Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 31 2018, @09:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-out-of-this-world! dept.

Sex on Mars is going to be risky, but it could create a new human subspecies

In a new research paper published in Futures, an international team of scientists examines the challenges of reproduction on the Martian surface. It's a risky proposition, but if humans succeed in conceiving, carrying, and birthing offspring on another world it might actually be the start of a new species.

In the paper, the researchers tackle a huge number of potential problems that could crop up when humans are finally ready to rear young on Mars. The first and most obvious hurdle is the low gravity environment, which could pose a serious threat to the conception and pregnancy processes that seem so simple here on Earth.

[...] The paper also examines the inherent challenges of bolstering the numbers of a small colony of settlers on the planet. The concept of "love" might have to take a back seat to pure survival, with men and women being paired up by their biology rather than emotion. Additionally, some individuals may never be allowed to have children due to undesirable traits that are a risk to the colony as a whole.

In a somewhat scary aside, the researchers also note that editing the genes of future Mars babies might be an easy way to increase the prospects of survival.

Also at Live Science.

Biological and social challenges of human reproduction in a long-term Mars base (DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.006) (DX)

Related: Space colonization and suffering risks: Reassessing the "maxipok rule" (DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.008) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @11:14AM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @11:14AM (#686668)

    The way we're doing things isn't very scientific or logical.

    Before talking about living on Mars we should figure out whether the gravity is enough or not.

    We should be building space stations with artificial gravity modules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module [wikipedia.org]

    Then testing stuff out in Mars gravity and getting actual hard data on our favorite animals and then humans.

    We should also figure out how little gravity we actually need. The less we need the cheaper the space stations can be.

    We don't have enough data points in between zero G and 1 G and yet so many including NASA are talking about spending multi billion dollars on human missions to Mars. Supposedly we have so much money for such stuff and yet not enough for stuff like the Centrifuge Accommodations Module...

    If it turns out that Mars gravity is not enough for humans for the long term then much of that time, money and resources would be wasted.

    Whereas if we did things scientifically as mentioned we can learn how much G humans and our other favorite animals and plants need and that's useful for future space colonies and maybe even Moon colonies (e.g. if the minimum was Moon G then Moon colonies are fine). And if we somehow manage to go to other stars and are still mostly human that data would still be useful.

    Of course it does make sense if the real goal was for the "scientists" to suck up more public money[1] and not actually making significant scientific progress. Since the mission to Mars stuff is far more glamorous and exciting to normal folk than building some modules and space stations to do real useful science.

    [1] Just like those many regular holiday trips to Hawaii to supposedly learn how people handle being cooped up for months ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HI-SEAS#Missions [wikipedia.org] ). They could just discreetly ask the US Navy on how they select, train and handle their nuclear submarine crew. If the submarines are on critical patrol the crew don't get to leave even if they are very sick and need outside medical attention to stop them from dying. You going to die? Please do it quietly, we'll freeze your body after that for the coroner/your family/etc. Is that the same for NASA's Hawaii experiments - if people are critically ill while stuck in the fake mars habitat would they just let let them die or would they take them out for treatment?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by takyon on Thursday May 31 2018, @11:28AM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 31 2018, @11:28AM (#686675) Journal

    We threw humans into zero-G for months at a time, resulting in negative health consequences. We should send people to Mars with the expectation that they might die, and collect as much data as possible.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:10PM (#686798)

      Some of you may die.

      But it is a risk I am willing to make.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:01PM (#686708)

    yet so many including NASA are talking about spending multi billion dollars on human missions to Mars.

    I have a hunch those money will be better spent than, say, on Solar City [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:30PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:30PM (#686720)

    Before we figure out whether the gravity is enough or not, shouldn't we figure out what people are going to do there? If there are no jobs left on Earth, are there magically going to be Mars burger flipping jobs? The American colonies originally supplied tar sap to Britain for their Naval fleet, then later sugar. What does Mars have other than perchlorates and a nice vacuum outside?

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:37PM

      by looorg (578) on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:37PM (#686723)

      Sure, there will probably have to be some kind of incentive more then just "doing it cause we can", science might be one such thing and mining another one. Isn't it Elon that has said that the first people we send there will probably meet certain death (which I guess we all will) but they are needed just to settle the place and build up the basic infrastructure that future generations might need or require, and not necessarily future generations created on Mars. For all we know they might prefer them sterile, not to mention if it's going to be building required they are probably going to send more men then women so for all we know Mars might just turn into one big gay colony in space.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:45PM (7 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:45PM (#686724) Journal

      It's completely unregulated real estate and resources. If you can bear the large initial costs of getting to and setting up facilities on Mars, you can live off the land and conduct whatever kind of industrial or research activity you want to.

      The investment required will drop dramatically with BFR, and a lot more if you can wait a couple more decades, when reusable BFR or other spacecraft are routinely flying to Mars and back.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @02:54PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @02:54PM (#686760)

        People can't even live off the land on Earth with warm air, blue skies, water and fertile soil. If they could, why aren't they? There are millions of unoccupied ha on Earth for sale next to nothing and people say they can't live without a living wage.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @03:47PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @03:47PM (#686785)

          Are you talking about Antarctica by chance? I'm definitely interested in homesteading there. After you, of course.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:02PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:02PM (#686795)
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @07:21PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @07:21PM (#686881)

              There's no free land in the US. Homesteading was mostly finished by the early 20th century, although it was possible in Alaska until the 1980s. People with an agenda like to complain that mining claims are "free," but you don't really own those as it's no longer possible to obtain "patented" claims.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:41AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:41AM (#687134)

                It wasn't free, but my land was purchased with the equivalent of 1.5 weeks of work at minimum wage ($7.5/h) labor/ha.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgGEkI510Q [youtube.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:43AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:43AM (#687135)

                (PS, that's not me)

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @02:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @02:51AM (#687044)

            Antarctica is more hospitable than Mars in many ways. Enough so that penguins and moss can live on some parts unaided.

            There's hardly any atmosphere on Mars, water will boil away in most parts:
            https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast29jun_1m [nasa.gov]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_limit [wikipedia.org]

            So those vast tracts of land on Mars can't be used for growing crops and raising livestock without pressurized shelters.

            You'd need to build similar stuff to what you'd need for space station colonies. Thus Mars has very few advantages compared to a space station or one of the "nicer" asteroids. Especially since Mars is a bigger gravity well that's far more expensive to go down and up from.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @07:56PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @07:56PM (#686898)

      Well since you don't even know that Mars has an atmosphere I'm not sure it is worth investing any thought into this little experiment.

      Ok fine, I"ll stick with the easy one. Creating a new colony in the solar system has immense benefits, one of which is a smaller gravity well so maybe Mars will be our spaceship yard to more easily harvest asteroid resources.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:48AM (#687136)

        For all intents and purposes for biological activity, it's a vacuum. Placed on the surface, the teardrops on your eyes and the saliva on your tongue build boil and you'd lose consciousness in ten seconds. The same thing that would happen if you were placed in a hard vacuum.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @08:17AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @08:17AM (#687149)

      Before we figure out whether the gravity is enough or not, shouldn't we figure out what people are going to do there?

      Not really. You like many others are assuming the best destination is Mars without enough scientific evidence.

      We need to do the gravity experiments first. Humans will need to do them anyway to figure out the minimum gravity that is enough. Because there are other places in our Solar System than just Mars. Once we better know what we need then we can figure out which places are worth considering and what sort of space stations are needed. The less gravity we need the cheaper the space stations can be. It may turn out that Moon gravity levels are enough for humans, in which case the Moon would be an even better destination than Mars (Mars atmosphere close enough to a vacuum that it's not an advantage over the Moon).

      Those experiments are not cheap, but neither is going to Mars. But if the experiments are done properly the results are likely to be useful for many generations of space-faring humans.

      If we ever become a species that outlives our star that would be a notable achievement. We're unlikely to succeed with that, but we will certainly fail if we keep wasting lots of resources and time on doing stupid stuff. Knowing the minimum amount of gravity most humans need is important for that long path. If we don't even intend to outlive our planet then there's not much point wasting money with Mars missions. If we don't intend to outlive our star but intend to outlive our planet it actually makes more sense to spend our resources making Earth more habitable than trying to make an inhospitable planet like Mars habitable.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 01 2018, @11:56AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 01 2018, @11:56AM (#687194) Journal

        If we ever become a species that outlives our star that would be a notable achievement. We're unlikely to succeed with that, but we will certainly fail if we keep wasting lots of resources and time on doing stupid stuff. Knowing the minimum amount of gravity most humans need is important for that long path. If we don't even intend to outlive our planet then there's not much point wasting money with Mars missions. If we don't intend to outlive our star but intend to outlive our planet it actually makes more sense to spend our resources making Earth more habitable than trying to make an inhospitable planet like Mars habitable.

        That's not remotely relevant. One could argue, for example, that we'll be more technologically developed in a 100 million years and thus, it would make more sense to do Mars missions then, even if we are planning to outlive our star.

        A more relevant argument is that there's a bunch of people who want to see humans living off of Earth in a human life time. That at least contains a rationalization, good or not, for why we should do something now rather than in the far distant future.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday May 31 2018, @02:10PM (2 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday May 31 2018, @02:10PM (#686734)

    Colonization is rarely particularly scientific or logical.

    Meanwhile, any experiments done in orbit will be inconclusive - it's not possible to conclusively separate the effects of gravity from the effects of radiation, plus it introduces constant rotation as another potential complicating factor. And we can't block the radiation without encasing the station in around 14 pounds of insulation per square inch of surface. That's a LOT of mass to get into orbit, and to hold together while spinning. Though we could maybe do mouse-cage size experiments at a reasonable expense.

    Meanwhile, we already know mammalian reproduction works in orbit - we haven't tried humans specifically, but others have succeeded. Doesn't matter if most pregnancies fail, so long as enough succeed to keep the population going. Would probably have to change our attitudes around abortion and infant mortality, but it would hardly be the first time.

    And, even if we find that gravity IS a directly insurmountable problem - there's still no reason we couldn't colonize Mars - we'd just need "maternity ward" centrifuges to provide sufficient gravity for women looking to reproduce. A nice comfy train on a banked circular track would do the job nicely.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @04:12AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @04:12AM (#687078)

      0) Your claims of inconclusiveness are just FUD. The experiment would be more conclusive, applicable and useful than many of the other experiments NASA does. Furthermore don't forget there's only one Mars but humans could have more than one space station in the solar system. If we don't go extinct we are likely to eventually have humans living elsewhere than Mars and Earth.

      1) There's radiation on Mars too about 30 µSv per hour ( https://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radiation-will-the-settlers-be-exposed-to [mars-one.com] ). The ISS is 0.3 Sv per year (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691437/ ) which works out to be about the same 34uSv per hour.

      2) As for shielding every 7 cm of water cuts radiation in half: https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/materials-nuclear-engineering/properties-of-water/water-as-gamma-radiation-shielding/ [nuclear-power.net]
      (beta and alpha are easily stopped, and water is more effective as a neutron radiation shield than a gamma shield).

      US background radiation is 0.20mSv/year - about 0.023uSv per hour. So that works out to about 80cm of water to bring the 34uSv/hour down to background levels. Let's make that 1 metre. 1 cubic metre of water weighs 1 ton. 1 square metre is 1550 square inches. 1 square inch x 1 metre of water weighs 0.65kg which is 1.42 pounds, add a pound or two for the stuff to hold the water and additional shielding and it still wouldn't be as high as your 14 pounds of insulation.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 01 2018, @02:04PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 01 2018, @02:04PM (#687241)

        0) I don't deny that the experiment would be informative, just not conclusive. How exactly would you conclusively separate the problems caused by radiation from those caused by gravity, while ruling out new problems caused by high-speed rotation? You'd have to have an huge population size, which means mice or something, which in turn means any results aren't necessarily applicable to humans. We'll absolutely have to address the issue eventually as we move into space, but tackling one of the most challenging environments first is perhaps not well-advised.

        1) Mars also has literal gigatons tons of near-free radiation shielding (a.k.a. water, sand, and rock).

        2) Water is good, but isn't exactly light either, and introduces containment issues since it can't hold together on its own (keeping it frozen this close to the sun would be a major challenge in itself). And the real problem isn't nuclear radiation, but cosmic rays and the high-energy particle cascades they create - it's like sitting in the beam of a broad-spectrum particle accelerator whose higher energies completely dwarf anything we've created. It's a whole different problem than anything we see on Earth, where we have 14psi of atmospheric shielding protecting us. You pretty much just need a lot of mass between you and the source - not just to block the cosmic rays themselves, but the relativistic particle cascades they create. And experiments have shown that the kind of mass is only somewhat relevant: dense solids are a bit more effective per pound than gasses, but larger nuclei like lead create radioactive particle cascades that are considerably more dangerous than the cosmic rays that create them.

        We may not need a full 14psi (984g/cm^2, or ~10m of water), but I'm guessing that less than a tenth of that won't be sufficient. Though hey, I'd love to be proved wrong. If an ice-dome a meter thick is enough to safely live under long-term, then that would make Mars colonies far less claustrophobic than having to spend most of your time underground. With proper conditions during freezing, a meter of ice can be extremely transparent. Even at worst you'd get a lovely glowing frosted dome above you, with a bit of an earthy blue sky tint.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 31 2018, @03:32PM (3 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday May 31 2018, @03:32PM (#686777) Journal

    That's what I'm thinking. But a Mars Colony is what the public fancies, so NASA is more or less obliged to work on it.

    The low gravity may not be that big a deal. Far more difficult problems are the ionizing radiation, as Mars has no global magnetic field, and the lack of breathable air. I really don't see much alternative to building entirely underground, though perhaps domes can provide enough protection. If the colony has to be entirely underground, there's a whole host of more problems with that. Not least is that it's very costly and energy intensive to go underground.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @07:51AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @07:51AM (#687145)

      I really don't see much alternative to building entirely underground, though perhaps domes can provide enough protection

      That's the thing you'd still need artificially pressurized and shielded environments for humans, plants, livestock. Similar to what you'd need for a space station. So Mars doesn't really have that many advantages over a space station or suitable asteroid and Mars is a bigger gravity well.

      Those vast tracts of land are hugely overrated when you can't actually use them without great expense.

      So if Mars gravity turns out to be insufficient for humans then trying to settle on it is stupid at this stage in our tech level.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 01 2018, @02:39PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 01 2018, @02:39PM (#687252)

        > So Mars doesn't really have that many advantages over a space station

        It really, really does:
        - Gravity without subjecting everything to substantial tensile stresses (tensile strength generally being less fault-tolerant than compression)or the nausea of dealing with intense Coriolis effects
        - Unlimited radiation shielding free for the piling up or tunneling under (a.k.a. sand, rock, and ice)
        - Unlimited CO2 and water as feed-stock for expanding a contained ecosystem, making losses largely irrelevant. And cellulose (aka plant skeletons = water+co2) is a really useful building material, whether as wood, that new stronger-than-steel superwood, sturdy microcellulose "clay" for furniture and other noncritical bulk items, and nanocellulose crystal (translucent, gas impermeable, works like clay when wet, and as strong as aluminum when dry). All of which can be produced using relatively low-tech and non-toxic processes (so you can compose anything broken beyond repair/recycling)

        The I.S.S. has already shown we can keep people alive in a tin can - there's limited additional things to be learned there. Trying to build and grow semi-contained ecosystems from raw molecular feedstock is the next major hurdle, and Mars is an excellent place to do that, since the most important resources are easily accessible without first developing sophisticated mining and industrial infrastructure. The resulting technology and understanding of ecosystem details may also prove extremely useful here on Earth as we deal with a rapidly changing climate. Obviously we could develop the technology here, but we're not going to, there's just no short-term incentive so long as the natural ecosystem is doing well enough.

        Meanwhile, the depth of the gravity well is largely irrelevant in the long term: we're not planning to ship a lot of physical stuff back. In the short term of course it does present a challenge to returning ships to Earth (and giving colonists the option of changing their mind), but fuel synthesis from those copious natural resources shouldn't prove too much of a challenge, and it may even be possible to create an earth-sourced orbital fuel depot to aid in the early stages - fill up the tanks completely before landing, and at worst you've seriously reduced how much local fuel you need to be able to get back to orbit - where you can then refuel for the trip to Earth.

        Of course, the Moon might also be a viable candidate - it offers at least gravity and shielding, though other resources are likely to require developing a much more sophisticated industrial base. But the BFR should be able to land and return with the aid of only orbital fuel depots, which greatly simplifies the early days. Plus, a Moon base is likely to be much more valuable to Earth.

      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 01 2018, @03:02PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday June 01 2018, @03:02PM (#687265) Journal

        The trouble with Mars gravity is not that it's too low for us, it's that it's too low to hang onto much of an atmosphere. Build an Earth like atmosphere on Mars (another extremely difficult objective), and the solar wind will strip it away for 2 reasons: the low gravity, and the lack of a global magnetic field. The ozone layer is particularly fragile and would be among the first to go, and then there'd be no atmospheric shielding from UV radiation.

        Foregoing any plans to terraform Mars leaves any proposed colony stuck in air-tight and radiation shielding shelters of some sort,