Is Mars enough to ensure the survival of the human species?

Hicup · Mar 12, 2008

<p>Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system?</p><p> </p><p>I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species..</p><p> </p><p>I was wondering what some of you think about long term?</p><p> </p><p>Tim-</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

robotical · Mar 12, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term? Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately a nearby stellar event, such as a high energy gamma ray burst could kill everyone in the solar system regardless of their location.  Hence the need to colonize as much as possible. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Hicup · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately a nearby stellar event, such as a high energy gamma ray burst could kill everyone in the solar system regardless of their location.  Hence the need to colonize as much as possible. <br />Posted by robotical</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Yeah but I'm more worried about an asteroid than a GRB event.  Besides the science isn't clear as to the effects of one anyway.  Not convicingly?</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

Ricardo_Savino · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yeah but I'm more worried about an asteroid than a GRB event.  Besides the science isn't clear as to the effects of one anyway.  Not convicingly? Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV><br />Well, looking only for the asteroid problem, the earth is enough to kept us safe. I mean, we can handle some huge ones with some time. Even without the proper technology today I guess our species is smart enough to figure out something.</p><p>But, answering you: yes, mars is enough in this case. You can count moon too (if the frozen water there is a real deal). It´s virtually impossible that 2 asteroids hit the both planets at the same time, so, we are more safe there.</p><p> </p><p>Another but: As our friend above says, GRB, Solar Storms and other catastrophes are more dangerous to us than those space rocks!</p><p>In fact, we are more dangerous to ourselfs than any asteroid or GRB! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#ff0000"><font size="3">Look up and feel small!</font></font></strong> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term? Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>IMO, it would be a very, very long time before Mars would be "enough" to ensure our species' survival in the event of a disaster on Earth.  By the time it became sufficient, we'd probably be on our way to another star. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

weeman · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yeah but I'm more worried about an asteroid than a GRB event.  Besides the science isn't clear as to the effects of one anyway.  Not convicingly? Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />I agree with that. The more planets we inhabit, the larger our chances are of having one of those planets being struck by an asteroid. If we colonize Mars, we've just doubled our chances of our species being affected by a cataclysmic event, like an asteroid impact. </p><p>However, we also increase our chances of survival. If more people live on Mars, then Earth would be less populated, meaning it may become a safer place to live (less pollution, less disease, etc.). </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

weeman · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO, it would be a very, very long time before Mars would be "enough" to ensure our species' survival in the event of a disaster on Earth.  By the time it became sufficient, we'd probably be on our way to another star. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />True, and to counter my own post above, it may be another 200 years before we can actually colonize enough of Mars to get more people off this planet and consider Mars a "Second Earth". </p><p>Additionally, even if we achieve lightspeed, or .99999999 lightspeed, it would still take us multiple generations just to get to the majority of our region of the galaxy! The only suitable star systems to discover (within one human lifetime) might have to be within 15-20 lightyears from Earth. And even then if you have a ship of people who are together for 15-20 years, they may end up going mad and killing each other off!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

crazyeddie · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO, it would be a very, very long time before Mars would be "enough" to ensure our species' survival in the event of a disaster on Earth.  By the time it became sufficient, we'd probably be on our way to another star. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>How big does a colony have to be to ensure enough genetic diversity to insure the survival of the human race?  I recall reading somewhere that it had to be 10,000 or more, does that sound right? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How big does a colony have to be to ensure enough genetic diversity to insure the survival of the human race?  I recall reading somewhere that it had to be 10,000 or more, does that sound right?  <br /> Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>To insure as diverse a pool as we have now, IIRC, the number is somewhere around 20,000.  That would be the minimum necessary to keep all current genetic "statistics" from moving one way or the other in the longterm.</p><p>For "Hey, look! That's a human!  Give it something shiny to play with..." you're looking at somewhere around 200 people.</p><p>Of course, none of that accounts for unforeseen environmental problems that could act as forcers.  Solar radiation, kids drinking hair spray, that kind of thing..</p><p>*Note: I have absolutely no refs to back up these numbers.  It's just another range of numbers that stuck in my head on this subject... It could be how many ping-pong balls are needed to float Godzilla and Scrappy Doo for all I know.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

centsworth_II · Mar 13, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How big does a colony have to be to ensure enough genetic diversity to insure the survival of the human race?  <br /> Posted by crazyeddie</DIV><br />You can have all the genetic diversity you want in the form of frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Mar 14, 2008

<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"If more people live on Mars, then Earth would be less populated, meaning it may become a safer place to live (less pollution, less disease, etc.)."</strong></p><p><strong>Posted by weeman</DIV></strong></p><p> </p><p>If we moved 3 billion folks to Mars tomorrow, we would, likely, repopulate to our current levels in less than 100 years.  Unless, of course, there were some acceptable/enforceable laws to prevent it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

derekmcd · Mar 14, 2008

<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term?" Tim-</strong></p><p><strong>Posted by Hicup</DIV></strong></p><p> </p><p>I, personally, think that any impactor, short of turning the surface of the earth molten or causing a runaway greenhouse effect similar to venus, is survivable.  Civilization would be wiped, but there would be enough survivors to carry on the species.</p><p>One would hope that such in impactor is far enough off in the future we will have the technology to combat it.  Let's cross our fingers.</p><p>Beyond that, we are a resourceful bunch that can survive on this planet until the Sun becomes a red giant... But that's several billion years away.  Hopefully we have something figured out by then. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

cosmictraveler · Mar 14, 2008

<p> </p><p><font size="5">We haven't done so good here on Earth with all of the pollution, crime, greed, diseases, poverty,wars and other various things that humanity has done. So now we talk about traveling away to inhabit other planets and destroy them as we have done here already. I just don't think humans are ready to leave Earth before they can at least clean things up here first.  By just moving away humans won't stop polluting, we already left crap on the moon and Mars.  Humans can't get along with themselves here and yet you want to believe that by leaving Earth humans will transform into caring and loving beings but I'd think that won't happen. Everything bad will go along with the humans into space along with the good intentions. We need to get Earth fixed first to show ourselves that we can overcome problems hereso as to understand how to fix any problems wherever humanity travels.</font></p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

Hicup · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To insure as diverse a pool as we have now, IIRC, the number is somewhere around 20,000.  That would be the minimum necessary to keep all current genetic "statistics" from moving one way or the other in the longterm.For "Hey, look! That's a human!  Give it something shiny to play with..." you're looking at somewhere around 200 people.Of course, none of that accounts for unforeseen environmental problems that could act as forcers.  Solar radiation, kids drinking hair spray, that kind of thing..*Note: I have absolutely no refs to back up these numbers.  It's just another range of numbers that stuck in my head on this subject... It could be how many ping-pong balls are needed to float Godzilla and Scrappy Doo for all I know. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I remember reading somewhere that it was on the order of 72 men and 72 women was enough to ensure genetic diversity?  I'm like you though, I have no proof of this claim?</p><p> </p><p>What is the soil of Mars made of?  Is there ANY nitrogen, Potassium at all?  To me, it seems as though we could duplicate the Martian soil here on Earth, and slowly introduce elevated levels of UV and Martian compounds to manipulte the DNA of the various plants to something that could survive on Mars?</p><p> </p><p>Also, and I know this is a wild one, but maybe the technology to move Mars orbit might be there in 2, or 300 years.  Move it closer to the sun?</p><p> </p><p>Gotta go</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

bearack · Mar 14, 2008

<p><font color="#ff0000"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Also, and I know this is a wild one, but maybe the technology to move Mars orbit might be there in 2, or 300 years.  Move it closer to the sun? Gotta go Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV></font><br /><br /><font size="2">I don't think that would be possible, but I'm by far not a reliable source on that.  I think even if we were able to move such a mass, that we would only cause the orbit to wobble.  Closer to the sun at one point, but much greater distance at another.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

qso1 · Mar 14, 2008

<p>Excellent post!</p><p>I don't usually think much about mars as a place for human survival in part because I've written about the future but not that far out. We'd have to really nail down terraforming tech or maybe the ability to live enclosed should terraforming be too difficult and/or expensive.</p><p>I suspect this will be doable perhaps starting in the 23rd century, maybe the 22cnd. If not, were stuck.</p><p>Once we start going to mars, we'll be going for a variety of reasons and I tend to think the first will eventually be the search for life on mars. Its probably going to take that kind of mission to get humans on mars to start with.</p><p>Then as we develop mars bases, industrial capability may be established there which would give rise to potential on site terraforming technological development. This could occur simply to make life better for martians, or more likely serve both that purpose and a backup should catastrophe occur on earth. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

lildreamer · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#ff0000"> What is the soil of Mars made of?  Is there ANY nitrogen, Potassium at all?  To me, it seems as though we could duplicate the Martian soil here on Earth, and slowly introduce elevated levels of UV and Martian compounds to manipulte the DNA of the various plants to something that could survive on Mars</font>? Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />++++++++++++++++</p><p>according to this link</p><p>http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/25.cfm</p><p>soil composition is rich in iron and silicon with "significant levels" of chlorine and sulfur.  As they state those are the characteristics of soils at previous martian landings but unlike soil composition on Earth.</p><p>I imagine it would take a great deal of time and material on our part to get the soil to be productive...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

crazyeddie · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can have all the genetic diversity you want in the form of frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos. <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> </p><p>True, but I'd hate to depend on a refrigeration system to insure the survival of the human race.  One power failure and there goes your frozen genetic material.  But indeed, it's likely that a cryogenetics lab will serve as an essential resource to the early Mars colonists, most of whom may have their own reproductive abilities compromised from the high levels of radiation they will experience before safer habitats can be constructed.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Mar 14, 2008

<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"You can have all the genetic diversity you want in the form of frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos." </strong></p><p><strong>Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></strong></p><p> </p><p>Where's the fun in that?  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/2/abfc7146-5c14-45cc-a2aa-3fb3bc8f0c51.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

cosmictraveler · Mar 14, 2008

There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.

</p><p> </p><p><font size="5">Then there are those who know what's happening and don't care about it.</font></p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

Click to expand...

acidrain · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term? Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>Very good question, though i would like to add that i think that we should do more to colonize Mars and while some question it i dont see why we need to ask why. Also, i think we could go there now, the reason i say this is i work for a defense contractor in the states and some of the techonology in which ive seen and cant mention we could do just that. Though political forces and those that control the money and other areas have restricted it for some reason or another i guess. </p>

centsworth_II · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <span style="color:#666699">True, but I'd hate to depend on a refrigeration system to insure the survival of the human race. --- </span><font color="#666699">crazyeddie</font></DIV></p><p>Ha! You'll have to depend on a lot more than that for survival on Mars.  In the overall technology required to keep a Mars colony alive, keeping a freezer running will be the least of the worries. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JeffreyNYA · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#339966">Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term? Tim-</font> <br /><font color="#000000">Posted by Hicup</font></DIV><br /></p><p>We need Wormholes.  Getting to speeds just short of light speed is pretty much not going to happen in the foreseeable future (probably same with wormholes).  And even if we could get going that fast would we even survive it and all other issues that go along with 15+ years in space.</p><p>We need a method of transportation that will take days, weeks or months.  If it starts taking years and years, the odds of success drop quite fast.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Hicup · Mar 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ha! You'll have to depend on a lot more than that for survival on Mars.  In the overall technology required to keep a Mars colony alive, keeping a freezer running will be the least of the worries.   <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Agreed, but as the colony grows, so to must the the technology that gets us there faster.  We must be able to go there quicker than the 18 months it takes now.  Plus, in the beginning we would need to be launching supply vehicles every two to three weeks IMO..</p><p> </p><p>Assuming that the is s good chance that some will simply not survive the living conditons there, we must always be re-supplying not just food, and air, and everything else, we must be re-supplying humans.  Same principle, really.  The more you send, the chances you increase the success of the colony.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

JeffreyNYA · Mar 14, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#339966">Assuming that living on two planets is better than one; is the two planet colonization approach enough to ensure our suvival.  At least long enough for us to figure out how to travel close to the speed of light and get out of the solar system? I do think that we should colonize Mars, as this makes sense than for no other reason than to give us a fighting chance as a species.. I was wondering what some of you think about long term? Tim-</font> <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />Also having more than a handful of people on mars for the next two hundred years is probably not going to be possible.  We have no way of keep large amounts of people alive for long term on mars.  And if we were to get 200 or more people there and Earth got smacked, how would they survive?  Would they have the tools to be totally self sufficient?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Is Mars enough to ensure the survival of the human species?

Hicup

Guest

robotical

Guest

Hicup

Guest

Ricardo_Savino

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

weeman

Guest

weeman

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

cosmictraveler

Guest

Hicup

Guest

bearack

Guest

qso1

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

cosmictraveler

Guest

acidrain

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

JeffreyNYA

Guest

Hicup

Guest

JeffreyNYA

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page