A recent preprint paper examines the minimum number of people required to maintain a feasible settlement on Mars while accounting for psychological and behavioral factors, specifically in emergency situations. This study was conducted by a team of data scientists from George Mason University and holds the potential to help researchers better understand the appropriate conditions …

  • revs@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 year ago

    “In the end, they determined that a minimum colony population of 22 agents was ideal to maintain a feasible Mars mining colony over the long-term.”

  • Minarble
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does that include the mad eco terrorist/saviour stow away who kick starts terra forming Mars then founds his own colony on the South Pole?

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Presumably some of them would have to be female, making a Mars colony settled entirely by muskies unviable.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    You want a colony consisting only of fanatics? Then 22 may be the number. It’s going to be 22 very different types, and every one of them has to decide every day that this is going to last long…

    If you want a colony consisting of normal people that lasts for long, then you need thousands. Humans need a lot diversity before they can be normal and stay healthy.

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I recall a similar study years ago. They concluded 32 was minimal viable, assuming a strict breeding regiment over several generations, with 8 men and 24 women. They also concluded about 500 would be the smallest practical size, given people aren’t robots and losing even a couple people before leaving the breeding pool would be very bad. That was a fundamentally different study though, looking at long term, self sufficiency. This one seems more focused on an Antarctica like outpost that would be able to cycle people in and out, and not establishing a full on colony.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Antarctica like outpost that would be able to cycle people in and out, and not establishing a full on colony.

        Thank you for pointing out this detail of possibly returning!

        We might be able to travel to Mars in a few years. But it will take many more years before anybody can travel back from there.

        Mars has a gravity similar to earth. In order to leave the planet we need to launch rockets from there, about the same size as we launch from earth. And therefore we need to build lots of stuff there and operate it properly.

        The first ‘colonists’ will have to go with the expectation of never returning.

        • octoperson@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think Mars colonies are realistic, but not for this reason. Mars has about one third the gravity of earth, and a much thinner atmosphere, so you can return on a significantly smaller rocket than you launched with. It’s true that manufacturing a space rocket of any size would require basically an entire civilization, but there’s no reason you couldn’t bring the return vehicle with you, and only require manufacturing fuel or propellant on site.

          The top answer to this stackexchange post goes into a lot more detail on the practicalities https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2820/how-big-would-a-manned-ascent-stage-for-mars-need-to-be

          • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            here’s no reason you couldn’t bring the return vehicle with you

            LOL. For example simply it’s weight is a reason. A vehicle for landing and a vehicle for starting may be the same, or may be two very different things because of their weight.

            And then bringing the vehicle is one thing, but starting it is quite something else again.

            • octoperson@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most of the weight is fuel/propellant, which is why most Mars mission plans have you manufacture propellant on-site. An empty fuel tank and some engines isn’t that heavy. Especially if, as you say, you’re able to reuse your lander. Anyway, everything you bring has weight. The issue is, how much and can you budget for it?

              If your looking for somewhere to save weight, imo start by getting rid of the astronauts and all their associated life support and living space. Bonus - robots don’t even need frivolous luxuries like getting to return home.

            • AEsheron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, they will probably be relying on many unammed missions that deliver payloads to deliver all the construction material for the outpost before sending any people. While you’re at it you could send the return craft too.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Considering humanity was knocked down to about 1200 people about 800,000 years ago and we survived without any technology to speak of, let alone genetic testing that would help determine maximum diversity, I’d say you might be surprised.

      • ahornsirup@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That assumes that everyone will be willing to have children with just about anyone, regardless of their personal opinion of them, and regardless of whether or not they even want children to begin with. You can’t selectively breed humans without massive human rights violations.

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not about building a local population on Mars that will populate the planet, it’s about the bare minimum to operate an outpost with regular supply drops from earth and replacement personnel in case of fatalities.

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    No colonising please. Leave that nonsense to the Age of Sail. By all means, have a science outpost but no permanent and growing settlements, no terraforming, no farming, no mining. We have our own planet and other worlds are not our “manifest destiny to conquer”. We must be the Watchers, not the Contangion. Humanity should go to the stars to explore but not to destroy it in our image. Create any permanent settlements on Mars and wars and misery will soon follow.

    • Nelsonat0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t stop it. Not only because of the resources but also as a way of continuing our existence. It’s just a matter of time.

      • PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans could be about to ruin whatever was supposed to survive on Mars in a couple million of years. We’ve disrupted our own planet, and are about to destroy another one. And honestly, we’re not all that great as a species.