Talk:Colonization of Mars

message: If looked at realistically and honestly the colonization of Mars is in the realm of science fiction as it's .38 earth gravity prohibits anything more than a brief stay, if for no other reason than an impedance to perambulation,  the effect of low gravity on the skeletal structure and more seriously on fetus and infants born on Mars: From the Smithonian. [.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/houston-we-might-have-some-major-problems-making-babies-space-180954828/   Houston we might have a problem making babies in space Oldperson (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. For what we have learned at the International Space Station, Mars gravity may not be inductive to human habitability beyond several months. But this is an extrapolation of the research done in microgravity (low Earth orbit) so some animal experiments may have to be done on site to get some actual data. Your edit is quite relevant to the topic in that section, and I tweaked your edit slightly for flow.   Rowan Forest (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Excuse me but the above discussion is not WP:Forum. It is  relevant to the work being done on the article. Using Mars for anything with humans involved is relevant to the viability of the proposed project and all obstacles and problems needed to  be considered and addressed. I think s idea of using it as a way station for transportation has merit and is feasible, however the effect of1/3 earth gravity (not the .89 ge experienced on Space Lab, needs serious consideration. A movement on earth that produces a 1 ft leap, will produce what, a 3 ft leap on earth. Innocent projectiles, like those ejected from a cough, will produce what on Mars? So when talking of colonization, all of these problems and possibilities need to  be considered and none of that is equivalent to a forum, not as I see it, unless we are expected to uncritically accept all statements and propositions. Is that the  expectation?Oldperson (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was trying to usher you gently into discussing not the topic but specific changes in the text, as in "A would be best explained as B while using reference C."   Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

text: We are not supposed to conduct original research when writing articles on Wikipedia, therefore your discussion is a forum discussion. Please consult the Contributing to Wikipedia page that explains the general ideas behind Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Fiction

message: Under "Mission concepts and timelines" there’s a pretty detailed description of SpaceX's plan yet other plans get a vague "there have been several proposed human missions to Mars both by government agencies and private companies."
Under "Advocacy" there is another long paragraph about SpaceX that reads as an advertisement. They are the only company mentioned and take up 1/3 of the section. Fonsit (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elon Musk Advertisement 

message: The paragraph seems inappropriately considered and composed to me in multiple ways.  The article is Colonization of Mars.  Presumably there are numerous ethics issues which are reasonably unique to colonization of Mars and thus could merit mention or discussion in the article.  In my estimation risks of human reproduction during a voyage to Mars isn't prominent among them, and certainly isn't the only one, yet is the sole subject of the section.  My sense is that if an ethical issues section is to exist in this article it should be reasonably developed - it should contain reasonable range, and ideally some detail and references.
In my view this section should be removed until at least a summary list of ethical issues reasonably unique to colonization of Mars and significant enough to warrant consideration or study can be developed.  I'd be comfortable for example with a simple summary list of such ethics considerations.  (Ideally some of which link to useful references, but in any case are self evident as uniquely relevant.)  Even a summary list would be a challenge to develop however, and a comprehensive treatment would be a daunting task unless thorough literature about the subject already exists.
I'm no prude - sex and human reproduction are obviously important multifaceted issues in a great many human affairs, including colonization of Mars.  But they're hardly the sole Mars colonization related ethics issue, nor the most important.  And they're not limited to or most prominent in the voyage to Mars.
I suggest removing the single paragraph section until the subject can be presented in a manner which at least reflects its broad range in a reasonably balanced manner.  Thoughts please.  Cheers, --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there was a problem. I have changed the section's name from "ethical issues" to "risk of pregnancy". Hopefully this resolves the problem. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ethical issues" section problems. 

message: I've edited this to make it into normal prose instead of the original bulleted list. It could do with further editing and I'll get back to it if I have time, but other editors shouldn't wait for me. Go ahead and fix what I've done so far. It would be good to reduce the number of sub-headings, or eliminate them altogether. Chris Jefferies (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between Earth and Mars 

message: I'm currently working on recording the article for Spoken Wikipedia. It will hopefully be complete by the coming weekend (April 10-12). Ajshul 😃 00:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia Request 

message: The opening sentence is as follows:
"The hypothetical colonization of Mars (or settlement of Mars[2]) has received interest from public space agencies and private corporations and has received extensive treatment in science fiction writing, film, and art."
I suggest that the word "hypothetical" needs to be removed. It is the ACTUAL colonisation of Mars that has received interest from blah, blah, blah, though I'm not suggesting the word "actual" should be included. What I mean is, Elon Musk is not interested in the hypothetical colonisation of Mars, he is interested in actually doing it, and intends to do it.
At the moment the idea of doing it might be hypothetical - or, rather, theoretical - because we don't know whether all of the various problems can be solved, and many of the proposed solutions are hypothetical, or theoretical, but he (and many others, which is what the article is about) genuinely believe the various problems can be solved and that Mars will be colonised.
To try to explain what I'm saying another way, in 1961 JFK wasn't interested in hypothetically landing some Americans on the Moon - he was interested in landing Americans on the Moon and committed the United States to doing it - even though it was only hypothetically (or theoretically) possible at that time.
Does that make sense?
You wouldn't say President Kennedy was hypothetically interested in landing Americans on the Moon, and you wouldn't say the hypothetical colonisation of Mars has received interest from Elon Musk. You would say President Kennedy was interested in landing Americans on the Moon, and the colonisation of Mars is of interest to Elon Musk. 
Aside from that, isn't the word "theoretical" more suitable than "hypothetical", given that there are many people who believe they have solutions for all of the potential problems?
FillsHerTease (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've moved the word so that it still applies to the second half of the sentence. Chris55 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to opening sentence... 

message: Yes, this claim has citations, but what is perchlorate reductase if not something used by known life to not only make the stuff less hazardous but actually useful? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Circular reasoning, but more importantly, the Wiki talk pages are not a forum to discuss the topic. 50.111.39.61 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perchlorate "hazardous to all known life" 

message: Apropos to the "Science fiction" topic above, as well as the puffing and promoting of Mars colonization schemes, at least one of which appears to have been a scam, I suggest a section on reality versus fiction. The idea that people can go to Mars and step off the spaceship and walk around is a staple of science fiction. The idea that a manned mission can go to Mars and survive without a huge amount of survival materials preceding them is a staple of Elon Musk and other entrepreneurs. The reality is that it's hard to get there in the first place and it takes a long time; that unless suitable environments are prepared in advance, colonists are likely to die; and that launching from Earth is prohibitively costly. Launching from the Moon makes more sense, and the Moon is a good place to practice living on Mars, much better than Hawaii or Antarctica. Some people seem to think that Mars should be colonized before the Moon. I don't understand that. I think there should be a practically-oriented section on the pros and cans of various ways to get there and how to prepare in advance for colonization. The well-designed robots that are there already have shown us that nothing can survive there for long except a well-designed robot. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practicality 

message: :
It would be good to say by what ratio. —Tamfang (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  pressure on Hellas