174

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 125 points 1 year ago

I saw a documentary about this - you actually only need one person as long as they like eating potatoes

[-] BestTestInTheWest@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Are you talking about pirate Mark Watney?

[-] tmjaea@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Space pirate!

[-] Absolutemehperson@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago
[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

An old volleyball will do in a pinch. But not for too long

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Literally my calling.

[-] revs@feddit.uk 75 points 1 year ago

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

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago

Until one of them is The Thing.

I always confused "The Thing" with the character from Fantastic Four. And never understood why people were afraid of a rock person who shouts "It's clobbering time!"

[-] randomsnark@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

because they do not wish to be clobbered

[-] lath@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You can get it down to 21 if you call Black Jack.

[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 38 points 1 year ago

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

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Yes, but that's four different people. One eco-terrorist, one stowaway, one terraforming fanatic, and one founder of a weird sex cult.

[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago

Only if your not good at multitasking…

[-] Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

If the first mars colony isn't named Underhill I will riot

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Only one sex cult?

[-] Muffi@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

No Mars colony without a Coyote

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 33 points 1 year ago

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

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Unviable, but maybe still a net benefit for the rest of us

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] ahornsirup@artemis.camp 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

many things were very different then.

[-] AEsheron@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

Thank you for pointing out this detail of possibly returning!

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

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

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] wahming@monyet.cc 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Sygheil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

They need Ice Cube incase there is a ghost on mars

[-] XTornado@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Uhm... I will need some context.

Not really. The whole joke is right there. Search for it.

[-] XTornado@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Ah ok I haven't seen this movie.

[-] motor_spirit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

A rapper, a ghost huntman, and some frozen water walk into a bar

🧊

[-] HollandJim@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I’m happy just putting Musk there.

[-] lando55@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Musk comes from Uranus though

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

We can't even look after earth. Why are we trying to colonise another planet??

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Because we're going for mass effect instead of star trek

[-] DakkaDok@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Only if we find a convenient Mass Relay. Otherwise it's The Expanse for us.

Hell yeah space sex with sexy alien sexy sex sex

[-] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I hate to be a hater but this is quite possibly the most depressing outlook on life there is. Its like saying "we cant even be proper hunter gathers. Why are me trying this farming thing". Is it not in human nature to climb one mountain just to look to the next?

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

We can't even look after earth.

You seem to have answered your own question.

[-] Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

There is nothing short of the moon falling to the Earth that can make Mars a more viable place for humans than the Earth.

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Is that a challenge?

[-] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

Well that's a reason.

At the moment with current technology, colonising other planets in the solar system is unsustainable without a lot of effort from earth so I doubt anything will come out of it in the near term.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
174 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

59081 readers
3109 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS