The first half of the book is jocular jaunt through the various challenges that lie ahead for becoming a multiplanetary species, but the second half devolves into a fairly staid discussion of space law and geopolitical stratagems that served as a soporific. So, TLDR;
1) Mars sucks least. Of all places we might colonize in space, Mars is the clear winner.
2) Chris Hadfield sets expectations too high. Colonies can’t generalize from superheroes.
3) Mammalian reproduction in Martian gravity has never been tested.
I have written about 3) for many years; it is mind-boggling that after 67 years of flying animals in orbit, we have never tested mammalian fetal development in lunar or Martian gravity, which just could be as simple as a spin-hab with pregnant guinea pigs and a webcam to look for live birth.
What if reproduction fails in lower gravity environments? It would prioritize further research, and it could shift the focus to the spinning rings of 2001 or O’Neill cylinders that can reproduce Earth gravity, which otherwise would make little sense, per 1) above. From the author’s extensive review of the literature, “we know of no studies on mammals in space where the process was observed from conception through birth” (p.79) and “here’s our overall take: everything about reproduction in space is cause for concern.” (87).
The authors perseverate on Martian settlement challenges — like poisonous perchlorates, radiation, growing food, and the minimum efficient scale for human colonies — without an appreciation that comparable challenges have been solved by human ingenuity. For example, rapid advances in robotics might redress their autarky scale concerns.
Most of their concerns feel like engineering challenges, not showstoppers… except mammalian reproduction; if that proved to be a barrier, it might take many decades to redress given the reticence and timeframe required for human germ line engineering. While NASA cancelled rodent reproduction research from fear of public backlash, “China is planning to send monkeys up for some intimate time in their space station.” (384)
Back to:
1) “What makes Mars beguiling for space settlers is not its current state, but its potential. On Mars, you have, at the level of chemistry, most of the stuff you need to stay forever.” (138) and by comparison “everywhere else is far worse.” (146)
2) For a sense of their humor, here is the first Hadfield reference:
“Settlement psychology will be much more about management than selection. You can, of course, screen applicants but if you want Elon Musk’s plan for a million Martians, well there are simply not a million Chris Hadfield’s to go around. Standards will have to fall.” (p.95)
They conclude with a bit of preaching: “We don’t know how to do it yet, but we still believe that someday, with enough knowledge, we can have Mars. And one very far away day, other solar systems. But we have to earn it, both by gaining knowledge and by becoming a more responsible, more peaceful species. Going to the stars will not make us wise. We have to become wise if we want to go to the stars.” (388)
Leave a Reply