A philologist by the name of Ransom
would be the ideal candidate
if he might be persuaded
by say a ruthless and arrogant scientist by the name of Dr Weston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet#Characters
When humans head off to colonize Mars, it's not entirely clear how many people will be needed to keep everyone alive. SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell last year speculated that humans could land on the Red Planet within this decade, so it's not too soon to start thinking about the feasibility of a …
Any settlement can only be considered a colony when it can survive without ongoing resupply. On Earth (with air, water and food available) the minimum number for long term survival seems to be about 2000 - fewer than that and inbreeding becomes a problem (smaller groups have survived when there has been a trickle of new people arriving).
On Mars (or the Moon) the lack of critical resources (air, water, food etc) requires a lot of high tech equipment for survival. This requirement for high tech means that resupply from Earth will be needed until the equipment can be produced locally. The number of people needed to produce such equipment means that the smallest self sustaining colony on Mars would need over a million people. Any smaller group would be doomed to extinction if the supply from Earth was cut off. When it was no longer possible to repair or replace a bit of vital equipment the settlement would start to die.
Yep. The "how many people" question is poorly defined. Salotti kind of mentions this when he notes that the outcome of the model is heavily dependent on parameters, which are very arbitrary.
What is "survive"? Is it "survive between resupply runs"? Is it "colonists get to have kids"? Is it "the settlement can survive indefinitely"? In the last two cases, with or without resupply runs?
And what is a resupply run anyway? Just spare parts that can't possibly be produced locally, e.g. electronics? Spare parts that could be produced locally with difficulty, e.g. refined metals? Consumables? Food, fuel, water, oxygen? From the article, it seems that they even include more people in the resupply runs. That's pretty generous. And how frequent are these resupply runs anyway? If you use multiple rockets, you could make them arbitrarily frequent.
Depending on the answers, you'll get vastly different results to the "how many people" question. Could be anything from one person (if resupplies are frequent and complete) to one million (if we're in an Earth-is-gone-humanity-must-survive scenario).
Because of this, I have concerns about how useful these studies can be, and I'm fairly sure that they can't be compared to each other anyway.
> I have concerns about how useful these studies can be
They are indeed just approximate answers to the wrong question...
It would be more pressing to know what the purpose of this "colony" thing might be, and what the technical realities governing it are. In real life return on investment will heavily dictate, not only the initial investment, but also the resupply frequency (or even existence!): Nobody will shell out billions yearly just so the Martians can get the latest iPhone.
So, is this a vanity project, just so we can say "we did it", move on, and never set foot on Mars for the next 50 years (like the Moon)? Is this a new settlement supposed to be or eventually become self-sufficient? What would it be for (the Americas were colonized because the was wealth to be found here, not because some billionaire had cash burning his pockets)? What would be the political status of this colony be (does a terrestrial nation claim sovereignty over that settlement? I'm sure all the others nations will disagree. On the other hand if it's independent, it will be left to fend for its own, i.e. starve).
.
BTW I like the obvious things that study claims to have discovered. Brace yourself: Neurotic people = bad in a group, Agreeable ones = good... I guess the number of psychopathic mass murderers would have to be limited too - Surprise! Now I have to go claim my Nobel.
Indeed, I think we've all read too much Science Fiction and watched too much Star Trek. It's hard to see much reason for sending people anywhere outside the Earth's atmosphere other to wave a flag and make a memorable speach. Frankly, we're lousy exploratory probes requiring elaborate support systems to function at all, having limited sensory capability and not functioning all that well even on our best days. Moreover, exploratory hardware devices are evolving rapidly. They get more capable every year. I can imagine that in a few decades, we may have rovers reporting back from truly hostile environments like the surface of Venus. People, on the other hand are going to need tens of millions of years of evolution to get adequate radiation hardening, the ability to function in a vacuum, etc, etc, etc. A few more arms might help as well. I don't think humanity will evolve in that direction anyway. No reasons to
An intelligent race would probably simply kick back, work on improving their society and, in their spare time, build better and better probes and automated systems to explore their planet and nearby objects. I doubt humanity will do that, preferring instead to spend vast amounts in order to send humans forth to do jobs for which they are poorly suited. And I suppose both roads lead to much the same place. It's just that one is a lot bumpier, tedious, and dangerous than the other. Little doubt in my mind which road humanity will pick.
====
The one mission where I could see humans in space would be command and control of Mars (and other deep space object) rovers without a 3 to 22 miniute speed of light delay. Send a crew out to a nearby rock (a moon in the case of Mars). Hollow out a radiation safe habitat and prosper. If you need a staff of 3 on duty 24-7 to manage the rovers, you'll probably need four shifts, plus a bunch of support folks to handle medicine, cooking, clean up, maintenance, etc. -- about 40 folk. Give or take. It'll cost a pretty penney. I doubt it will happen.
I think you missed the point here. The human settlers wouldn't be there to explore, but to "colonize", i.e. settle there forever. Which evidently requires humans, like putting money in a bank account requires money.
(Didn't downvote you though.)
> why haven't we done Siberia, Northern Canada, Everest, Antarctica
Actually we did, the best example being Siberia: All interesting places (full of ore, oil, gas) have been colonized for decades. Same for the north of Canada and Alaska: Why would anybody sane want to settle there if there wasn't some serious source of wealth (or income)? Just for the freezing winters, the mosquitoes and the forest fires?
Which was my point above: If there is a profit to be made, humans will colonize hell itself, but there needs to be a real profit to it. And Mars is uninteresting right now, there is no economic reason to build a mining operation settlement there.
Antarctica is a special case, because there is an international agreement NOT to colonize it - The Antarctic Treaty. But creating a self-sufficient colony in Antarctica would be almost as difficult as on Mars - there is no way that crops could be grown in the open, so you'd be looking at a similar artificial environment. The Russians did make some progress in that direction on Svalbard - at Barentsburg, when I visited it, they managed to rear things like tomatoes under glass, and had a small dairy herd (walking past the bull in the confined quarters was a bit scary!). But the settlement was nowhere near self-sufficient. But Svalbard (because of the North Atlantic Drift) is much more hospitable than Antarctica, with many areas of ice-free terrain. Antarctica has a tiny proportion of ice-free terrain, and most of that is rock, often precipitous rock! (see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/polar-record/article/abs/measured-properties-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-derived-from-the-scar-antarctic-digital-database/199572F09FD3F65BC24A018C46F12610) Sorry, there's no open-access version of the paper.
"In real life return on investment will heavily dictate, not only the initial investment, but also the resupply frequency (or even existence!): Nobody will shell out billions yearly just so the Martians can get the latest iPhone."
I suppose that really depends on what you by "return on investment". If you mean cash returns based on some as yet unknown resource that might make a profit, then no, I don't think will happen in anything other than a timescale of centuries. Other RoI's might be furthering human knowledge, the need to explore and expand, there's a lot of people out there saying humanity needs to be spread out in case of another dinosaur killer, even simple philanthropy, an eventual staging post for asteroid mining. Probably many others I've not yet thought of. All currently fantasy and mostly very, very long term ambitions. Maybe it is just wish fulfilment from watching too much of the likes of Star Trek, and yes, many of those RoI's might well be cheaper and maybe even easier with robotic probes, but not all of them. Some have suggested a truly self-sustaining colony will need 100's of 1000's if not a million+ people in it to be fully viable and I don't think the Earth is rich enough or co-operative enough to manage that anytime in the next century to do it. Not even a consortium of the worlds billionaires, who, let's face it, don't have a stellar track record of cooperating on anything, let alone a century or three of continuous cooperation! And Musk, even if he says that's his plan, I doubt will manage anything close to an actual colony on Mars.
> furthering human knowledge, the need to explore and expand
While I consider those to be worthy goals too, I'm afraid you won't find any realistic financing for that: Rich people are egotistic and merciless, while considerate and idealistic people never get rich. I too think we should spread, for obvious reasons (eggs and baskets come to mind, never mind that bad habit of gnawing at your own basket).
.
> I don't think the Earth is rich enough or co-operative enough to manage that anytime in the next century
Indeed. And in the century after that either. Humans don't really change, we're still the same uncouth cavemen we once were, we've only learned to occasionally wash... :-D
In the big picture it seems to be about making humans a multi-planetary species. To enhance overall probability of survival, and in the very long term, probability of further expansion to who knows -perhaps another solar system? Weird to think in terms much longer than our own lifespans, but if say an asteroid or gamma ray beam wipes out the Earth, we would still have a shot at making it to the heat death of the universe!
> To enhance overall probability of survival
If the plan to do that is to try and colonize an irradiated, dry, low-gravity, dead rock, with no biosphere and an atmosphere that would still be unbreathable, even if it wasn't near a vacuum as far as our lungs are concerned, then I think we need a better plan.
> but if say an asteroid or gamma ray beam wipes out the Earth, we would still have a shot at making it to the heat death of the universe!
Maybe, but no thanks to Mars.
How about we try this plan instead: We take all the countless resources we would waste on that boring red dustball, and use them to make the planet we were born on better? You know, further new energy technology, do something against global warming, provide better medicine and food to lots of people.
Because here is the punchline: We don't need a gamma ray, or any other help from the cosmos to wipe us out ... humanity has proven that it's perfectly capable of doing that on its own.
I don't really disagree, but 780 days is , I believe, the interval between when a minimum energy (Hohmann) transfer orbit from Earth to Mars is possible. The actual flight duration for a Hohmann flight would be around 250 days? Moreover in an emergency situation -- getting a critical part there SOON -- a higher energy orbit would likely be possible. In practice, I should think that most of the supplies for the first manned Mars mission will be prepositioned, and that the Astronauts will follow several years later after it is certain that everything they might possibly need for the mission is in place.
Not that I think that, based on what we know today, there is any actual reason to send humans to Mars. But I'd be delighted if our rovers and probes turned up something that justified sending someone out to look at it.
You do it the way you start with any huge, perilous and mostly unknown venture, which is you start small and scale up - not only in size but also in ambition. First step, "survive between resupply runs", second and subsequent steps is resupply runs get less frequent as the colony becomes gradually more self-sufficient. First resupply runs might include food, water, air until self-sufficient, with supply runs changing to more specialised items as time goes on. As another poster mentioned, to be fully self-sufficient as a highly technological settlement might requires hundreds of thousands or a million plus colonists. It might be centuries before both the population and the technical capacity is built up for full self-sufficiency from Earth.
Then again, short of planet-wide nuclear war on Earth, I can't imagine any scenario where full self-sufficiency from Earth is desired let alone required. There's surely plenty of remote islands with small populations that are mostly self-sufficient in terms of food, water and shelter, and import only specialty items.
There's also the question of who wants to go through the challenges that are required to have that self-sufficiency. The first step is to survive with basically nothing on an inhospitable planet where if anything goes wrong, the chances are that you die a drawn-out death. We generally don't have to do that here. This means that any people who actually colonize will need a pretty good reason to want to go there for that first step, and I don't know what that will be. Sure, there are people who say they'd like to go because they would like the bragging rights, but these are the same people who wouldn't like to do any of the unpleasant jobs that would be required. The mission can't consist of a bunch of "captains" with no support staff. It's not like the moon where all the astronauts had to do was show up, drop some equipment, and leave, getting back to the comforts of modern society in a couple weeks. Mars colonists are going to have to deal with a lot more adversity.
And that pre-supposes that everyone is getting along.
What if they split into factions like the Bounty mutineers on Pitcairn did?
Putting some in an airlock without a spacesuit like Heinlein wrote in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' would be pretty feasible.
Admittedly, so would equipping the airlock with safety systems to prevent that from working, for example by not allowing multiple people to fit and requiring that the person inside the airlock activate the open out function. Old fashioned methods of murder like stabbing or striking are still available though.
If breeding is expected in a colony the inbreeding problem can be easily countered with a freezer and a box of turkey basters.
For an off-Earth colony the most important resource is energy. With an energy surplus you can do almost anything.
No, with enough energy you can get oxygen from rocks - Martian regolith is mainly various metal oxides. Very inefficient but doable with a surplus of energy and could also be a useful source of metals for construction and tool fabrication.
Hydrogen for water and rocket fuel is a bit harder to get as the regolith does not contain a lot of hydrogen bearing compounds but there should be enough.
On such a colony recycling of everything would be essential so once up and running it shouldn't need a lot of fresh resources for day to day operations.
For an off-Earth colony the most important thing is money. If you have money, getting enough energy, water and oxygen are just formalities.
What I'm saying is, a colony there needs to have an economic reason for being, something which might justify throwing enormous amounts of money at it during several decades. And investors are extremely impatient, so it better be huge...
Not that I wouldn't like to see it, but I don't believe in Santa.
That's a bit sociopathic, don't you think? You're literally suggesting that women be sent to the Mars colony to be impregnated by multiple different fathers. You didn't even treat them enough like people to suggest using pre-fertilised embryos - which would be a better solution anyway as you'd get the diversity from different mothers as well.
It's the most efficient use of limited space.
It's callous but in a colony the most important parts of the colonists are their reproductive systems. Sperm and ova (unfertilised or fertilised) can all be stored easily but sperm will keep fresh the longest and is the only one that can be obtained and used without surgical intervention. Having the option for gene lines outside the fixed population would be an essential insurance policy.
At least I'm not so sociopathic to suggest women should be forced to undergo unnecessary surgical procedures to implant ova.
It's callous but in a colony the most important parts of the colonists are their reproductive systems. Sperm and ova (unfertilised or fertilised) can all be stored easily but sperm will keep fresh the longest and is the only one that can be obtained and used without surgical intervention. Having the option for gene lines outside the fixed population would be an essential insurance policy.
It's not really callous, but one of those cold equations behind any sustainable colony, or generation ship. This has been a staple of both SF and serious research for a very long time. It's also a wicked diversity problem. To succeed, a colony at a minimum would need to maintain a population size that can sustain a colony, then ideally expand. The diversity problem is because we know what happens with inbreeding, and we've known that for a very long time. So a colony would need genetic diversity to avoid inbreeding. But that also means colonists would pretty much be required to be breeders because we don't have, and probably won't have artificial wombs for a very long time. We're probably closer to being able to blend sperm and ova, but that's an ethical minefield all of it's own. It also would probably mean other social changes, like an end to monogamous or same-sex relationships. If colonists can still produce gametes, they can still contribute genetic material, much as already happens with surrogates. But no gametes, and a colonist is pretty much an evolutionary dead end.
It's a subject that has been researched extensively already, and effectively requires some degree of eugenics.. And we've seen how that one tends to work out. It also gets complicated if you want to do something like creating an ethnically or racially diverse population, because then you pretty much need say, 200 of each to maintain a politically diverse, but genetically unique population. Then do you permit outbreeding to maintain racial purity? Again we know how that one tends to go. Then there's the personality traits, and if there's any genetic basis for those? Do you really want a population of risk-takers, because that's what you might end up with. For a while, anyway.
《because we know what happens with inbreeding
Yeah, we get nobility, politicians, celebs, marketing/HR droids...》
Bingo! "Colonizing" Mars could be our equivalent of the Golgafrincham "B" Ark. Free tickets for Jeff, Larry, Elon &co.
Mars' lack of an atmosphere would remedy the Golgafrinchans' mistake in choosing a habitable destination.
Prophylactic gelding would also be effective countermeasure.
I really wouldn't worry. It's not going to happen. First of all, because it's vile and any attempt at a Mars colony cannot run on sociopaths, but also because the time scales are all wrong.
Inbreeding operates over many decades. If there are even occasional supply runs from Earth, then enough people will come in to avoid the problem. And if there aren't regular supply runs from Earth for at least the first century or so, no colony would survive anyway.
Also, I'll be extremely surprised if we haven't the ability to fix most/all genetic problems by direct genome editing within the next two generations, top. In fact, I'd bet that genetic anomalies will be a solved problem well before anyone even makes a serious attempt at a self-sustaining Mars colony.
I have given considerable thought to my priorities, thanks, and I hope you have done the same.
First of all, usually "eugenics" refers specifically to selective breeding. A quick check on Merriam-Webster agrees with me on that. If you want to extend the definition to gene editing, I'm okay with that for the purpose of this discussion, but it feels a bit like you're deliberately using a loaded term to inaccurately describe something you disapprove of.
More to the point, yes, I believe that selective breeding of humans is ethically far worse than gene editing. Both approaches seek to determine the characteristics of the unborn child by influencing its DNA (that's the whole point of selective breeding). However, only one of them does so by also applying an enormous, I'd say monstrous, compression of the rights of the parents, especially the woman, by preventing them from freely choosing who they wish to have a child with.
So, basically, between these two options, one has all the ethical problems of the other, but it also has a whole bunch of additional ethical problems on top of that.
I also believe that, in such matters, the interests of the parents and child always trump the interests of society. No exceptions. Because of that, I'd support providing as many options as possible including artificial insemination, gene editing, or just hoping everything works out, and nobody should ever be forced to use any of the above methods, or even to reproduce at all, regardless of circumstances. I'm stating this in order to preempt the whole series of dystopic strawmen arguments that these sort of discussions tend to degenerate into.
Ah but you've already introduced a rather critical strawman of your own that stored sperm would be allocated to an unwilling woman according to some "selective breeding" program which itself could come under the eugenics heading.
Allocation should be random, I'd even suggest a mixture from multiple donors, (may the most motile win) and if the recipient has a permanent partner and they both agree they cold stir some of his in there too. There's a nasty can of worms about donor ethnicity matching with the mother or mothers partner but I have no intention of being dragged down that avenue.
Obviously any alterations to the normal way of doing things must be under the fully informed consent of the women however it's not beyond imagining that such consent would be essential for any prospective colonists. Not all their kids, some could be made the old fashioned way but it really depends on the size of the colony, the smaller it is the more important it is to get external gene lines into the mix.
Artificial insemination by donor is something that has been going on for ages in cases of male infertility with no problems, it's NOT selective breeding, it's a way for a woman to have children without needing a handy fertile man. So if a colony does not have sufficient fertile men for genetic diversity then a simple and safe non-surgical procedure seems a perfect fit.
Just had another thought, radiation, it's easy to make a lead lined freezer to store sperm in, lead lined jock-straps to protect testicles are a less feasible proposition so some artificial insemination might be needed just to ensure a healthy population. Ovaries have more flesh between them and the outside world than testicles so should be less susceptible to radiation exposure.
>Ah but you've already introduced a rather critical strawman of your own that stored sperm would be allocated to an unwilling woman according to some "selective breeding" program which itself could come under the eugenics heading.
Maybe I see the source of confusion. In my earlier post, I was answering to Jedit's post. Jedit was in turn answering to the original artificial insemination post, and he was specifically concerned with women's dignity and freedom. So the context of my post was that specific problem, and why I don't think it will be a problem.
If we're talking fully informed and consensual artificial insemination, I have zero problems with that. I was just out of that context in my original post. I ought to remember that on these boards, sometimes a post ends up quite far from the one you're answering.
Besides, what I think would actually happen is that any off-world colony would grow primarily by immigration anyway. Growth by reproduction is on the scale of decades. I don't see any off-world colony surviving without regular supply runs, on the scale of years at most, and at least some of those will include people.
However, only one of them does so by also applying an enormous, I'd say monstrous, compression of the rights of the parents, especially the woman, by preventing them from freely choosing who they wish to have a child with.
Yep, hence why it's a moral and ethical minefield until we can create an artificial womb because there's no getting around the fact that you can't perform that function without one. Without that, a self-sustaining colony is pretty much impossible. There are also potential issues around the role of the 'parent', and in some SF, children are treated as effectively community property. Apple TV made a show called 'Silo' recently based on the book 'Wool' that touches on some of these issues.
It's an interesting field of research, especially as we're getting closer to being able to get off this rock. Realistically, we're still a long way from achieving this. First, we'd need to establish a viable base/colony. Once that's secure and stable, then it might be time to bring kids into the mix because they're going to need a lot of additional infrastructure and support for 16+ years before they can become a productive member of the colony. But that also throws up potential challenges. If you have people a long way from home, they're going to do what comes naturally and that may result in pregnancy. And if you're not ready for that, what then? Especially given the time to get from Mars to Earth, so depending on orbits, the last thing you want is someone going into labour on the return to Earth.
Once that's secure and stable, then it might be time to bring kids into the mix
So, compulsory contraception? Is that not equally a monstrous, compression of the rights of the parents.
However you work it there will need to be some control over reproduction in the first years of a colony but it will be impossible and undesirable to forbid it so the only sensible plan is to expect it and prepare for the inevitable.
As for genetic diversity that depends if there are permanent partnerships which seems probable then there's no diversity issues with a pair having one or two kids but after that it would be sensible to encourage the couple to use donated sperm for any further kids.
...a moral and ethical minefield until we can create an artificial womb...
Why bother, if there are perfectly adequate organic gestation chambers walking around in around half of the colonists it makes sense to make use of available resources.
Anyway the 9 months of "nature" is nothing compared to the 16 or so years of "nurture" - you want the "parents" to have some kind of emotional bond to their charges and given a choice between one squirted out of the mother and with a supply of compatible breast milk automatically online when it's needed and your alternative of a genetically unrelated sprog decanted from an artificial gestation chamber who will have to be raised on formula. I suspect I can predict the response.
I think you'll find that using an artificial womb except in cases of female infertility is a far worse minefield than established procedures like artificial insemination and surrogacy.
So, compulsory contraception? Is that not equally a monstrous, compression of the rights of the parents.
Depends. Could be monstrous, could be pragmatic. Getting pregnant in space has a whole lot of unknowns, and could be very risky to the womb-man, especially if the colony isn't prepared for this. Plus the first space baby would inevitably become an instant celebrity and a massive medical experiment. Do you return the child (and parent(s)) to Earth as soon as possible to develop naturally, or allow them to grow up in space, just to see what happens? If so, would they ever be able to return to Earth given potential differences in gravity, and immune system development?
I think you'll find that using an artificial womb except in cases of female infertility is a far worse minefield than established procedures like artificial insemination and surrogacy.
I respectfully disagree because it relegates the surrogate to the role of being a simple incubation chamber. What would be the emotional and psychological impact on surrogates seeing 'their' babies growing up around the colony?
Like I said before though, it's all a massive ethical and moral minefield that we're a long way from solving.
Gestation chambers are 100% in the realm of science fiction and are likely to remain there for a very long time if not for ever.
Getting nutrients to the developing foetus is not a problem, placental blood circulation I suppose could come from donated blood but it would have to be from the same donor for the whole nine months otherwise the immune system of the foetus will get confused and probably kill the foetus. Synthetic blood is useless because it would leave the foetus with no immune system and a post-birth life expectancy measured in hours. Then there are things like gut flora and fauna which also come through the placenta which are essential to the newborn's survival.
The placenta is a very complicated organ which is not fully understood and making an artificial one is for the foreseeable future, impossible.
Unfortunately, there is no energy surplus on Mars.
Barring some technological breakthrough, the only realistic power option up there is solar. Which is diminished in efficiency just by the increased distance to the sun alone. And whoever tries to rely on that anyway, better have a REALLY good plan how solar power generation deals with planet-wide dust storms.
Well, I reckon it's a Left Pondian Cousins' thang - references to "cities" in an odd way too by my reckoning. Example: while heading north on I1 around Lauderdale, I pass a sign reading "Welcome to Sunrise City, Pop. 312", less than 10 seconds later "Thank you for visiting Sunrise City!"
Now that's enthusiasm!
[NB: "Sunrise City" is a Lil Regomization - can't remember the name, but it was "Sunsomething City"!!]
And "cheese" in England is equivalent to "plastique orange" in France.
Heresy! The French are just jealous that we invented cheddar! Both the cheese, and the process. And they're probably jealous of our red leicester, which oddly enough I prefer the modern annatto coloured version because of the nutty taste, compared to the original carrott coloured version. But that also shows that humble cheese can benefit from globalisation given annatto's source. Doesn't really explain why the US still makes so much government cheese, although I guess that could be shipped for landfill and construction material.
But it's also one of those social/political challenges, especially for an international colony. Which cheese(s) do you ship to your colonists? Some don't travel very well, ie soft cheeses like brie and camenbert. Proper ripe cheeses have a.. distinct aroma, which puts extra demand on air handling equipment. Plus bureaucrats would probably insist on everything being pasteurised, sterilised and homogenised for 'elf and safety. And you'd need a variety to produce comfort foods like pizza, mac & cheese, paneer etc etc. And a self-sustaining colony would need a dairy industry to make their own cheese (and burgers), plus a pork industry to make cheese & bacon toasties. But at least there's square pigs to make shipping easier.
But this is also a challenge right now, ie our ecofreaks determined to ban cattle farming. Milk's used in a huge range of products, as are pretty much every part of a cow. Sure, we could make synthetic leather, and the automotive industry seems to have convinced people "Alcantara" is a premium material.. But people want to ban petrochemicals as well. So no PU for you! Also kinda funny that here, idiots want to ban cows and oils because 'climate change', but on Mars, we'd kinda want climate change for terraforming.
"On Earth (with air, water and food available) the minimum number for long term survival seems to be about 2000 - fewer than that and inbreeding becomes a problem (smaller groups have survived when there has been a trickle of new people arriving)."
The population of North Sentinel Island is estimated to be about 40, and no more than 400 at most. They actively prevent new people arriving (by killing anyone who tries). It is likely they have been isolated for a very long time as locals from neighbouring islands cannot understand their language.
There is a very good precedent. Greenland was colonized by Norway in around 980 AD. The colony was self-sufficient in food and the basics of life, but it needed resupply on a regular basis for wood (there are no useful trees in Greenland) and manufactured goods (e.g. iron). It did fine for about 400 years, with regular resupply. But when the resupply stopped, the colony failed and the colonists disappeared, probably intermarrying with and being absorbed by the Inuit. It is hypothesized (but not proven) that much the same happened to the Roanoke colony in the 16th century - resupply failed, and the colony had to integrate with the native population to survive. At its peak, the population of Viking Greenland was probably around 1000. The exact date at which the last Norse settlement collapsed is unknown, but I have read excellent accounts of the archaeology of a Norse farmstead, where it is clear that the slow wearing out of essential equipment put an end to the lifestyle of the Norwegians. Of course, the Inuit were adapted to a different way of life that didn't depend on stock-rearing and farming. The Norwegian resupply voyages were probably on the same order of time, cost and difficulty as a routiine supply by spacecraft today.
Here on Earth, we have plenty of examples of the various balances that can be struck between resupply and self-sufficiency. Given the obvious difference in the survivability of the environment, it is clear that a self-sufficient Martian colony would require a large population to sustain the necessary industrial base; manufacturing (for example) electronics (which would be essential for many purposes) would be impossible without a population comparable to a city on Earth. But with resupply, it entirely depends on the level of resupply. If the colony only produces the basics (air, water, food, power), then substantial inputs of raw materials and manufactured goods are required. If the colony can source and produce raw materials, then less resupply is needed, but a larger population to sustain the manufacturing base on Mars.
I note that Viking Greenland only survived at all because there was a viable trade in walrus ivory, furs and falcons. This trade was severely limited by the development of the Hanseatic League in Europe, which restricted such trade and resulted in the slowdown and almost cessation of the resupply voyages.. SO -perhaps we need to think about what a Martian colony could trade in to ensure the resupply was cost-effective?
I think your approach is very good, but I disagree with this bit:
"The Norwegian resupply voyages were probably on the same order of time, cost and difficulty as a routiine supply by spacecraft today."
Somewhat expensive, yes. Also a chance it might fail to arrive and be lost entirely, yes. Similar difficulty, I don't think so. They already had ships which they used to sail around a lot, and they had at least a few places where they could stop mid-journey to make repairs. I don't know how long such a voyage took either, but voyages from Iceland to Greenland at the time appear to be rather short, although quite dangerous. Clearly, supply from Norway itself would take longer, but not anywhere near the time requirement of a supply run to Mars. One of the possibilities of other problems causing the collapse of settlements on Greenland were pirates operating from more southerly parts of Europe, and if people can make that journey without owning that colony just for the trade and plunder, then it's not as hard as a space journey is now.
One of the possibilities of other problems causing the collapse of settlements on Greenland were pirates operating from more southerly parts of Europe, and if people can make that journey without owning that colony just for the trade and plunder, then it's not as hard as a space journey is now.
There was also <cough> climate change. There's evidence from farms and settlements exposed following glacial retreat that Greenland settlers traded with countries like Portugal. Prolonged bad weather would have made food production harder, and probably the voyages riskier. So less incentive for traders to visit Greenland, if the settlers had nothing to trade. Much like the early settlers in the US, the biggest mistake made was probably not learning more from and copying the natives.
resupply failed, and the colony had to integrate with the native population to survive
I would be curious to read the equivalent for a Martian colony : what does the local native population look like ? In other words: a self-sustaining colony is centuries away for now
People are misguided about inbreeding. It's only a problem if the population carries a fatal disease in their genes. There are no mechanisms in our genes that can detect mating with a relative.
Many Europeans used to live and die in small villages with only a few dozens or hundred people and inbreeding must have been common then. It only died out in the late middle-ages as people started to move towards the cities.
Everybody carries duff genes but they are generally recessive, with inbreeding both parents may have the same bad recessive genes which will be expressed when they would not be otherwise.
Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive traits. In extreme cases, this usually leads to at least temporarily decreased biological fitness of a population (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce.
While inbreeding might not be a problem it almost certainly would be and is trivial to avoid so only an idiot would risk it.
In medieval times villages were generally only a few miles apart so while many would find partners from their immediate community there would be a few who found partners from neighbouring villages which is sufficient to maintain genetic diversity. Don't forget the fields of one village abutted the fields of the next village so contact between villages would be common.
To re-enact the most horrific "storm" on mars, get someone to stand about 20foot away from you. Now fart in their general direction and see how close you come to blowing them off their feet.
The Martian had Mars winds BILLIONS of times the strength they actually are. Mars atmosphere is so thin its strongest storms are what would pass for "windless becalmed weather" on earth.
The only issue with a "martian storm" is incredibly fine dust gets lifted into the air and wafts everywhere. Thats it.
No explosions/uber lightning strikes and buildings getting almost ripped off their foundations. A superstorm would Just a barely-felt faint gust of wind.
2.5m diameter hole in the habitation module sealed with a sheet of plastic reinforced with duct tape and held in place with ratchet straps: To get a feel for what air pressure would do to that imagine turning it sideways on Earth and expecting it to support a large dump truck full of gravel.
Catalytic combustion of hydrazine in the habitat to make ~400kg of water: I need to listen to a chemist on this one, but in real life chemical reactions rarely go 100%. With improvised equipment there will be left over hydrazine. The NFPA 704 diamond for hydrazine has a blue 4: very short exposure could cause death or major residual injury. (Mark doesn't say where he is getting his oxygen - I assume it is dinitrogen tetroxide from the MAV.)
I enjoyed the film but it is a clear case of reality making life difficult for story telling.
Don't forget about big guys who are good with knots. You need them on Mars.
I note that they did not include psychopath or sociopath in the selection list.
We may have screening tools available that can weed out sociopaths, but I doubt that a truly determined psychopath can be detected before its too late.
I'm sure a true psychopath would learn what it is a screening process looks for and adapt his behavior to avoid detection. Then, when on Mars, it would be game time and he could set up dozens of different "experiments" to drive everyone crazy before starting to kill.
And beware sending any psychiatrist over there. It's the golden ticket for a psychopath.
I think the psychopath would consider what things would be like after the killing ended and they were now stuck without anyone else, and then nobody will be sending new supplies because they'll either think that everyone died or know that the person who is there has just murdered. As with a lot of other people, there's no real reason for the psychopath to want to go.
As it's SpaceX looking at doing this, I would love to have seen the simulation results when they added a leader with the personality type "Elon Musk".
How long did the colony last? 3 hours?
Actually, they could have run this simulation to also test out his plans here on Earth for his Twitter acquisition to see how long that would survive.
One accident with an airlock or space suit and the problem would be solved. Either that or use Tesla's range prediction software and customer support on one of the rovers.
I'm having some work done on my house. Just simple updates. This has required several different tradesmen with different skills learnt over an apprenticeship, and kept up to date by having continuous work in that speciality. Just to do simple updates to a standard house.
How many people would be needed to support those tradesmen? How long would a Martian colony last if unable to do that kind of simple job to maintain the colony?
Now look at the industry needed to produce high technology. Hundreds of small firms doing specialised jobs, each with their own skills. How is a Martian colony going to reproduce all those?
Now look at computer chips, which are now utterly essential to run our tech. These are cheap because they are sold in vast numbers, but they are produced in factories that cost multiple billions. How is a small colony going to economically produce the very large number of different chips needed to keep its tech going?
Or just the people and resources needed to mine and refine the materials needed.
I very much doubt that a colony without those resources could survive on Mars.
This begs the question "what's the minimum tech level needed for autonomous survival" - this isn't the level needed to get there in the first place.
Simple electrics & pneumatics will probably suffice, lots of dials will need watching.
The ability to produce metal (specifically iron) tools from ore is critical for long term survival so mining operations will be required. this needs the full set of heavy duty (maintainable on-site) equipment. You'd only need a 19th century brass & canvas diving suit equivalent with a heater matrix sewn in to move about outside on mars*
Foundries for metals & glass with all the supporting infrastructure could be very steampunk, all that is needed was to find the needed ore deposits.
You can't depend on solar/battery tech (let alone nuke) until it can be 100% manufactured locally so the biggest issues I can see is finding a local easily extracted fuel source on a planet with no oil or coal deposits because having hundred mile square greenhouses for plant based oil will be a fantasy for a few centuries.
Anything can be transported to Mars to get them started but as Duncan (above) states, until the ability to maintain independent life indefinitely has been achieved it's just an outpost with enough supplies to last 'x' years.
*on the end of maybe a 100m long pipe connected to large easily fixable air pumps in a large pressurised environment.
Returning to essentially an 18/19 century tech level will require returning to a 18/19 century mix of skilled employment for most of the society up there.
This might lead to very varied employment.
Martian plumber: what's on todays list - aha, Mrs Miggins - leaky tap, Mr Bloggs - jammed hab cistern level, Ms Jones - Mars hopper cryo tank 100 hour service...
Canvas used to be made from hemp or cotton. Old tech used all sorts of materials that grow on trees - such as latex that you would need to make canvas air tight. Canvas can be made from PVC. Trying to use old methods on Mars would require advanced farming. Going the PVC route with modern Earth tech requires fossil fuels, which might exist on Mars if there was life there. It is possible to start with CO2 and ice, make methane and work you way up from there. That would be some impressive modern chemistry to get working on Mars.
Effective Mars technology will probably be a mixture of old and new. Getting a suitable habitat for trees on Mars is difficult but if you solve that problem then your precursor materials source is self replicating - a big advantage over a complex chemical factory.
"Canvas used to be made from hemp or cotton. Old tech used all sorts of materials that grow on trees..."
Hemp is a truly wonderful plant. It can grow extremely efficiently (10 feet a season in good conditions so I think it could do well even in limited martian sunshine). It can provide food (hempseed is particularly high in protein), oil (both for food and energy), fiber for clothes and other textiles and rope. A hemp-based preparation can also be used as a watertight sealant. The woody part of the stalks can be compressed and used for furniture or as drywall or bricks.
Last but certainly not least, it can provide pain relief and other medicinal benefits... not to mention relaxing recreational opportunities after a long days work!!
.. not to mention relaxing recreational opportunities after a long days work!!
Don't forget the other members of the cannabaceae family that can perform the same, or similar important functions. Like the humble hop. Or there's stuff like bamboo, which is also rather useful for structural or fibre purposes.
You'd only need a 19th century brass & canvas diving suit equivalent with a heater matrix sewn in to move about outside on mars
A quick google suggest that radiation on the surface of Mars is around 0.7mSv/day and that the US exposure limit for the general population is 1mSv/day. How good are diving suits at keeping radiation out?
To be fair, 1mSv/day is a limit, rather than an acceptable amount. In a week you'd get the same kind of exposure to radiation that you'd get on Earth in a year.
The habs would be better shielded than a suit, of course, but I also don't think that you were suggesting that a completely unmodified old-fashioned diving suit was the actual answer rather than a descriptor of the technology level which would make EVA actions possible. I'd certainly expect some sort of self-contained apparatus containing enough air to get back home as part of an EVA suit!
That's a safety limit, not a safe background level. Long-term exposure to radiation can expose you to health risks even if the short-term exposures weren't high enough. For example, the daily limit for a member of the public is 1 mSv/day, but for radiation workers, who are more frequently scanned for problems, it is only 50 mSv/year, and at 100 mSv/year, there is at least some statistically significant increase in cancer risk. 1 mSv in a day is safe, but 1 mSv every day is less safe.
If you were experiencing that level of radiation unshielded routinely, you would be exposed to the equivalent of a couple hundred dental X-ray scans each day. It is also about three times as much as a nuclear power plant is allowed to release in a year, which is why they're so safe to be around. You wouldn't want to go unshielded routinely.
A quick google suggest that radiation on the surface of Mars is around 0.7mSv/day and that the US exposure limit for the general population is 1mSv/day. How good are diving suits at keeping radiation out?
[Gentle cough] Possibly your Google skills are lacking, or Google, Heaven forfend!, is doling out untruths, but I think that the US exposure limit for the general population is 1mSv per year, not day.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html
"How many people would be needed to support those tradesmen? How long would a Martian colony last if unable to do that kind of simple job to maintain the colony?"
"A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse."
Yeah, even Shakespeare had a quote about lack of resources or skills :-)
Likewise "For want of a nail..."
As I see it, the the stumbling block is the lack of density in the Martian atmospher.e To breathe, the human body requires Oxygen Our atmosphere contains Oygen at approx 22 percent. According to the gas laws, the partial presssure of the Oxygen content is about 3 psi. In other words we live in an atmosphere of oxygen at 3psi, quite happily. At the time of the American moonshots, their, their ships were built to those conditions. As a result, the 100% oxygen atmosphere led to a fatal result when a fire broke out in the capsule, in a ground test. The Russians, however built their ships to operate with a normal atmosphere, which required a far more robust construction. Even today airliners run under reduced pressure in flight for the same reasons. On Mars, the atmospheric pressure is 0.088psi. The same as it would be, on Earth at an altitude of 22 miles. The amount of oxygen iin a single breathe , even at 100% concentration, is not sufficient to generate enough energy to take the next breath. It's a bit like taking a breathe, and the holding your breath for about the next 17 minutes.
Now I'm all excited since SpaceX said they could potentially have someone on Mars within the decade. The idea of finally being rid of Space Karen made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not that he ever had any actual intentions of going to Mars, it was just a grift to fund SpaceX. I don't think most people realize what it would be like to be one of the first human inhabitants on Mars though. It'd be like 12-hour days, at least, with back breaking work, no free time at all. Just eat, work, sleep, rinse and repeat. It's that, or some critical life sustaining system fails and everyone dies a pretty horrible death.
But, I was all set to say something about "What happens if someone gets sick, injured and/or comes down with a severe case of being dead" but then towards the end of the article they touch on that saying how they ignored most of that stuff.
I'd say that Musk's setup could possibly eventually get someone to get to Mars, but I can't recall if said anything about that person surviving the experience for long.
For all I know he was merely planning an expensive Dignitas variant first to get enough minerals there first, i.e. one way trips..
Don't you find it somewhat odd and even quite worrying, that whilst natives of Earth ponder the future surreality of life on Mars, here on Earth is their present reality under constant real and virtual threat and remote relatively anonymous and autonomous attack from alien forces and sundry domestic support sources and allied secret services generally denied to be existent and existential, and of a significantly greater and more advanced intelligence than defences will ever be able to cope with, let alone vanquish and tame/train/trail/trial?
This makes Myers–Briggs seem sophisticated.
What are their definitions?
"• Agreeables - Individuals with the lowest degree of competitiveness, low aggressiveness, and not fixated of stringent routine. Cronbach Alpha score starting at 0.97
• Socials - Individuals with a medium degree of competitiveness, extroverted, require social interaction, but are not fixated on stringent routines. Cronbach Alpha score starting at 0.94
• Reactives - Individuals with a medium degree of competitiveness, competitive interpersonal orientation, and fixated on stringent routines. Cronbach Alpha score starting at 0.89
• Neurotics - Individuals with a high degree of competitiveness, highly aggressive interpersonal characteristics, and challenged ability to adapt to boredom or a change in routine. Cronbach Alpha score starting at 0.84"
I'm not familiar with Cronbach Alpha scores, but these verbal descriptors leave a huge amount to be desired. Just for example, there a many alternative character trait complexes that have been formally described as 'neurotic' -- the one quoted is just one rather extreme case (in vernacular terms, a stroppy nuisance type), and many reactive personalities exhibit passivity rather than 'competitive interpersonal orientation' (they wait around to be told what to do). Furthermore, numerous skills critical to survival in extreme conditions are just not mentioned in the paper -- e.g. the ability to improvise in emergency a la Apollo 13, plus a whole cluster of subtle human traits that cement social connections (such as empathy and supportiveness). In general terms, the smaller the group the higher the requirement for individuals with fully rounded characters as there are fewer contributors to the pool of talents.
This paper is exemplary of a universal problem with social sciences -- they're still not real sciences as their experiments aren't amenable to replication because they're frequently based on assumptions and most of the parameters used are so crudely defined. Consequently it's open to question whether social scientists really deserve the title of boffin.
Agreed, I think it would be far more useful if they had taken inspiration from astronaut programs and the personality traits they screen for, as I imagine the requirements are broadly similar for a space outpost as for a space shuttle. Intelligent, tough, calm and meticulous? I am guessing based on common sense since unlike the authors, I am not being paid to look it up.
astronaut programs and the personality traits they screen for
I thought NASA basically looked for obsessive over-achievers?
Any recruiter should bear in mind the recent news about the stabbing in Antarctica, reputedly because the stabee kept telling the stabber the endings of the books the stabber was reading. No jokers who like spoiling books (or videos) for other people.
This just in: social psychology is a morass of unreplicated and unreplicable nonsense, Practically nothing it produces has the slightest worth, in any context. No wonder the more respectable end of psychology is desperately trying to rebrand itself as "neuroscience", even though most of its practitioners wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit them on the bum.
Not all SciFi:
Strangelove:
... But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years....
Turgidson:
Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Strangelove:
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
DeSadeski:
I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
Strangelove:
Thank you, sir.
I can understand how simulations and models like this can help us understand group dynamics on Earth. Think "why does everyone end up hating this guy, and not the one with the clear asshole personality". But the methods are woefully inadequate for trying to accomplish what the authors set as their contributions:
- To understand social interactions of Mars base occupants: the personality types they chose are extremely generic, while no agency will send average joes up there.
- To consider planning challenges for a Mars colony: until we have solved the thousands of technical considerations, it is pointless to plan the social structure. Social life on Mars will be dominated by the technical constraints imposed on the occupants: space, facilities, schedules. Chain of command would be interesting to investigate, but they did not really go there.
- To propose minimum colony size: this is again dictated by technical requirements, which the authors guessed at. How much weight can you take there in one go and how long does it need to last.
In reality, any extra occupants over the first one that you need for bragging rights will be decided from a cost-benefit perspective, and then the social considerations will be solved "as well as possible" within the group, mostly by training and observing different crews on earth in actual, physical simulation environment. One guy won't do, if he gets sick, you are screwed. Two for redundancy. Three only if it's cheaper/safer (the two are largely exchangeable) to have a third high-maintenance low duty cycle low power universal tool (a human) rather than a set of highly specific robots / machines. There will not be an "indefinite" presence on Mars, it is going to be basically a space station like the ISS but in an extremely inconvenient location.
- To consider planning challenges for a Mars colony: until we have solved the thousands of technical considerations, it is pointless to plan the social structure. Social life on Mars will be dominated by the technical constraints imposed on the occupants: space, facilities, schedules. Chain of command would be interesting to investigate, but they did not really go there.
I think they have to be parallel activities. You have the technical requirements, like essential life support. So you need X people who's priority is maintaining that, then people who can mine ice to feed that, farmers to produce food etc etc. But it's something that's been studied extensively. Closest analogy is probably the submarine service. Ever since we developed nuclear propulsion and allowed 6 month or longer patrols, Navys have had to understand the social, pyschological and practical requirements to keep a submarine functional, and avoid the crew joining the Postal Service. Which probably extends to practical colony modules given the similarities, ie something that can be self-sustaining as much as possible in a hostile environment.
So the UK can now fit 100 people in a tube roughly 100x10x10 who can survive a 90-day tour. Tech improvements have meant crew comfort has improved, ie individual vs hot bunks, and same with entertainment. A colony could be loaded with a Netflix, Kindle of Steam library to keep colonists amused and entertained for an ever shrinking mass/volume budget compared to VHS tapes or paper books. The social structure is also simplified, ie you're in the Space Navy now, this is your chain of command. It's also similar to remote research bases like Antarctica, especially staff selection for anyone overwintering. I once applied for a job looking after their comms, and it was an interesting process. After much testing, it was determined I probably wouldn't go mad or drive anyone else mad, but jobsworths need not apply. Maybe fixing X isn't your job, but it need fixing, and we're it. Multi-skilling was actively encouraged, ie shadowing HVA engineers and vice-versa, which I think is much the same as for submariners. They're expected to know their core duties, but also understand how the whole boat works.
There are also examples from history where social breakdowns didn't really work. One of my favorites is described in the journals for the original Plymouth Colony. Settlers set sail for dreams of a brave new world, where the ministers could live in quiet contemplation, looked after by the farmers and tradesfolk they brought with them. Except the farmers kinda objected to doing all the work while 'the management' slacked off. Especially when food production wasn't as great as hoped for and the colony almost rebelled and collapsed. Which has been pretty much true throughout history as we've developed from simple subsistence living where everyone's had to work to survive, to more efficient systems that freed up labour to think about & do other stuff. Like develop KPIs, and 'manage'.
The Martian landscape is a bit like a terrestrial desert landscape -- put another way, "Its a bit like the Mojave but colder and with no Interstate highways to get you somewhere". Settlements in the desert are sparse and tend to be clustered around resources, water especially, because while land is cheap living on that land is anything but once you need supplies or services from outside.
Mars is worth exploring but is not worth colonizing. Its not that we (humans) can't do this but there are similar problems that are far more urgent closer to home that would benefit from resources spent on them.
Canyons.
Settling on the exposed surface would be problematical. Building a settlement at the bottom of one of the many huge canyons on Mars would protect the site from radiation for most of the day and long term it would be possible to enclose sections of the canyon floor to create a nearly open habitat.
Then a load of solar cells for power and fields of heliostats for solar furnaces up on the surface and you are in business. Yes Mars is a lot further from the sun but it doesn't have an attenuating atmosphere so there should be no problem utilizing solar power as long as there's people there who can go around with a broom every now and then.
Getting from the canyon floor to the surface and back would be a bit of a bugger so initially settle on the surface and once power and furnaces are up and running start work on an elevator which initially need not be complex - just a winch and a second hand descent capsule as the elevator car.
> canyon floor to the surface and back
that's what steps and long shallow ramps are for, just cut them up the sides of the canyon
Of course what they have also been looking at are the lava tubes which are already underground and you could create a sealed in habitat.
Mars has zero advantages over the Moon and a lengthy list of disadvantages - the biggest being that Earth is months and in some orbital positions well over a year away meaning that the colony truly must be self-sufficient. With the Moon help is only a few days away so some issues that could kill everyone in the colony (for example accident or sabotage taking out the food supply) would be survivable on the Moon.
I can't see why anyone would think it is reasonable or desirable to create a permanent base on Mars before such a base has been successfully established on the Moon, and even then I don't see the point other than saying "yay it is another planet rather than a moon".
At some point we will have to leave the Earth as the sun approaches its EOL , of course that is only a short stop over in Galactic timescales but it would be an invaluable assist into planning the next one way trip to another planet around a different Star.
Remember : Earth is a single point of failure, long term will will have to spread around the Galaxy (even if that is just exporting the microbes, give them a couple of billion of years and who knows what you could end up with.....)
We have 5 billion years to worry about the sun's warranty expiring and it going red giant, and when it does Mars will still be too close. We'd need to move at least to the asteroid belt.
Earth may be a single point of failure, but any disaster big enough to take out both the Earth AND the Moon would almost certainly take out Mars as well. Realistically there's zero chance we'll have a truly self sustaining colony anywhere that could survive the loss of Earth for several centuries if not several millennia.
And everybody has to cross-train on skills, like submarine crews do, so you don't end up like Dr Jerri Nielsen in Antarctica who had to train some other people to help her do a breast biopsy on herself in the middle of winter. She later had to do chemotherapy on herself before she could be air-lifted out.
Why the frag do we want people on Mars?
Are there any resources there that Earth doesn't have? No. Would we be able to exploit them if there were? Also no.
Is there any scientific data to be had on mars that robotic probes cannot collect and that we somehow must have? No.
Is Mars suitable as a "backup planet"? No.
Can Mars be a base for further space exploration? No.
People will go crazy spending years on Mars, which is basically a huge desert with no breathable air and deadly radiation all around. The constant fear of death (habitats could tear and leak air) and the huge costs and effort needed to keep them supplied with food and maybe even water will make the project become unsustainable. Even for billionaire Elon Musk.
I believe we'll hear the Martians on the radio every day begging us to bring them home. What will Elon do then?