Content uploaded by Charles S Cockell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles S Cockell on Feb 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mars is an awful place to live
Abstract
Some believe that the planet Mars holds promise as a new home for humankind and that it could become the focus of a large scale colonisation effort at some undefined point in the future. In this paper I support the assertion that Mars holds promise as a site for human scientific, and possibly commercial, exploration, but I question the idea that Mars will be colonised in a manner akin to the New World. The surface of Mars is physically extreme. Mean annual temperature is—60°C, the ultraviolet radiation flux is a thousand times more damaging to DNA than that found on the surface of the earth, and there is little or no liquid surface water. The atmosphere is unbreathable and the soil may be toxic. Although Mars is less awful than the most awful places in the solar system (such as the radiation bombarded surfaces of the Jovian moons), it is considerably more awful than the most extreme places on earth, such as the continental interior of Antarctica and the High Arctic. I suggest that the polar model of human settlement is the most accurate from which to extrapolate the future of human Mars exploration, but even this model is optimistic. Using the most hopeful assessments of colonisation prospects, the human population of Mars would be a maximum of about three million people, and would most probably be substantially less. Understanding the most likely social trajectory of human Mars exploration is not only sociologically interesting, but it is practically important for determining how Mars exploration programmes should be presented to the public.
... Hutterite behavioral norms are very strict, in a way that would be unusual for people likely to be early space settlers. However, space is an extremely hostile environment, where controlling deviant behavior may take on special importance [99,100]. Communards may have to think carefully about ways to encourage cooperative behavior that are not demeaning or cruel to the settlers. ...
... Dangers to humans have been discussed, although after Earth, Mars is arguably the most hospitable planet in the Solar System. Some recent authors have injected a note of realism, claiming that Mars is probably "an awful place to live" (Cockell, 2002). This is a real likelihood, but remains the primary and perhaps only destination where current visions of space settlement and exo-planetary futures are centered. ...
... Some authors, such as Charles Cockell (2002) and Stoner (2017) take for granted that living on Mars will be hard and challenging for daily human life. However, a Mars outpost may be an attractive place to live when compared with life on postcatastrophic Earth (as nuclear bunkers are better than the alternative). ...
This article examines some selected ethical issues in human space missions including human missions to Mars, particularly the idea of a space refuge, the scientific value of space exploration, and the possibility of human gene editing for deep-space travel. Each of these issues may be used either to support or to criticize human space missions. We conclude that while these issues are complex and context-dependent, there appear to be no overwhelming obstacles such as cost effectiveness, threats to human life or protection of pristine space objects, to sending humans to space and to colonize space. The article argues for the rationality of the idea of a space refuge and the defensibility of the idea of human enhancement applied to future deep-space astronauts.
... Dutton claims that a "fundamental attraction to certain types of landscapes is not socially constructed but is present in human nature (2009,18). Cockell (2002) has warned of the monotony of the red color of the Martian landscape, and we would add, a disquiet at the absence of blues and greens, and streams and trees. Artistic forms of recreation for the crew may be particularly useful in their comprehending the new and different landscape. ...
Human services planning for crews who go to Mars is in its earliest phase, but the modalities for service delivery are well worth anticipating because they could involve some of the first innovations that merge physical, biological, and digital capacities on the new planet. This chapter examines the constraints of the planet Mars, itself, on all humans. It anticipates how "exogenous stressors" (gravity, atmosphere, radiation, light, and dust) might affect the psychological, social, and cultural capacities and conflicts of the earliest crews. Several types of service modalities are explored: medication management; traditional psychotherapy; long-distance modalities to approximate the "talking cure"; digitized, keyed, psychology workbooks; robotics, or service delivery without verbal feedback; AI technologies, or services with verbal feedback; problem-solving at the cultural level; and a special section on the issue of privacy. The chapter rounds out with a section on spiritual services, focusing on "sacred space," and finally, death and burial ritual on Mars. Factors explored here reflect the backgrounds of the two authors: one, a cultural anthropologist and biologist, and the other, an astronomer who is also a Catholic priest.
... Dangers to humans have been discussed, although after Earth, Mars is arguably the most hospitable planet in the Solar System. Some recent authors have injected a note of realism, claiming that Mars is probably "an awful place to live" (Cockell, 2002). This is a real likelihood, but remains the primary and perhaps only destination where current visions of space settlement and exo-planetary futures are centered. ...
As we look beyond our terrestrial boundary to a multi-planetary future for humankind, it becomes paramount to anticipate the challenges of various human factors on the most likely scenario for this future: permanent human settlement of Mars. Even if technical hurdles are circumvented to provide adequate resources for basic physiological and psychological needs, Homo sapiens will not survive on an alien planet if a dysfunctional psyche prohibits the utilization of these resources. No matter how far we soar into the stars, our psychologies for future generations will be forever tethered to the totality of our surroundings. By shaping our environment toward survival and welfare during the voyage to Mars and in a Martian colony, we indirectly shape our psyches and prepare them for a mission of unprecedented alienation and duration. Once on Mars, human factors such as leadership structure, social organization and code of conduct, group size, gender balance, developmental cycle, mobility, length of stay and the ecological settings and type and manner of subsistence, will create a novel Martian culture. The degree that settlers are severed from the Earth will affect how radically foreign this culture will be when compared with cultures on Earth.
Human survival is still beyond current technological and biological capabilities. This paper discusses essential needs to live on interplanetary system Mars and methods to produce and extract those easily losing minimum existing resources in process of production. This study includes discussion of existing technologies in brief and solutions to limitations of those technologies. These theoretical solutions are to produce primary survival needs on Mars i.e. water, oxygen, fuel and agriculture just like earth. Oxygen synthesis is done more effectively using Mars atmospheric CO2 rather than using oxygen trapped in soil or form water. Current water extraction methods are able to produce and store approx. 60% water from source taken; using brine this limitation can be resolved. Food production on Mars is usually thought of in terms of growing plants to support survival on Mars; theoretical solution proposed in this paper solves limitations of current methods.
If we had the ability to terraform Mars, would it be morally permissible to do it? This article surveys three preservationist arguments for the conclusion that we should not terraform Mars and three interventionist arguments that we should. The preservationist arguments appeal to a duty to conserve objects of special scientific value, a duty to preserve special wilderness areas, and a duty not to display vices characteristic of past colonial endeavors on Earth. The interventionist arguments appeal to a duty to fulfill our pioneering nature, a duty to extend the lifespan of our species, and a duty to restore the ecosystems Mars may once have housed. The preservationist arguments are stronger than the interventionist arguments; terraforming Mars is probably morally wrong.
The first voyagers who venture to Mars and seek to live on soil beyond our terrestrial home will face an environment mismatched with the one in which their genomes, epigenomes, and psyches evolved. Even if technical hurdles are circumvented to provide adequate resources for basic physiological needs, Homo sapiens will not survive on an alien land if a fracturing psychology prohibits the utilization of these resources. Environmental psychology can be employed to shape the choice architecture of a vessel to Mars and a colony upon it, in order to bias choices toward the fulfillment of fundamental existential, relationship, safety, and fitness needs. Aspects of surroundings that should be engineered to create psychological states optimal for survival and welfare include primes, defaults, private spaces, shared spaces, ceiling height, object shape, color, nature, pets, light, windows, noise, temperature, odors, contaminants, order, and diversions. No matter how far we soar into the stars, our psychologies will be ever tethered to the totality of our surroundings. By shaping our environments, we indirectly shape our psyches and prepare them for a mission of unprecedented alienation and duration which might be the last best hope to avert the end of our kind.
The start of the century marked the beginning of a new era of scientific goals and technological achievements in space technologies, together with the new visions of space exploration ambitions. The enterprising plans of space travels and creation of first human settlement on Mars are frequently presented as the next proverbial giant leap for humankind. The chapter focuses on private space programmes and considers the motivations for future exploration of Mars from a sociocultural perspective. Further, it discusses why Mars is of such importance to public imagination today. In presenting a socio-science fiction, and regarding science as the primary mode of operating of such endeavour, the chapter argues that the Martian colonists will need to live in the extreme environments, survive unprecedented scenarios and in a way become organisms that thrive in extreme conditions, extremophiles, themselves.
Human services planning for crews who go to Mars is in its earliest phase, but the modalities for service delivery are well worth anticipating because they could involve some of the first innovations that merge physical, biological, and digital capacities on the new planet. This chapter examines the constraints of the planet Mars, itself, on all humans. It anticipates how “exogenous stressors” (gravity, atmosphere, radiation, light, and dust) might affect the psychological, social, and cultural capacities and conflicts of the earliest crews. Several types of service modalities are explored: hibernation; medication management; traditional psychotherapy; long-distance modalities to approximate the “talking cure”; digitized, keyed psychology workbooks; robotics, or service delivery without verbal feedback; AI technologies, or service delivery with verbal feedback; problem-solving at the cultural level; digital bulletin boards to substitute for journaling; and a special section on the issue of privacy. The chapter rounds out with a section, on types of spiritual services that may be beneficial even for those who profess no faith. We focus on “sacred space,” and on death and burial ritual on Mars. Factors explored here reflect the backgrounds of the two authors: one, a cultural anthropologist and biologist, and the other, an astronomer who is also a Catholic priest.
Mars is believed to be lifeless, but it may be possible to transform it into a planet suitable for habitation by plants, and conceivably humans. The success of such an enterprise would depend on the abundance, distribution and form of materials on the planet that could provide carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen.
The possibility of utilizing Mars as a habitat for terrestrial life, including man, is examined. Available data, assumptions, and speculations on the climate, physical state, and chemical inventory of Mars are reviewed and compared with the known requirements and environmental limits of terrestrial life. No fundamental, insuperable limitation of the ability of Mars to support a terrestrial ecology is identified. The lack of an oxygen-containing atmosphere would prevent the unaided habitation of Mars by man. The present strong ultraviolet surface irradiation is an additional major barrier. The creation of an adequate oxygen and ozone-containing atmosphere on Mars may be feasible through the use of photosynthetic organisms. The time needed to generate such an atmosphere, however, might be several millions of years. This period might be drastically reduced by the synthesis of novel, Mars-adapted, oxygen producing photosynthetic strains by techniques of genetic engineering, and modifying the present Martian climate by melting of the Martian polar caps and concomitant advective and greenhouse heating effects.