Moral & Technological Problems with Mars Colonization

[Mr. Peabody]

I thought I'd make a thread highlighting some of the the problems that future mars colonists might face. The first problem that would need to be overcome would be how the colony would be re-supplied until it became self sufficient. Re-supply missions might take as long as 16 months to reach mars, deliver its cargo, and return to earth. Unless a new engine technology were perfected, such as EM drive, a large fleet of re-usable spacecraft would need to be built to re-supply the colony. Another problem is more on the moral side. Assuming the colony was built, what kind of laws would be made to protect the colonists, and how would these laws be enforced? Should the colonists be medically altered to adapt them more for a life in space? Children born on mars might never be able to return to earth because their weaker skeletal and muscular systems might be fatally damaged by earth's higher gravity. Mars colonists would have a much higher risk of cancer due to higher radiation levels. In a closed environment such as a habitation module or, eventually a closed cell city, with so many colonists close together, would epidemics would be much more prone to occur? I don't mean to be pessimistic, I am totally in favor of a mars colony, but these are all unanswered questions that will need to be addressed before such an undertaking. We are at a crossroads, both technologically and morally and our decision will impact future generations for decades to come. My question is, which way, humanity?                                                                                                                                                     

[Wjolcz]

Are they unanswered though? I feel like you've asnwered them yourself.

Before the US territories became self-sustainable colonies there were no specialists to build long-range ships. This is a pretty similar case, me thinks. The materials are probably already there. All the place needs is someone who knows what to dig for and how to process it. The next step would be to 3D print all the needed stuff and ship the materials unavailable in-situ.

About the gravity/skeleton issues: I'm pretty sure people born on Mars would stay on Mars. No point in having a colony if it's uninhabited. I'm pretty sure there are ways to improve the skeletal and muscular systems. If they aren't available yet, they will be. Genetical modification is not a bad thing as long as it serves a purpose, has benefits and doesn't cripple the organism IMO. It's kind of like asking yourself "Should I have this heart transplant surgery or not? 10,000 years ago they weren't available, so I guess it's the natural way to just accept the disease and die, no?" The world is changing. We either accept that or keep being "moral".

When it comes to the radiation: underground bases. There are also lightweight materials that could protect humans from harsh conditions. They simply aren't available because of patents on them, or something like that.

3 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

My question is, which way, humanity?                                      

Ad astra per aspera. There's no easy way to reach the stars.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Veeltch

[radonek]

3 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Unless a new engine technology were perfected, such as EM drive, a large fleet of re-usable spacecraft would need to be built to re-supply the colony.

Nah, transfer orbit is the easy part. There are some technological challenges, but those could be resolved. Hard part is to pull stuff up from gravity well, which begs a question why should colonists jump into another, albeit shallower gravity well. No, as much as I like to see Mars explored, moons and asteroids are more viable places for colonization.

[NSEP]

I have done some calculations and it turns out, a person needs to have less than 11 tons of life support per year. But the thing is, you are on Mars, that also means you need less to less life support, because of the lower gravity, right?

[Mikki]

First colonists might be mid-age male humans (maybe female too, nothing about, but unlikely) which are ready to face sudden and ugly death, until then prepare as much as possible for the next row of ... mid-age humans. This is more likely a "Your names will enter human history" thing for the first humans on mars, no funny business.

Must be done sometime, in my opinion. 50 years, maybe ten by now
It might take a thousand lives before a outpost is worth called "colony".

Edited January 14, 2017 by Mikki

[Shpaget]

4 minutes ago, NSEP said:

But the thing is, you are on Mars, that also means you need less to less life support, because of the lower gravity, right?

Without going into your calculation, since you haven't provided it, unless you plan on forcing your colonists to haul all that stuff by hand, the difference in weight is irrelevant. The mass is the same on Mars, Earth and in space, and for space travel, mass is all that matters, not weight.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Shpaget

[Mr. Peabody]

1 hour ago, radonek said:

 As much as I like to see Mars explored, moons and asteroids are more viable places for colonization.

I agree with you there. Outposts should be built on the moon first so that problems can be quickly resolved without excessively risking astronauts lives. After we have learned how to build a outpost on the moon, we'll be ready to build an outpost and eventually a colony on mars. Veeltch, morality isn't being "natural", its the difference between right and wrong. I'm not saying that any of the above mentioned things are necessarily wrong, just that we will have to decide whether or not we want them.

Edited January 14, 2017 by The Dunatian

[Wjolcz]

Why waste time and resources on establishing outposts on a body that isn't and will never be habitable? The "small steps" argument doesn't apply here since a base/outpost on the Moon won't differ much from a base/outpost on Mars, so why not go directly to Mars instead? And "because it's closer" also doesn't apply. Not like you can just drive there and arrive 30 minutes after an accident had happened. In fact, I feel like a Moon outpost would actually be harder to maintain. There isn't much ice there compared to what Mars might have (AFAIK) so not only the crew number would be limited by the abundance of resources but also there's a chance it might need constant supplies from Earth, which increases the costs. Also the gravity is even lower there.

Don't get me wrong. It would be amazing to look through the telescope and see some light up there. But I have a feeling a Moon outpost won't help much in a way of exploring Mars.

And I guess we could talk about morality and how people modified dogs and plants and how some people are better at running and other earn golden medals in swimming and the way their genes and evolution shaped them is "natural". It could end up in an argument about religion though. And I'd rather see this thread going than not.

[Codraroll]

28 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Why waste time and resources on establishing outposts on a body that isn't and will never be habitable? The "small steps" argument doesn't apply here since a base/outpost on the Moon won't differ much from a base/outpost on Mars, so why not go directly to Mars instead?

Less Delta-V required to resupply the colony or to transport people to and from it, less time required to do the same (which means it has a tourism potential, among other things), the time in transfer is much less taxing for the minds and bodies of the colonists, less lightspeed delay for communications, easier to land, launch windows are not much of a concern, better view of Earth from the base (has to count for something, right?), less power is needed to communicate at all, appreciable amount of solar radiation for crops (although temperature control is a bit more of a hassle), and sports events on the Moon would be freaking awesome to behold (and broadcasting it to the masses on Earth is a lot easier than for similar events on Mars).

Plus a few other things I might have forgotten.

[Wjolcz]

3 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Less Delta-V required to resupply the colony or to transport people to and from it, less time required to do the same (which means it has a tourism potential, among other things), the time in transfer is much less taxing for the minds and bodies of the colonists, less lightspeed delay for communications, easier to land, launch windows are not much of a concern, better view of Earth from the base (has to count for something, right?), less power is needed to communicate at all, appreciable amount of solar radiation for crops (although temperature control is a bit more of a hassle), and sports events on the Moon would be freaking awesome to behold (and broadcasting it to the masses on Earth is a lot easier than for similar events on Mars).

Plus a few other things I might have forgotten.

That's all fine and cool when we're talking about space tourism. But if we want to make sure the humankind survives no matter what happens to our home planet then Mars seems like the best option of these two.

[Thor Wotansen]

One of the main moral problems I see for a Mars colony is it's ability to maintain freedom of choice in one's lifestyle (within reason), maintaining an active and functional economy, and caring for those who for whatever reason become financially insolvent.  Homelessness is a poodle here on earth, but being homeless on another planet turns into a death sentence real quick.  The obvious solution is to have the Martian government provide housing, food and medical care but that sounds like communism real quick and the potential for corruption of the government officials responsible for such things becomes so high as to be certain.  On the other hand you have the fact that there will, for the foreseeable future of the colony (assuming it will be established) be plenty of work, and the types that go there will have skill sets that lend themselves to being useful, so this becomes more of a concern after a generation or so.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Why waste time and resources on establishing outposts on a body that isn't and will never be habitable? The "small steps" argument doesn't apply here since a base/outpost on the Moon won't differ much from a base/outpost on Mars, so why not go directly to Mars instead? And "because it's closer" also doesn't apply. Not like you can just drive there and arrive 30 minutes after an accident had happened.

But instead, it takes just 3 days to cowardly-flee-from or drop-snacks-onto  the Moon rather than 6 months for Mars.
So, when a self-sustained colony has been approved first in desert/tundra, then on Moon, it's a turn of Mars.
Otherwise it's highly probable to get a Last Hero reality show.

8 hours ago, NSEP said:

a person needs to have less than 11 tons of life support per year.

Dry food 1 kg
Drinkwater 3 kg
Washwater 3-10 kg
Oxygen 1 kg + 2.5 kg of balloon
Toilet paper 1 kg

Total: 12-20 kg / humanday

So, even if not recycle anything. 7 t / humanyear
But if recycle water/oxygen, just 400 kg of food.

13 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Another problem is more on the moral side. Assuming the colony was built, what kind of laws would be made to protect the colonists, and how would these laws be enforced?

Very easily.

Who would leave the Earth, all social contacts, fresh air, clean water, bright sun, green grass, all that useless junk comfortable things and get away, towards a dangerous and obscure life on a lifeless planet, and make their children accept their choice?
Either spiritually driven persons (running from/for _{choose any option} sins, following a prophecy, offended by some government for their ... uncommon spiritual practices, etc),
or nerdish sociopaths dreaming about a personal hi-tech shell far from the madding crowd,
or somebody who can gain this life-long jackpot joining this social experiment rather than keep their kenneling on the Earth.

Most of these people have crystal clear vision on the mentioned problems.

As a society of sociopaths wouldn't last too long. Migrated poor ones would have not much money. Dark cultists would have not enough chickens to sacrifice and chicks to get high with.

So, a motivated, disciplined spiritual organization, used to live in a fortress under siege, familiar with and not hostile to knowledge itself has some bonus on sending/recrouting its members to/at Mars.

And as the Martian life would press the Martians very hard (including the mentioned problems), .wouldn't be too much surprised if the Martian city would be built near a salt lake or something like that.

For example, who was a principal of a starship building in Expanse movie. Why not?

[Mikki]

@The Dunatian...which way, humanity?

Moon - mars - asteroidbelt, in this order.
Funding on earth and worldwide consensus about the needed ressources to make this happen should be a major task for this and next generations, if publicity can be gained and workforce directed to this goal, then it will happen.
This would lead to a worldwide change in economy, if its done, with unseen efforts in industry, science and global organization.

Make colonisation of the solarsystem a matter in schoolbooks for every child worldwide... Guess what happens fifty years after that. (And shut down Hollywood btw)

- Bang - People walk on mars.

(Not anything in filmindustry is rubbish, but counterproductive.) 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Mikki
hollywood

[Codraroll]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Toilet paper 1 kg [per person per day]

Umm... not saying that 1 kg per day of stuff that isn't food, water and oxygen isn't a reasonable number, but I'm pretty sure toilet paper wouldn't account for all of it (unless living on the moon does unspeakable things to your pooping habits).

However, if you lump together toilet paper, toiletries in general, air scrubbing filters, lubricants for life support systems, tissues, cleaning agents for habitats, dishes and kitchenware, and packaging for all of it, I'd say 1 kg per person per day is a pretty good estimate.

[magnemoe]

14 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Why waste time and resources on establishing outposts on a body that isn't and will never be habitable? The "small steps" argument doesn't apply here since a base/outpost on the Moon won't differ much from a base/outpost on Mars, so why not go directly to Mars instead? And "because it's closer" also doesn't apply. Not like you can just drive there and arrive 30 minutes after an accident had happened. In fact, I feel like a Moon outpost would actually be harder to maintain. There isn't much ice there compared to what Mars might have (AFAIK) so not only the crew number would be limited by the abundance of resources but also there's a chance it might need constant supplies from Earth, which increases the costs. Also the gravity is even lower there.

Don't get me wrong. It would be amazing to look through the telescope and see some light up there. But I have a feeling a Moon outpost won't help much in a way of exploring Mars.

And I guess we could talk about morality and how people modified dogs and plants and how some people are better at running and other earn golden medals in swimming and the way their genes and evolution shaped them is "natural". It could end up in an argument about religion though. And I'd rather see this thread going than not.

Moon has the benefit of being easy to reach and evacuate, it also have resources who is interesting for expanding the space activity including trips to Mars. 
Yes an Moon outpost is harder, the temperature swings are stronger and you have the two week nights, water is rarer and you don't have the co2.
Any base will need lots of resources from Earth anyway.


 

14 hours ago, Veeltch said:

That's all fine and cool when we're talking about space tourism. But if we want to make sure the humankind survives no matter what happens to our home planet then Mars seems like the best option of these two.

This is true, however an self sufficient colony on Mars is very far into the future. Not food who is easy but the infrastructure needed to replace all the technology the colony needs to survive over long term.
You need powers so lets use solar cells and batteries, You now need an factory to produce them, you also need to make the parts for repairing the factory. 
You need an workshops able to make space suits, out of things you mine, also all parts in the workshops.
The list grow so idiotic large its might be easier to teraform mars before its truly self sufficient in an crisis, that way you don't need space suits
 

[Mr. Peabody]

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:13 AM, kerbiloid said:

Who would leave the Earth, all social contacts, fresh air, clean water, bright sun, green grass, all that useless junk comfortable things and get away, towards a dangerous and obscure life on a lifeless planet, and make their children accept their choice?

I don't think living on mars would be at all boring. At least for the first few decades there would be a lot of exploring and colony expansion. Also, what young person wouldn't jump at the chance to be one of the few humans to live on and explore mars? I know I would. I would also argue that mars explorers would have social contact with earth through satellite internet (eventually) and radio communication. As for "comfortable" stuff, if the early colonists never left their comfortable couches to go on an uncomfortable voyage to the new world where would we be now?

[kerbiloid]

38 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

I don't think living on mars would be at all boring.

Endless shifts monitoring the equipment state and repairing damaged things with pieces of junk.
Not much fun in working a shift engineer. And that's exactly the same.

The same several people in the same room without a possibility just to stay alone or take a vacation. Weekends which differ only by name.
All people whom you don't like with their unpleasant habits 24/7 near you. They won't disappear, move away to another town, get fired from job or so.
All the rest of your life you'll hear their idiotic jokes, and when somebody of them f*rts, you should wait until fans help you, no get out to a yard, balcony or so.
If your wife cheats with you with a mechanicist assistant, you all will live under one roof with no chances to get away and forget.

No walks or journeys except for carrying or repairing something outside of the house. Every time you get out, it's a deadly trick decreasing lifespan of your spacesuit and airlock systems. Two months ago one of your geologists decided to walk around the base, three days after you found him with a little hole in a deflated spacesuit. Since then nobody gets out without a real need.

A life-long panic fear of open fire and short circuits.

Arctic/Antarctic expeditions last for several months, and read XX century chronicles about how did they feel with each other.
"Johnson now cleans his teeth every evening. But before he was doing this every morning. Is he planning something?"
(Even being sure that several months later they will return to the Earth and have a rest, rather than the Martians imprisoned for the rest of the life).

So, a dull routine work in life imprisonment even without a prison yard to get a sun bath. Looks romantic for first several weeks.

38 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

what young person wouldn't jump at the chance to be one of the few humans to live on and explore mars?

Exactly for this no young person will get there. Specialists with practical experience and with not much emotions, 30+.

38 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

I would also argue that mars explorers would have social contact with earth through satellite internet (eventually) and radio communication. As for "comfortable" stuff, if the early colonists never left their comfortable couches to go on an uncomfortable voyage to the new world where would we be now?

Of course, colonists will be sitting on comfortable couches 12 hours per day. Monitoring CO2 pressure, oil temperature, pumps rotation speed. And repairing a damaged pump 4 hours more.
Ok, they will have 2 hours with a slower-than-dial-up internet (nice for being back, FIDO!) trying to forget about their roommates around.
 

Edited January 16, 2017 by kerbiloid

[mikegarrison]

Humans have a long history of living in remote places. Sailing ships, arctic bases, ISS, monasteries, etc. etc. For a small scientific base, the social aspects would be nothing new.

The technical challenges, however, would be pretty extreme. The closest that comes to is is probably spending a winter in Antarctica. You have to plan ahead and have all your supplies in place before you start.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Humans have a long history of living in remote places.

With air.

[peadar1987]

I never got the people who say that living on Mars would be a cramped and difficult existence, they wouldn't fancy it, therefore we will never go there. There are seven billion people in the world. We could fill a Martian colony a thousand times over with people who are willing to put up with that to be one of the first to live on another world. There are a million problems with colonisation, but a shortage of volunteers would certainly not be one of them.

[Mr. Peabody]

        202,586 people initially applied to go to mars. Volunteers are not a problem. Isn't that a cool looking poster?

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

There are a million problems with colonisation, but a shortage of volunteers would certainly not be one of them.

That's true. A problem would be a burn-out after a year on Mars. It's like stranded on Antarctic, but in vacuum.

[Mikki]

16 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

 202586 people initially applied to go to mars. Volunteers are not a problem. Isn't that a cool looking poster?

Sorry, it reminds of "uncle sam". But it isn`t that delusional, advertising (merchandising) is a strange and unlogic business. 
What is the pointed (targeted...) age of possible Mars visitors, colonists, tourists, whatever?
"Are you ready?" might be more appropriate.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Mikki
target, "are you ready?"

[Tyko]

On 1/14/2017 at 4:16 PM, Codraroll said:

Less Delta-V required to resupply the colony or to transport people to and from it, less time required to do the same (which means it has a tourism potential, among other things), the time in transfer is much less taxing for the minds and bodies of the colonists, less lightspeed delay for communications, easier to land, launch windows are not much of a concern, better view of Earth from the base (has to count for something, right?), less power is needed to communicate at all, appreciable amount of solar radiation for crops (although temperature control is a bit more of a hassle), and sports events on the Moon would be freaking awesome to behold (and broadcasting it to the masses on Earth is a lot easier than for similar events on Mars).

Plus a few other things I might have forgotten.

On Delta-V, you can aerobrake on Mars, not on the Moon, so the Delta-V costs of send stuff to the surface are actually pretty similar. according the DV chart below. It costs ~13.1 DV to Mars with Aerobraking versus ~15.7 DV to Moon surface.

On habitability, radiation is more of an issue for both humans and crops because the unfiltered solar radiation on the moon isn't good for crops. Also, harder to find water and many other necessary resources for survival meaning a lot more has to be carted in from Earth.

You may want to read A Case for Mars by Zubrin. He's run the numbers and done the research and specifically addresses why the Moon would be a distraction rather than a stepping stone. Good read.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Tyko

[WinkAllKerb'']

at some point in history som will have to "jump and scrap" along the way (avoiding aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh if possible)

sooner or later it has to be done.

 

Spoiler