

 

[russ_watters]

Renewable energy is a viable option but it doesn't matter if you pollute anyway. I guess my point we can live on submarines and space stations and just about anywhere in a simulated environment.

I still don't follow. Solar doesn't pollute. Or are you saying that since the atmosphere is full of CO2 it is already polluted?

I guess that would be an irony if we were trying to breathe it, but even then its thin; both literally and figuratively. Anything can be a pollutant if you have too much of it, but the atmosphere on Mars is so thin I wouldn't consider it to be...even if we were trying to breathe it, which we aren't.

 

[p1l0t]

I still don't follow. Solar doesn't pollute. Or are you saying that since the atmosphere is full of CO2 it is already polluted?

I guess that would be an irony if we were trying to breathe it, but even then its thin; both literally and figuratively. Anything can be a pollutant if you have too much of it, but the atmosphere on Mars is so thin I wouldn't consider it to be...even if we were trying to breathe it, which we aren't.

Exactly.

 

[PeroK]

Renewable energy is a viable option but it doesn't matter if you pollute anyway. I guess my point we can live on submarines and space stations and just about anywhere in a simulated environment.

Which begs the question, why can't we survive a cataclysm on Earth by living in submarines or other simulated environment? But, I forget that - to the Mars advocates - creating an artificial environment on Earth is absurd - think of all the impossible engineering problems to solve! It's much simpler to set up a Martian colony. On Mars nothing is impossible!

 

[p1l0t]

Which begs the question, why can't we survive a cataclysm on Earth by living in submarines or other simulated environment? But, I forget that - to the Mars advocates - creating an artificial environment on Earth is absurd - think of all the impossible engineering problems to solve! It's much simpler to set up a Martian colony. On Mars nothing is impossible!

Well we could, but I think it's more of a backing up your data type mentality...

 

[Timber]

Not only is the idea of colonizing Mars anytime soon ridiculous, it's also illegal and immoraL.

 

[phinds]

Not only is the idea of colonizing Mars anytime soon ridiculous, it's also illegal and immoraL.

I think immoral is arguable but I can understand the point of view, but what on Earth makes you think it is illegal?

EDIT: and by the way, I agree that it's ridiculous

 

[DrStupid]

But, I forget that - to the Mars advocates - creating an artificial environment on Earth is absurd - think of all the impossible engineering problems to solve! It's much simpler to set up a Martian colony. On Mars nothing is impossible!

Reference?

 

[Chronos]

Short of any unforeseen and urgent cicumstances, a well planned and deliberate approach to exploration and manned visitation of Mars is obviously more sensible and economically sustainable than any hasty, bungling effort at colonization. We should resist the urge to tattoo mars' nickname with the blood of 'heroic' explorers.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Reference?

Did you not get the Irony?

 

[Timber]

I think immoral is arguable but I can understand the point of view, but what on Earth makes you think it is illegal?

EDIT: and by the way, I agree that it's ridiculous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

"The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[7] Article II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

 

[JLowe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

"The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[7] Article II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

If we actually had the capability to practically colonize Mars or mine it for resources, that treaty wouldn't stop us(or anyone else) from doing so.

 

[phinds]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

"The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[7] Article II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

That absolutely does NOT make a colony illegal, it just means that such a colony can't claim the planet for its mother country.

 

[phinds]

If we actually had the capability to practically colonize Mars or mine it for resources, that treaty wouldn't stop us(or anyone else) from doing so.

Nor does it attempt to do so. It just says you can't claim the planet, not that you can't put a colony there.

 

[JLowe]

Nor does it attempt to do so. It just says you can't claim the planet, not that you can't put a colony there.

That's true, but if one country has put up the effort, they're going to claim that part of land as their own. Especially if actual exploitable resources are involved.

It essentially only stops a preemptive claim from being legitimately recognized by other nations.