Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

Bill White · 2004-03-26 12:10:18

Suppose we learn that humans are biologically unable to bear children away from the Earth - - I do not believe this myself - - yet I propose we take this as a fixed assumption for purposes of this thread.

Thus families and permanent communities can NEVER be established away from the Earth, except perhaps for places like monasteries or science stations with populations constantly renewed by Earth born humans, as its population ages and dies.

If this proves true, would it change your commitment to the importance of human exploration of space?

clark · 2004-03-26 12:14:29

I support sending people to Antartica, but not to pay for them to set up a family. If we can't live there, then at most, perhaps sending a few people, every once in a while, just to say we did it, is about all I could justify.

dickbill · 2004-03-26 12:38:16

Suppose we learn that humans are biologically unable to bear children away from the Earth - - I do not believe this myself - - yet I propose we take this as a fixed assumption for purposes of this thread.

yes you're right, bearing children to term might be difficult, but probably not impossible since experience in zero g with vertebrates showed that it can be done. Obviously, 0.38g is better than zero g, so I don't worry much.

It will happen however. Providing we are not running full speed towards WWIII, providing mother Earth still wants to support us for the next decades without too much complaining, providing Mars is finally reached by men and women...so here we are. Given the lenght of the trip, and difficulties to come, I think a base with at least a 2/3 years rotation crew is better than a 3 months stay. 2 or 3 years, that's long enough to create men/women relationship and unless antifecondation treatments and other "tools" are imposed, you will get that : a first pregnancy. We might all be alive when that happen.

But If Mars forbids human pregnancy, I think human will leave and forget Mars.
But that won't happen. The Human body is very adaptable, don't forget that hominids are very recent in term of evolution. The worst that could happen : oversized embryo due to some kind of accelerated growth in lower gravity, or the reverse, small sized embryo looking like a premature, while still at term, will just require a C section, while In the latter case, I would probably choose to let it go naturally, if it's longer than 9 months that's no big deal. So, in a long term martian base, surgeons and pediatricians will be required.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 12:49:51

But If Mars forbids human pregnancy, I think human will leave and forget Mars.

If Mars forbids human pregnancy (for reasons yet unknown) where else beyond Earth will allow pregnancy? If not Mars, where?

Mars is a lousy place to raise a family, yet it is the second best place in the whole solar system. If we can't bear children safely on Mars, then we can't do it anywhere else, either.

Palomar · 2004-03-26 13:11:29

*We've discussed this a long, long time ago but I'm glad to see it brought up again.

I am concerned about gestation and delivery on Mars, particularly as relates to skeletal growth of the fetus. If there is no means of artificial gravity or an area of it, well...I have to say I am concerned. Fetal growth takes a lot of calcium out of the mother's body as well.

I suppose a way could be found, via intensive calcium supplementation, and etc. I also wonder what giving birth in Marsian gravity would be like; if the labor and delivery period would be extended or what. Yes, Caesarean sections could be performed, but then you have an "invasive" procedure, blood, concerns for sterility, etc. I think, at least in the early days of Marsian settlement, you'd want to go the natural birth route as much as possible.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-03-26 13:22:15

If we can't bear children safely on Mars, then we can't do it anywhere else, either.

"safely" :
the first settlers might have a higher abortion rate due to all kind of abnormalities and pregnacy related problems. We had a thread about that last year, where I have posted some references to zero g effects on embryogenesis experiments (with animals of course, through I am curious to know if some unreported russian experiments have involved pregnant women) aboard space stations like MIR.
Nothing is known about 0.38g, since in zero-g ISS, zero-science is done on that issue (for hundreds time the buck) and we have to wait until the Mars gravity experiment is done. That just involves a centrifuge in space, to make the zero g, with cages for the mice and the same centrifuge on Earth, to take into account the effects of the coriolis force versus the effect of the lower gravity on the mice embryogenesis. But again, that's just mice, not human. So going back to topic, human pregancy on Mars might not be as "safe" as on Earth, but, what's gonna be safer on Mars anyway ?

Otherwise you are right, I don't see a better place in the solar system than Mars. Mars or nothing.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-26 13:32:39

Venus' gravity would be good for human pregnancies, but that's a whole other discussion. I think it's possible to colonize Venus without first terraforming it. But Mars still quite offers all the resource any human colony would need, in a readily accessable fasion. It may be easier to study human biology on Mars and find a medical solution that it would be to colonize Venus, though.

I voted for robots, because manned exploration ought to create the technology for manned colonization. Those explorers could take human embryos so that we can learn how they form in Mg, and work on solving the growth problems (if any). I think it's really hard to say "never" about something though, so I find the topic a bit far fetched and I do think humans will one day be able to birth children on Mars.

But robots/probes have told us more about the universe than all human expeditions combined, be it on earth or in space.

dickbill · 2004-03-26 13:41:16

I also wonder what giving birth in Marsian gravity would be like; if the labor and delivery period would be extended or what. Yes, Caesarean sections could be performed, but then you have an "invasive" procedure, blood, concerns for sterility, etc.

That's an interesting topic for sure. On that respect, the Mars Gravity Experiment, with mice or rats I think, might or might not be informative. Mainly because these animals have a short gestation (21 days). The reason why human pregnacy is so long is the brain, basically the rest of the body is almost done and just wait for the brain to develop more. That's the reason why a "premature" human baby can survive, the baby is premature in respect to the brain, but the lungs are partially functional and allow the survival with assistance.
So : the mice have trouble under 0.38g to carry at term nomal babies, that's no good news for us, but even if the mice offspring is fine, we still have to be careful.
To know better, we would have to use primates gestant females. But that would require huge cages for the animals in the centrifuge, I don't think it's feasible that way.
A real centrifuged ship would be necessary, or even better send the gestant chimps on the Moon and, hypothesis, observe that normal pregnancy is impossible in the lunar gravity, infer that it is then impossible on MArs, and a) conclude by canceling the Mars program or b) conclude that the Moon is really good for Nothing as a testbed for Mars.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 13:54:29

OKay, Josh, imagine never as being at least 200 years in the future. . . :;):

Otherwise, I believe the question gets to the heart of how we choose to define NASAs mission statement - why NASA should even exist.

Rxke · 2004-03-26 14:04:21

Ok, at last i voted, after much pondering. And it's 'nr 4.' Other options don't make sense in this 'assume we can't live on other planets'

But only because this is a 'for discussion's sake' assumption question. I do not believe we won't be able to live on Mars. We're a flexible species, or rather *all* life is flexible, very adaptable...

Im 30000% pro human spaceflight, hatdammit!

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-26 14:10:31

Hmm, never in our lifetimes?

Well, I think my vote does still stand, as I, and we all, can experience the planets in our houses, on our computers, with probes. I'm really optimistic about space, though, so I do think that one day I have a shot at actually going up there (and I wouldn't be against a manned exploration mission, if I felt it was sensible). This is a really tough situation, because I believe in my heart we can reduce the cost of manned exploration if we try; to perhaps only a few times more costlier than probes.

I would love Carter's Self Sustaining Industrial Robotic Moon Base to be realized. Primarily because of the benefits it would give to manned exploration/colonization.

Can't we have the best of both worlds? As it's probably going to take some form of robotics to make our habitation in space easiest!

DanielCook · 2004-03-26 14:12:59

But robots/probes have told us more about the universe than all human expeditions combined, be it on earth or in space.

In defense of humanity I feel that I should point out that human exploration of space (as opposed to a LEO bus service) effectively ended 30 years ago. Robotic exploration of space has basically continued unabated. I daresay that your argument would not be true if we had continued after Apollo.

Robotic probes have thus far only given us knowledge on the things they have been designed for (spirit and opportunity, for all their technical wizardy cannot tell us anything about radiation at ground level, etc.), and mostly for very specific locales. At most we can express a specific opinion on the Marsian surface for a couple of square blocks, and a general opinion of Mars based on the orbiters. A human expedition, by nature, IMHO, would be more adaptable and cover much more ground.

clark · 2004-03-26 14:59:58

Humans adaptable? Sure.

To 24.5/7 indoor living? To higher doses of nasty radiation? To lower g? To constant high-density living?

In space, there's no where left to scream. :laugh:

Animals are adaptable too, yet certain species wither away even in captivity. We shouldn't be too arrogant.

Rxke · 2004-03-26 15:14:42

Clark, why not? If it were truly 24.5/7 indoor it would be quite hellish, but you can take a hike outside, or rove around, ok, that's still behind a protective bubble, but i know lots of people that wouldn't care about that (count me as one of 'em, i love nature, but living in a city, i'd as well stay indoors as much as i can when the weather's not good, and most of the time it is not good.

And about being cooped up, i guess it can't get much worse than in some mayor cities on Earth, today. Again, you can always go for a walk or a 'rove'... Yes, alone, not in pairs (safetyprotocol) I'm sure that'll happen eventually.

Radiation is just a way of digging in, and watching your hours outside, about low-g all bets are off, although the moonpeople seemed to love it.

DanielCook · 2004-03-26 15:19:30

Humans adaptable? Sure.

Would you at least accept that the average human would be more adaptable to a range of situations than a robot?

I'm not saying that humans are infinetly adaptable. Just more than your average (present and near term technology) robot.

Just take the "Grand Challenge" from a couple of weeks ago - a "grand" challenge for robots, but a comfortable stroll for a human. And we can stop and smell the roses on the way as well (what I mean by that: we can do something other than just the task at hand)

clark · 2004-03-26 15:25:09

You can't take a hike outside because even then, you're still inside. You can't go very far, and are dependant upon the technology and equipment with you to keep you alive. It limits your travel range.

Ah to know the face of lovely Mars, but never her sweet kiss...

You can't go out at night because you will get lost, and the environment just gets worse (complete dark, no moon, and freezing temps).

You will live in a tin bubble with constant temp, constant humidity, and constant lighting. Martians will have to manufacture scenery becuase there is none, just for something different to look at.

You speak of nature- Mars has none. Zero. It is rock and dust all colored red. One color as far as the eye can see. After a while, you'll have to stop staring at the distance to stop the hypnotic effect that mono-scenery has on the human mind. The very thing you came to see, you end up averting your gaze to maintain your sanity.

Going for walks is not the same thing. You won't know silence in the sens we might experience here. You must be in constant contact with others, you must be aware of the status of your equipment at all times- this means you are in a constant state of readiness- it creates weariness when you are constantly on guard.

The radiation is nasty, and having to hunker down into even more confined spaces just makes the entire situation even worse. We don't even know what kind of effects higher rad doses has on the brain- whether it induces more instances of psychosis.

Palomar · 2004-03-26 15:26:25

*I don't want to necessarily turn this into a Maternity Ward discussion, but it would be interesting to see the handling of OB/GYN issues in a Marsian settlement. For instance, powered formula would have to be kept on-hand (such as Enfamil) because mother's supply cannot always be relied on, can dry up, etc. And it'd be insane to count on another lactating mother to be available for feedings. That's for starters.

Going back to Bill's original question...well, I think the inability to reproduce automatically knocks off *generational* considerations, right?

In the short-term, however, no; if there were outposts established and exploration was done via O'Neill Colonies or something similar, with 10-year missions or the like, rotating crews, etc. I'd definitely still be entirely in favor of manned exploration, provided the crafts had the speed and wherewithal.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-26 15:26:36

Daniel, people are better than robots, right now. That will change as we get better at making better robots. Mars isn't going anywhere, so we could just forgo sending people, and send robots that are better when we are ready.

Try to figure out why people need to go now.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 15:30:04

You can't take a hike outside because even then, you're still inside. You can't go very far, and are dependant upon the technology and equipment with you to keep you alive. It limits your travel range.
Ah to know the face of lovely Mars, but never her sweet kiss...
You can't go out at night because you will get lost, and the environment just gets worse (complete dark, no moon, and freezing temps).
You will live in a tin bubble with constant temp, constant humidity, and constant lighting. Martians will have to manufacture scenery becuase there is none, just for something different to look at.
You speak of nature- Mars has none. Zero. It is rock and dust all colored red. One color as far as the eye can see. After a while, you'll have to stop staring at the distance to stop the hypnotic effect that mono-scenery has on the human mind. The very thing you came to see, you end up averting your gaze to maintain your sanity.
Going for walks is not the same thing. You won't know silence in the sens we might experience here. You must be in constant contact with others, you must be aware of the status of your equipment at all times- this means you are in a constant state of readiness- it creates weariness when you are constantly on guard.
The radiation is nasty, and having to hunker down into even more confined spaces just makes the entire situation even worse. We don't even know what kind of effects higher rad doses has on the brain- whether it induces more instances of psychosis.

I agree, and ONLY the prospect of growing the human race makes it worthwhile to face these dangers, except perhaps for a small handful of thrill seekers.

clark · 2004-03-26 15:33:54

Which your question presupposes is untenable.

Go forth and multiply...

Looks like god's hitching a ride whether we like it or not. :laugh:

DanielCook · 2004-03-26 15:50:30

How different would a tour on Mars be to an average tour on a US nuclear submarine? Same confined spaces, long duration. Heck - a mars base might be even roomier, especially if you build greenhouses.

With the right training and equipment we can do almost anything.

And more so if we use robots as well. The two are not mutually exclusive, both must happen.

DanielCook · 2004-03-26 15:57:51

Initially (science station stage) I do not think procreation would be major issue - too much energy would be spend on survival and expansion. Later as the local population and our capacity increases ... who knows?

If there was a need for us to survive and procreate "elsewhere" - I'm pretty sure we could edit our genome to increase our adaptability to our new environment - but that is a whole other can of ethical and moral worms.

Rxke · 2004-03-26 16:16:26

What you describe, Clark, are outposts, built for 2-3 years stints, but people deciding to live there for the rest of their life will surely dig vast networks of tunnels, with bigger sections, or might even find caves, hollow lava tubes...
After ten years those places will be green an spacious enough for people not to go mad.

Yes, I talk about nature, and still my country has none (except the air, and the messed up beach maybe.)
*everything* in Flanders is artificial, so living here or in a greenhouse... On Mars...

And again, i don't mind the living in a bubble. Constant temp and moisture? Spells airco to me, very popular in the USA if i'm not mistaken, heehee

BTW, what is silence? I never experience it where ilive and study, except when i plug my ears...

(ok, i know, we're doing the black vs white thing again... Am fully aware of that, but it's easy to

clark · 2004-03-26 17:14:42

Mars, land of the gopher people.

Looks like I'll have to revisit H.G Wells and check out the Morlocks.

Gennaro · 2004-03-26 21:03:22

Yes, I talk about nature, and still my country has none (except the air, and the messed up beach maybe.)
*everything* in Flanders is artificial, so living here or in a greenhouse... On Mars...

It's divine providence. The artificiality of Terran life will make us mentally prepared for life in space.
:laugh:

Artificial can be sublime and beautiful. I can think of worse places to live than a Victorian greenhouse connected by Oriental tunnels.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-26 12:10:18

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#2 2004-03-26 12:14:29

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#3 2004-03-26 12:38:16

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#4 2004-03-26 12:49:51

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#5 2004-03-26 13:11:29

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#6 2004-03-26 13:22:15

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#7 2004-03-26 13:32:39

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#8 2004-03-26 13:41:16

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#9 2004-03-26 13:54:29

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#10 2004-03-26 14:04:21

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#11 2004-03-26 14:10:31

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#12 2004-03-26 14:12:59

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#13 2004-03-26 14:59:58

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#14 2004-03-26 15:14:42

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#15 2004-03-26 15:19:30

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#16 2004-03-26 15:25:09

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#17 2004-03-26 15:26:25

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#18 2004-03-26 15:26:36

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#19 2004-03-26 15:30:04

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#20 2004-03-26 15:33:54

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#21 2004-03-26 15:50:30

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#22 2004-03-26 15:57:51

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#23 2004-03-26 16:16:26

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#24 2004-03-26 17:14:42

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

#25 2004-03-26 21:03:22

Re: Suppose settlement was impossible - Do you still favor human missions?

Board footer