this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
168 points (93.3% liked)

Technology

73727 readers
4273 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
168
What’s the Bare Minimum Number of People for a Mars Habitat? (www.universetoday.com)
submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 …

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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 2 years 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.