Sex of Martian Colonists

vogelbek · Dec 16, 2006

I've been thinking about the best (most practical and reliable) method of ensuring a sufficiently large genetic sample of humans survives on an extra-terran colony. When the time comes to colonize Mars (or any other location), it seems logical to me that bringing a large genetic stock is beneficial in the long term, but bringing dozens or hundreds of people would make for an exceedingly difficult short term. How do you transport, house and feed 50 people within a sustainable budget? So the assumption that I'm making is that a crew between 5 and 10 astronauts/colonists would probably be a manageable size (I haven't done any trade studies or anything, but it would be interesting to read about). That’s not a very large breeding stock, especially if traditional monogamous social models are used. So, I see a few options: 1) Have a balanced crew, hope for the best with their social/sexual models, and bring more colonists along later on. 2) Have a paired crew, that are authorized to have some number ( />2 to grow the population) of children, and bring on more colonists later. 3) Have a paired crew authorized to have 1 child together, and use artificial insemination/embryo implantation to up the genetic stock. 4) Have a strictly female crew and bring a complete set of frozen embryos to bear to term. In looking at these options, I see option 3 being the most PR acceptable, but option 4 as being the best from a practical standpoint. As I see it, there is essentially no point in bringing along male colonists for the first generation. Males cannot bear young, and realistically don’t provide a useful purpose for reproduction when frozen sperm and embryos are available. Furthermore, colonization of another planet is probably fairly gender neutral for other applications than reproduction. Any arguments about higher physical strength or ability is probably bogus, as using astronauts to do physical labor is not an effici

bpfeifer · Dec 17, 2006

There is a much simpler solution. Make your colony easily accessible from Earth. If you're only talking about Mars, one flight between the planets every couple of years is more than enough to keep mixing your population with some good'ole Earth stock. The first European colonies in the New World were never intended to be self sufficient. Their goal was to produce something valuable (gold, furs, timber, etc) and ship them back to their mother country in exchange for supplies and additional manpower. If you look at Martian colonization the same way, then your population issue is much less of an issue. The real sticking point in my mind is the economics of the project. Just like the first colonists to North America, we won't really know what exploitable resources Mars has to offer us until we get there. If we discover an economic incentive for colonizing Mars, then human nature will do the rest, and it will happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

vogelbek · Dec 17, 2006

The reason I'm reluctant to be dependant on a constant infusion of resources from earth is the key risk of a steady program: Interruption. If it is a public venture, then the program budget is at the mercy of sudden priority shifts (wars, economic downturns, etc) or program disasters (think columbia halting the space shuttle program for years) If is is a private venture, what happens when the company goes out of business or changes its business model? The only ethical business plan for a colony mission would provide for at least a contingency for colonist survival in the event of corporate failure.

bpfeifer · Dec 18, 2006

To continue my analogy, the New World colonies did not remain permanently dependant on their founding nations. It took a long time to really get set up, and even to know what they needed. Eventually the population, skill sets, and technology caught up to their needs. Start a colony that can grow into independence and it will. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

spacefire · Dec 18, 2006

I think we will soon have the technology to make a dolony on Mars self-sufficient from the outset. Before the colonists even set foot there, there will be a nuclear reactor, a green house and a manufacturing facility in place. They will have fuel, food, other consumables and metals, all produced in-situ. In fact I believe the first permanent colonists will be the first people to step foot on Mars also. Not having to bring them back greatly increases the payload we can send to Mars. And since it is known that 'eventually' there will be a Martian colony, and exploration has already been done with rovers and orbiters, why not skip the flag planting (and I bet it will be a conglomerate of corporations, not a government who will in the near future be able to send people to Mars) and get straight to the colony? Hopefully this model will allow the population of Mars to increase both by breeding and influx of immigrants. How will all this be paid? Initially it won't. The first colonists will be the payers. They will pay to be able to live on Mars and so that their children can claim the planet for themselves. Eventually, Mars will be able to export back to Earth. But it is much harder to get something valuable off Mars and send it to Earth than it was for doing from the Americas, which had all kinds of riches at the explorer's fingertipes (or speartips) so to speak. I think the first Martian colony will be created for its own sake. It might become profitable in 20 years , 50 or maybe never since the asteroids are more accesible. But, I bet it will be self sufficient from the beginning. Wheoever pays to go to Mars will not want to rely on resources flowing in from Earth and risk starving 99 million kilometers away if somehow that flow of supplies is disrupted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

vogelbek · Dec 18, 2006

Good thoughts. I agree with the basic principle of a 1 way trip from a logistics sense. A round trip mission would entail: Launch of hardware, probably on orbit assembly, an interplanetary stage, a mars capture stage (aerocapture would complicate leaving hardware in orbit), mars decent, mars surface equipment, mars ascent, a SECOND interplanetary stage, terestrial aerocapture and decent. 10 mission phases, probably most requiring a seperate stage. A one way trip could be much simpler: Launch of hardware, on orbit assembly, interplanetary flight, aerocaptue, surface opperations. 5 mission phases. All that extra mass that could be saved gets turned into some combination of extra surface gear and low price. As for economic viability, there is a whole new world to explore, and billions of dollars in research funds that get spent answering the questions we have about mars. The commodity for trade would be information, harvested by scientists and explorers on the surface, and easilly transported back to earth. It probably boils down to a gamble; If there was once life on mars (or still is), the companies make a fortune in the short term as every scientific orginization on earth climbs over each other to call the shots on which valley to explore next. Otherwise, the company looses money. Heres where my thoughts get troubled: To mitigate the financial risks the company faces, they will probably make the first colonists sign exclusive contracts for several generations (even 100 years out, an entire planet of wealth is a pretty good net-present-value argument) What happens when the colonist's grandchildren tell the company to shove it?

j05h · Dec 19, 2006

> What happens when the colonist's grandchildren tell the company to shove it? Wouldn't the grandchildren be the company? I've always assumed worker/colonist-vested companies - no one is going to risk their lives like that without some serious shares in the effort. "... the plonking music reached a sudden cresendo and the Regal Advisor arrived. Her name was Arkadya Sorienti, Incorporated." - Sunken Gardens, in Crystal Express by Bruce Sterling. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacefire · Dec 19, 2006

Extensive exploration on Mars can be done without humans ever stepping on the surface, through tele-operation from a Mars orbiting outpost. Samples can be sent to the space station for analysis. Telepresence is easy to achieve from 100 miles up since information is exchanged almost instantaneously. Obviously that is not possible from Earth. I really see no need to send people ON Mars just for exploration. But, of course, if a colony is there already for another purpose, they could sell the data they gather in person to entities on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

mako71 · Dec 19, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> spacefire: [...] I really see no need to send people ON Mars just for exploration. But, of course, if a colony is there already for another purpose, they could sell the data they gather in person to entities on Earth. <hr /></blockquote> Exactly my thoughts! During reading the posts in this forum, I have started to thought that many are thinking the subject from "What could a colony do on Mars (or any other location in space)?" -point of view, while I think that the more fertile ground is to think "What could we do there in general?" and after that start thinking if the objectivess of that mission require human presence or not. Anyways, unmanned exploration missions are much cheaper than manned ones. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

spacefire · Dec 19, 2006

not meaning to hijack the thread... I think in order to cope with the reduced gene pool, assuming new people seldom arrive and mix with the colony, I would suggest keeping a bank of frozen eggs and sperm (less space than embryos). Thus women could be artificially inseminated and their offspring would be of different genetic parents . I'm not even planning to debate the moral and ethical implications of doing such a thing, but I believe it is feasible with current technology, though thye success rate might be abysmally low. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

j05h · Dec 19, 2006

> Anyways, unmanned exploration missions are much cheaper than manned ones. That's not what Spacefire was talking about. He was suggesting a robust human presence in Mars orbit, using a suite of tele-operated systems on the surface. It's much different than robots-only. We discussed building a base on Phobos in detail earlier this year, it makes a lot of sense and provides a base-camp that encourages easy access throughout Mars' space. Oh, yeah, and ROBOTS CAN'T BREED. This is an essential point if you are interested in human colonization. Spacefire, egg and sperm banks make a lot of sense, but I think once colonization takes off there will be plenty of people/DNA available. The real interesting thing is that there will be social and economic pressure to radically evolve what we call "human". The ethical issues over banking embryos is nothing compared to what spacers are going to do to themselves. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacefire · Dec 19, 2006

That depends. It is possible that we will have one big colony or smaller colonies scattered around the planet representing various entities with different interests. The first years, travel on the planet is not going to be easy and likely very dangerous. I think automatic rovers will eventually chart safe routes between colonies, but travel speeds on land are going to be slower than on Earth. Travel by air will require highly performant aircraft with rocket engines, which again might not be available in quantity until they start producing them locally. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · Dec 19, 2006

At the same time, advances in virtual reality might make relationships between colonists in different regions of the planet a desirable alternative to staying local. When the couple decides to have children the father simply 'mails' his sperm to the mother for artificial insemination. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

mako71 · Dec 19, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Me: Anyways, unmanned exploration missions are much cheaper than manned ones. JO5H: That's not what Spacefire was talking about. He was suggesting a robust human presence in Mars orbit, using a suite of tele-operated systems on the surface. <hr /></blockquote> ...Yes, I understood that, and I meant that (like Spacefire said) exploration doesn't necessarily need humans at surface to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

mrmorris · Dec 19, 2006

"When the couple decides to have children the father simply 'mails' his sperm to the mother." Durnit, spacefire -- you simply aren't integrating your own ideas together well enough. In these 'early days', Mars will not be genetically diverse enough. Therefore, in this situation you won't really want to snail mail the sperm of 'Male Colonist X' over to 'Female Colonist Y'. Instead, you'd want her to be inseminated with the results of genetic material contributor 'Serj Ackov' who worked many a lonely hour contributing to the success of the Mars colony.

spacefire · Dec 19, 2006

And I bet many Serj Acovs will be extremely happy to contribute to the future of the human race on Mars, especially if provided with suitable pictures of the attractive Martian colonist they will ahem 'touch' from millions kilometers away <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Back to my idea: I'm assuming there will be multiple colonies on the planet but that they would be rather isolated physically by the hostile environment. Real-time interaction in a virtual world will allow couple to exist on Mars even if separated by vast distances. Obviously that cannot happen between a person on Mars and one on Earth. I'm trying to see a solution that does not involve pseudo-incest between colonists with similar biological parents but different genetic ancestors

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

vogelbek · Dec 19, 2006

All ethical/moral implications aside, I would suspect that frozen sperm and eggs would be carfully selected to have the highest confandence that second generation colonists will be unlikely to develop long term health conditions (genetic, anyways...who knows what all that oxidizing dust is going to do to human tissues over years and years...) As for martian airtravel, I strongly suspect that hydrogen airships are the way to get arround there. They would have to be super big because of the low pressure, but the wind gust loading is much lower. Again, the martian dust might get bad when the wind kicks it arround, but who knows, maybe by then we will have invented unobtanium/balognium composite and all our problems will be solved.

spacefire · Dec 22, 2006

I think that au contraire, it will solve itself. The human body is a wonder of adaptability. I agree that people born on Mars will never be able to walk on Earth, but I doubt they will want to either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

bpfeifer · Dec 23, 2006

If you're just looking for the least mass-intensive way of ensuring a reasonable gene pool for your colony, send only female colonists and a large library of frozen sperm. This does not require a large population, and it only requires well established technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

solarspot · Dec 23, 2006

Colonists don't necessarily need to stay in zero-G for the trip to (/from ) Mars. Rotate two sections of the ship around eachother via a tether and you have some simulation of gravity. True this consept needs work, but I like the idea alot better than Soylut / Mir style 6+ months in zero-G...

mdodson · Dec 26, 2006

This is the time to cue up Harlan Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog" for a related storyline.

solarspot · Jan 1, 2007

If cavemen had followed NASA's approach... we'd still be in the stone age. If we really want to go to Mars that desperately, disband NASA and use what the commercial sector will do for whoever wants to pay for the flight. If it works it works, otherwise it doesen't. How do you think North America was settled? Sofar as I am aware... they took RISKS, not sit around drinking tea in Europe... The other way that will actually work is to forget about Mars for a couple centuries and do actually useful stuff in space, using rotating spacestations to simulate normal Earth gravity... But that's just my 2 cents...

spacefire · Jan 2, 2007

I agree a long zero-G trip to Mars might debilitate the initial colonists. I hope the first ship that leaves for the red planet will have some sort of artificial gravity system aboard, even if it is just an indoor centrifuge system that fits one person at a time and allows them to exercise in moderate gravity for a period of time each day. I don't think people born on Mars will suffer from any defficiencies as long as they remain there, since their muscles and bones will get the necessary workout to get by in Martian gravity. We don't know yet, and I think we won't be able to tell for sure if native Martians suffer any ill effects until said natives are born... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

vogelbek · Jan 12, 2007

We could get ambitious in these early years of mars exploration and send a lander experiment designed to have a sustainable habitat for several generations of mice. Have the lander divided into two sections, one with gravity durring the voyage, one without. It would be interesting to see what the differences would be in the 2 groups of subjects (can mice even manuever in 0-g??? I've never heard anything about that) The lander would also be a great chance to gain engineering hiratage with sustainable artificial ecologies, as well as long term technological survivability on mars (how about those rovers, btw...4 years now...awesome) Perhaps sending mammels would be too ambitious, so perhaps grasshoppers or somthing of the like. The autonomous biotech devices needed to moniter the development of the test subjects is probably the limiting factor here. Could you make a 350 gram MRI machine???

spacefire · Jan 13, 2007

or, easier, do the same test in LEO and then subject both sets of mice to Martian gravity via centrifuge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

Sex of Martian Colonists

vogelbek

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

vogelbek

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

spacefire

Guest

vogelbek

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacefire

Guest

mako71

Guest

spacefire

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

mako71

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacefire

Guest

vogelbek

Guest

spacefire

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

solarspot

Guest

mdodson

Guest

solarspot

Guest

spacefire

Guest

vogelbek

Guest

spacefire

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page