One way trip to Mars.
#16
.BTW, is there any proof that we need 1g for a pregnancy to work? All I can find on the subject are worries about radiation levels, which are much easier to deal with (build your house a few metres underground, which you'll probably want to do anyway for thermal reasons).
#17
Thread Starter
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,578
From: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns











I wonder if the price of cheese would be any cheaper on Mars once everything is up and running?
Of course any Brit on this adventure would eventually end up bitching about the lack of robinsons squash, decent fish and chips and how everything is done better in the UK.
Of course any Brit on this adventure would eventually end up bitching about the lack of robinsons squash, decent fish and chips and how everything is done better in the UK.
#18
BE user by choice









Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,854
From: A Briton, married to a Canadian, now in Fredericton.











I wonder if the price of cheese would be any cheaper on Mars once everything is up and running?
Of course any Brit on this adventure would eventually end up bitching about the lack of robinsons squash, decent fish and chips and how everything is done better in the UK.
Of course any Brit on this adventure would eventually end up bitching about the lack of robinsons squash, decent fish and chips and how everything is done better in the UK.
#22
slanderer of the innocent










Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,695
From: Vancouver, BC











I think it's exciting.
#23
BE Enthusiast




Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 487
From: Calgary, AB











Try the Atacama and Gobi deserts - remote and cold! Antarctica wouldn't fit the bill as protected.
#25
Analyst for hire






Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,698
From: Toronto











You can't colonize Mars by definition because there isn't enough gravity to successfully have children and the life expectancy of anyone who goes there will drop off a cliff because of bone loss and other health problems (being exposed to large amounts of radiation there and in transit). All this terraforming stuff is academic, you need 1G to have children. You'd have to put a space station in orbit, spin it fast enough and the kids would have to grow up there.
#26
Yep, you've got to have 1G to successfully have children. Look at the research into bone loss and muscle atrophy in low G or zero G environments. This is the reason why all the sci fi novels written in the last x number of years never mention it, because there's no way of explaining it away. Doesn't matter how clever you get with terraforming or whatever, you can't compensate for a lack of gravity. It takes a long time for astronauts to recover from a few months of exposure to zero G.
This is one of the main problems of getting to Mars, it's such a long journey they're not quite sure how the astronauts would survive in zero G that long, they'd have to spin the ship and even then it wouldn't be 1G.
If you tried to have children in 0.6G they wouldn't develop properly during pregnancy and would have a wide variety of birth deformities if you even got that far.
The way that's been theorized of getting around that problem would be to have children on an orbiting space station, but long-term exposure of even Earth-born humans to 0.6G would have serious health effects.
If you want to colonize a planet in the Solar System, the only real candidate is Venus, so you'd have to terraform it first which would probably take thousands of years.
Colonizing Mars is just sci-fi guff. If the pilgrims had gotten off the Mayflower and been confronted with a frigid, lifeless arid desert they wouldn't have stuck around for long, quite apart from it being airless and low gravity.
This is one of the main problems of getting to Mars, it's such a long journey they're not quite sure how the astronauts would survive in zero G that long, they'd have to spin the ship and even then it wouldn't be 1G.
If you tried to have children in 0.6G they wouldn't develop properly during pregnancy and would have a wide variety of birth deformities if you even got that far.
The way that's been theorized of getting around that problem would be to have children on an orbiting space station, but long-term exposure of even Earth-born humans to 0.6G would have serious health effects.
If you want to colonize a planet in the Solar System, the only real candidate is Venus, so you'd have to terraform it first which would probably take thousands of years.
Colonizing Mars is just sci-fi guff. If the pilgrims had gotten off the Mayflower and been confronted with a frigid, lifeless arid desert they wouldn't have stuck around for long, quite apart from it being airless and low gravity.
#27
Earth's gravity is way too high for comfortable human life. Mars gravity is probably about right, since it's high enough to be useful and not high enough to be annoying. The problem is that it's not high enough to maintain a breathable atmosphere, which is another reason why trying to colonise it is a silly idea.
The future for the human race is likely to be living in free-flying habitats at 0.25-0.5g, because that seems the optimum range if you don't have to worry about holding an atmosphere down. Kids who grew up in 1g will have excessively strong muscles and bones in that environment.
#28
Analyst for hire






Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,698
From: Toronto











Source please.
#30
It's not irrelevant, they wouldn't develop properly. Genetically for example your spine can only be a certain length, in low G the spine would develop to a greater length. Your heart has to be able to pump a certain amount of blood in order to keep your cardiovascular system going, it wouldn't develop properly in low gravity, plus you would be taller, stretching out the distance the blood would have to travel. Human beings evolved in one G, you can't take a life form as complex as a human and then have them have children in 0.6 G.



