Jump to content

Talk:Colonization of Mars/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Dubious sources

Citations 17 and 18 do not support the thesis that solar wind reaches the Mars surface:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20915340

The first citation (nasa) only states that the solar wind reaches the upper atmosphere. The second citation (bbc) does say the magnetosphere protects the surface from "deadly radiation" but lacks any specifics. As solar radiation can be blocked by very modest shielding, I think stronger and more explicit citations are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.120 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the article (School Project)

Works Cited


Commercial Space Exploration: [ethics, Policy and Governance]. , 2015. Print.

"Mars." Mars. National Geographic. 14 Nov. 2016. Television.

Straume, Tore, Steve Blattnig, and Cary Zeitlin. "Radiation Hazards and the Colonization of Mars: Brain, Body, Pregnancy, In-Utero Development, Cardio, Cancer, Degeneration." Journal of Cosmology 12 (2010): n. pag. Cosmology.com. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. <http://cosmology.com/Mars124.html>.

Szocik, Konrad, Kateryna Lysenko-Ryba, Sylwia Banaś, and Sylwia Mazur. "Political and Legal Challenges in a Mars Colony." Space Policy (2016): n. pag. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.

ValueWalk: Crunch Time for Elon Musk at Mars Colonization Announcement. Chatham: Newstex, 2016. ProQuest. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.


My partner and I are working on a school project to expand a Wiki article. These are sources we may draw on.

Schroffb (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


User Schroffb and I are working on a school project and have selected this article to add too.

We propose to do the following:

1) Possibly change direct quote by previous editor in introduction of article. Not sure if the acceptable way to use a source. “One of Elon Musk's stated goals through his company SpaceX is to make such colonization possible by providing transport, and to "help humanity establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on [Mars] within the next 50 to 100 years".[1] “

2) The conditions for human habitation section is sparse. Could include medically estimated side effects of settling the planet, adding on to the information already provided. The only subsection in existence right now is “Terraforming,” adding to this section with new subsections will bring it back into the realm of modern possibility with both pros and cons. For the example of habitation and side effects, could have some links to other theoretical pages detailing effects of space travel and simulated living situations.

3) Verifying information listed w/o sources in the “Relative similarity to Earth” section. We will either verify and then add or post in the talk page that sources are needed or the information should probably be removed.

4) Add a subsection for “effects of human habitation” and fill it with information from the medical field, theorizing the effects that colonization would have on the migrating population (mental and physical, including possible evolutionary). An upcoming National Geographic tv series may be helpful, plus a medical article already found. Further research can also be done.

5) Add a section to the article about space policy and how it relates to the proposed missions and settlements of mars. We have a source that will be helpful in adding this section to the article.

6) Add to the “Equipment needed for colonization” section with some information about how 3D printing might be used to help create structures and other helpful materials on Mars

7) Change “Early human mission concepts” to “Human mission concepts” as using early and concept is redundent.

Kingst19 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Peer review for IAH 206 By Colin Harvey and Andrew Tran:


The First thing that I noticed that was not addressed in the article was the question pertaining to why would you want to live or colonize onto mars. This question may not be based on a lot of facts so that is understandable, but if there was some description as to the motives behind it, instead of going on talking about "SpaceX" Aside from that main negative part to this article, I feel as if the article gives very good information as to the advances and what would happen if colonization to mars would take place. I feel that in the section, "differences from earth" shows very good information and very factual information supported by credited sources. There are three important things that could be done to this article in order to advance it and make it that much better, the first being, as I said earlier to address the fact of "where did the inclination of going to mars and moving there take place". The second major portion that can be adjusted in this article is very factual as it should be, but I suggest putting up an area in which you could summarize all the information pertaining to the colonization of human life to mars. My final suggestion would be to incorporate more information on "SpaceX". I recommend this because they seem to be a driving force of this operation. Charvey1597 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Colin Harvey & Andrew Tran (Group 7)Charvey1597 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I just added some material on motivation for colonization, as suggested. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Answer from involved editor. Hello, Schroffb and Kingst19! I'm happy you have chosen this article to add to. Just a point: using "early" and "concept" is not redundant. A concept is not inherently early, we humans always have concepts and they evolve over time, so they can be early or late. Cheers! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Lubin's quick transport

Inclusion of Lubin's quick transport needs removing or updating. It cites an unreliable source (a USA today article which only cites other news articles and a UCSC website for a "study" which contains nothing (literally it's an empty link). Photonic propulsion is an interesting idea but unless someone can cite a peer-reviewed article or release directly from NASA we need to treat this as just a cool idea and perhaps remove it or play it down in the Mars Colonisation article. 69.91.140.24 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Incoherent

This article is incoherent. It is a patch-work of mostly speculative (and mostly uneducated) fiction with very few facts. Each of the known (ie. factual) problems has a list of wildly speculative "solutions" having almost no factual basis. And statements of improbable, if not delusional, content are tossed in without any regard for the truth.

We do NOT know that lava tubes 1) exist on Mars 2) would be suitable for habitation 3) would be "easy" to seal with local materials. Risible. Some MIT grad students wrote a paper analyzing the Mars One plan for a one-way trip and concluded that, despite the Mars One hype, the technology didn't exist nor could any such settlement become self-sufficient. So, my first question is: what is meant by a colony? I would say that it must be minimally self-sufficient AND capable of homeostasis (if not population growth, then a stable population over multiple generations). We don't know if humans can live healthy lives in low-g environments.

And it is completely irresponsible to talk about "agricultural domes" when we know nothing about how we'd protect crops from radiation and micrometeorites. The MIT paper concluded that the cheapest option was to transport all food from Earth, rather than growing it on Mars (and this was for a very small number of people). This article claims that the Mars rovers are capable of building/assembling the infrastructure necessary for human occupation. A blatant lie. They have nowhere near the capabilities to do so. This article spends a lot of space discussing "communication" - but if Mars Colony is self-sufficient, communication with Earth is unnecessary, right? I suggest that section be removed ...point being its totally secondary (or tertiary) to colonization (but, of course, not to exploration).

So, as I see it there are the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. We do NOT know what it takes to establish a colony on Mars. That is, we do NOT know what organisms are necessary to support (human) life there. We do NOT know if we can live there long-term (decades), even if we had the necessary food shipped from Earth. Given the rapid evolution which has occurred in human populations living above 2,500m, a 14.7 psi pressure is likely to be "best", Mars air pressure is closer to the vacuum on the Moon than Earth at Sea Level. Full containment. Radiation is sufficiently high (I came to this article for the facts on this subject, and found NONE) so that activities on Mar's surface would be rare if not almost non-existant (the life-time limit for "walking around" would be reached in just a couple of hundred sols) - we'd have to use robots (but we could travel around in shielded vehicles).

Without gene modification technology more advanced than we now have, a sustainable population on Mars isn't feasible (requiring thousands if not tens of thousands of individuals (or sperm and, perhaps, eggs shipped from Earth)). The effects of confined living (living in caves) on the next generation of humans isn't known, but I draw your attention to the Human Rights issue of knowingly forcing these children into (inhuman) confinement. The MIT paper also analyzed the technology demands of the life-support equipment and concluded it was proportional to the population size, with even small numbers requiring resupply from Earth of parts and components every few years and determining that setting up the advanced technology infrastructure on Mars wasn't possible. Anyway, perhaps 3D printing, AI, genetic modification will all advance to the point that Mars colonization becomes a real (if unpleasant) possibility; I can't see that far into the future. What I do know is that it will not be happening in the next 15 years. (Although manned Mars exploration can't be ruled out, depending on how much money various governments are willing to throw (away) on it.)216.96.79.162 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

All these negative comments without a single reference of their own dllu (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of the criticisms in the first 3 paragraphs. However these are simply issues that need to be addressed. Also lava tubes are certainly not something scientists have ruled out. They're a popular, educated first guess at some of the structures seen on the surface. They should be mentioned in talk about the habitability and colonizability of planets. I've added a couple of qualifiers on the lava tube mentions. 69.91.140.24 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient explanation of effects on human health

The first few sentences of the subheading 'Effects on human health' are vague and uncited. The lines are shown below:

"Mars presents a hostile environment for human habitation. Different technologies have been hypothesized to facilitate habitation on Mars, however many of them do not go into the psychological or biological effects involved in living on a foreign planet. Living in suits or in facilities creates an isolation effect that creates a deep depression."

What different technologies have been hypothesized?

I suggest referencing the Wikipedia: HI-SEAS simulated Martian living space. This pertains to the psychological effects of a group living in isolation on Mars.

Why does living in suits or in facilities create deep depression? I notice footnote 32 which links to a paper from 2004 regarding the psychological challenges of human missions to Mars. For clarity's sake, and for the most up to date information possible, I suggest linking directly to Wikipedia: Psychological and sociological effects of spaceflight at the beginning of the subsection.

Mitchwhite5 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Incoming changes to effects on human health

I have changes planned for the effects on human health section that may be found in my sandbox at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitchwhite5/sandbox. Mitchwhite5 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

3d printer removed

‎Zplizzi (talk) Removed 3D printers as a "required equipment" on May 12, 2017

I'm curious what the consensus is on this topic, it has been proposed as a volume and weight saving alternative in several areas. I'm in favor of its inclusion. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's a great option in a lot of circumstances, but I don't think it's fair to call it "required". Take for example the movie "The Martian" - obviously not strictly factually correct, but it demonstrates a Mars mission without a 3d printer - showing it's not "required". ‎Zplizzi (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zplizzi (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Radiation section

Key information missing in the Radiation section is information on radiation & health. I added two header links but prose is needed badly. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph on CO2 removed

I removed the paragraph:

"Martian air has a partial pressure of CO2 of 0.71 kPa, compared to 0.031 kPa on Earth. CO2 poisoning (hypercapnia) in humans begins at about 0.10 kPa. Even for plants, CO2 much above 0.15 kPa is toxic. This means Martian air is toxic to both plants and animals even at the reduced total pressure.[17]"

for the following reasons:

  • The cited source does not contain the information to back up this paragraph. It is effectively unsourced.
  • The cited source is unreliable ("Registered nurse and father of 5").
  • The claims of CO2 poisoning seem highly dubious.
  • The claims of CO2 poisoning do not seem to agree with the article on hypercapnia.
  • The partial pressure values seem incorrect.

I call upon experts to find better information and reliable sources. Asgrrr (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11540191 Asgrrr (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Partial pressure of a gas means "how much of total pressure is contributed by this gas", so if the average atmospheric pressure of Mars is 0.6 kPa, then a higher than that partial pressure of any gas is mathematically impossible. Also, the partial pressure of CO2 on earth is currently around 0,041 kPa. This paragraph should absolutely be removed.213.168.11.223 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Why including non-colonizing trips?

This is an article on colonization. I removed the two very brief sections on non-colonizing trips. Their very subtitles indicated that they did not belong in this article. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

FYI there is a delete discussion Mars editors may be interested in at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Modern_Mars_habitability#Modern_Mars_habitability NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Mars One

It’s widely accepted that Mars One is a joke at best and an out-and-out scam at worst. It shouldn’t receive prominence in this article. Unless anyone objects with cogent arguments I’m intending to remove this subsection soon. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your words are music to my ears. Yes, delete that joke, Please. I didn't want to anger the inclusionists, but Mars One is a scam not comparable to any other proposal. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I added Mars One to the See also section since many people looking for info about it (given its huge coverage years ago), will come to this page. Listing it is not endorsing it. And, no, I do not believe in it. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Terraforming of Mars

Section 4.2 says that Mars lacks enough gravity to hold on to any substantial atmosphere but I had the impression that it has more than enough gravity for that (it leaked the most from because it doesn't have a planetary magnetic field) and also it is well known that for example Titan has a thick atmosphere.Patriot1423 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right. Mars did have a thick atmosphere in the past, while its gravity force has remained unchanged. I will review now the entry and the references. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What are your sources for magnetic fields rather than gravity retaining gaseous atmospheres and what precisely is ferrous in Earth's atmosphere that makes it subject to the entirety of Earth's magnetic field from pole to pole. Nothing is attracted to both poles of a magnet. Do you also have a source for your thick atmosphere claim? How about an explanation for why all planets in our solar system with masses equal to or lesser than Mars as well as Earth's moon have no atmosphere while all planets and moon's more massive than Mars have atmospheres. And how exactly does a planet have but then "leak away" its atmosphere while planets much closer to the sun, hundreds of degrees F warmer "on average" and much more influenced by the sun and its various forms of radiated energy hold onto their? And precisely who determined Mars has no magnetic field and how? The "red planet", if it has indeed had an atmosphere containing liquid water vapor and has water ice on or in its crust, must have had oxygen and hydrogen in its atmosphere. Oxygen, water and what element produce "red" oxidation? Iron. Elemental symbol Fe. Literally the necessary, namesake ferrous metal necessary for magnetic field. There isn't much of anything in your WP:OR claims and discussion here that isn't diametrically-opposed to common sense and grade school science class fact. Discussing whether or not something that isn't there now and if it ever was seems fairly typical of the would-be "Martians" who ignore or are ignorant of the fact that sans atmosphere there is no way Mars has "weather" much less "storms" and other "common characteristics" with Earth and is far less "hospitable" than Earth's moon where humans have actually survived - briefly - on its surface. Of course with no atmosphere like Mars there really is no "ambient air temperature" due to a lack of ambient "air" period. But both airless, low-gravity balls of frozen rock and dust do have "surface temperatures". Or at least "estimates" and "possibilities" for Mars because nobody seems interested in "exploring" by "rover" the warmest and coldest areas. Maybe because even the most "optimistic" estimates are for surface temps at the "equator" maybe reaching a very convenient "room temperature" of 68-70 degrees F. At "noon" in "mid-summer". Mars even has seasons and hours and times of day where convenient for pro-colonization propaganda purposes. What it doesn't have is "shade surface temps" even remotely compatible with human life or "water ice" at -81 to -243 degrees F. The latter being roughly equivalent to "absolute zero" meaning there is literally no heat energy present. Unsurprising with no insulating atmosphere including water vapor to retain it. Water ice also sublimates away at even the warmer -81 F because as a chemical compound of two very different elements with a heat-induced "bond", once water is frozen and "metallic" when it continues to lose heat the bond weakens and it breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Much faster in a "vacuum" like space. Which literally begins at the surface of Mars. The moon is similarly "hospitable" in terms of temperature but unlike Mars, which has only 11% of Earth's mass and therefore gravity which means everything not at least 1101% more dense than necessary to have "weight" on Earth would simply float away on Mars, the moon has roughly 25% of Earth's mass and gravity. So there really is no danger of anything floating away on the moon. And "terraforming" or more simply "moon moving" with bulldozers and such to "landscape" and "level" a site for the first structures or perhaps burying them for "insulation" against super high-intensity UV, infrared and visible spectrum eye-melting sunlight as well as retain heat, would be 25% easier than "earthmoving" typical "topsoil". However, until would-be Martians and Moonbats step up to the plate and volunteer to be the "pioneers" on what will almost certainly be a one-way trip to Mars regardless and a very long first visit to the moon regardless, the colonization "discussions" are literally moot. Which doesn't make them less dishonest, biased, incorrect, ignorant or fraudulent when they skip the cold hard truths and/or make up new ones even if "sourced" from supposed "experts" who literally are more ignorant about what Mars is really "like" than scientists were about the moon until man set feet on it. Even if self-proclaimed "experts" on the geology of Mars claim otherwise, they know for a fact nothing not "manufactured" for the benefit of "scientists" willing to make a career out of being Martian "scholars" but unwilling to go conduct good old-fashioned "exploration". Even the "lack of a magnetic field" isn't proven if the magnetic poles of Mars are arranged such that an Earth compass can't or won't detect "magnetic north" however it happens to be first oriented on the surface.Like I said. Grade school science class stuff. Even Boy Scout handbook/merit badge "science". With countless reliable sources while "Mars" itself as a science subject of hands-on physical study and resulting knowledge has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 ([[User

talk:68.234.100.169#top|talk]]) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. If maybe you are the author then I congratulate you on the article. Also I tend to imagine that Martians would build up a big heap of garbage. Cheers, Patriot1423 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Dmol You unjustly reverted my edit, same subject as above. stating that talk pages are not a forum. I wasn't using this page as a forum, my edit was contributive to the discussion, so what is the real reason you reverted my edit.Oldperson (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not Dmol but his reasons are obvious. This is not the venue to discuss conspiracy theories nor general comments on astronomy. Simply put: you are offering no specific change to this article. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
My comment is not a CT.The comment is fact and is not based on any CT. Argue the facts if you wish but stop accusing me of a bad faith edit. And my post, on the talk page is actually in line with the article's heading on Terraforming. Which has made similar arguments. My comment is definitely making constructive edits and specific changes, whereas your reverts are tantamount to POV vandalism.Oldperson (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Rowan ForestExplain yourself please, that accusation of me venturing a Conspiracy theory is degrading and demeaning for a serious editor. It does not involve any explanation for an event or situation. It makes no such charge. It cannot stand. Either prove what I posted was a CT or apologize. Thank You.Oldperson (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I will not apologize for respecting Wikipedia guidelines. My revert took care of 2 posts simultaneously, your "assay" and a post requesting to expand on a conspiracy: [1]. Yes, your assays in this page are out of place, and by looking at your Talk page, this is not the only Wikipedia page you are disrupting. Be careful. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, but could you show me where exactly I "requested to expand on a conspiracy"?, and thank you I could do without threats. As regards disruption, some subjects by their nature are contentious, and some editors are hyper protective of a POV.Oldperson (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I never said you are indulging in conspiracy theories, but in a soapbox. The revert I did ([2]) took care of 2 posts by 2 users: your assay/soapbox and someone else's conspiracy theory, both unwanted. Please look at the very top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonization of Mars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Again, read: WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I know what WP is and isn't. I thought there was more latitude on talk pages than in articles, that is why I posted on the talk page rather than the article, that it could be discussed., not reverted with a facetious comment. And yes you have accused me of a CT, and your explanation of my post as a soap box is degrading and demeaning. My post was honest and sincere it addresses issues raised on the likes of Terraforming of Mars, and effects the reality of colonizing Mars. I honestly don't see the objection. The instances and problems I cite are real and well known, and they present serious obstacles to the colonization of Mars, thus are contributive. Oldperson (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
At this point, it is evident you simply WP:DONTGETIT, so I will not entertain you here. Soapbox posts here will continue to be deleted, and your edits to the article will be edited or reverted as needed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I will not engage in an edit war, but reverting edits on talk pages are contrary to the purposes of WP. Claiming that someone doesn't get it when their judgement is challenged is a cop out and sign of a weak argument. And I repeat I was not making a soapbox post. A concept which you inserted only after you couldn't back up your conspiracy theory claim.. Your actions and attitude speaks volumes. I get the picture now. Yours is the first time I ever saw reverts on a Talk Page. Interesting. Thank you.Oldperson (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

{ping|Rowan Forest}} Reverting for grammar is contrary to purposes and guidelines of WP. Correct, not revert. A lede does not require references and there was no reference before my addition. If my edit was original research, then it is up to you to justify that claim. Itg is an abuse of editing privileges to claim OR when one deletes an edit just because one does not agree with the edit. So where is my OR in that short two sentence edit. Discuss.Oldperson (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Space X paragraph warranted in Mission concepts and timelines section?

I'm wondering whether the Space X paragraph is warranted in the Mission concepts and timelines section. Elon Musk is known for making bombastic claims and rarely delivering on them, and just because he provided a (frankly quite crazy) relatively very close deadline, it's not a reason to highlight this one particular project in such way. Musk has similarly made "predictions" regarding fully autonomous cars, which never came to fruition, therefore we should take this initiative, and especially the timelines, with a pinch of salt. Finally, the project itself only addresses transportation, and none of the "colonization", which is the focus of the article. What we should do instead is summarise what is found in the human missions to Mars article and link to it, since there are plenty of other plans that exist. If there are no major objections I can attempt to write such paragraph. BeŻet (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, SpaceX intends to facilitate such colonization by providing transport. It does not have the funds to implement such colony on its own. I think the article can be tweaked to clarify that. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
That's one of the things I've mentioned, and it's not just the funds, but experience and know-how too. That's why I think it simply shouldn't be featured in the article the way it is now, since the article focuses on colonization, not just the transportation element. BeŻet (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@BeŻet: Go ahead. I'll be your wing-man if needed. But SpaceX is the only entity doing something about it; it won't be a "colony", but certainly they are going for a fuel factory and a base (the plan is that the crewed Starships will be their shelter for several years until they make a stationary shelter.) Rowan Forest (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rowan, I'll prepare something shortly and share it here. BeŻet (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think mention of Mars One -mostly a scam- also has to be limited or deleted. They had zero knowledge of aerospace (or engineering in general), so were unable to have had "coordinated" such venture. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Elon Musk Advertisement

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)

"Ethical issues" section problems.

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonization_of_Mars/Archive_4&oldid=1250457285"