(Image: Radio)
FOUR hundred kilometres up, tensions are best left behind. As they prepared to start their year-long tenure on the International Space Station, Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko and NASA’s Scott Kelly were quick to dismiss concerns that the growing animosity between their countries might affect their work together. said Kornienko.
Such issues loom larger as we inch closer to longer, more ambitious crewed missions. , for example, claims it will send a crewed mission to the Red Planet in 2026. It’s well known that the seven-month journey to Mars will expose astronauts to DNA damage from cosmic radiation once they are outside the protective shield of Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field, and their muscle and bone density will deteriorate in the low-gravity environment. What’s often overlooked, or diplomatically brushed aside, is the effects on the human psyche of boredom, prolonged close proximity to others and competition for scarce resources. This holds not just for the journey, but also once any space colony is established and growing.
Advertisement
For , a space scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, that’s a big omission. “The human aspect of space settlement will be as important as the scientific and technical dimension,” he says. Cockell thinks it’s time to expand our knowledge of human relationships in the extreme environment of space to find the principles that will prevent humanity’s first extraterrestrial outposts from collapsing in chaos.
Early tests simulating long space missions have given us cause to think we can’t always rely on experience or training. On New Year’s Eve in 1999, one month into a 110-day experiment, . A Japanese crew member walked out in disgust.
Subjects in the Mars 500 experiment fared better. Between 2010 and 2011, a team of six spent 520 days confined in another spaceship mock-up, experiencing little conflict beyond the petty jealousies you might find in the average office. But this and the earlier test were just ground-based simulations.
Mission fatigue
NASA’s One-Year Mission, which started on 28 March, takes things to the next level. Though Kelly and Kornienko will not break cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov’s all-time record of 438 days on the Russian space station Mir from 1994 to 1995, their stay is set to be the longest aboard the ISS. During their mission, the pair will be monitored constantly to assess their physiological and psychological states.
By comparing blood and saliva samples taken from Kelly and his twin brother – who is also an astronaut but will remain on terra firma – the effects of time spent in space can be disentangled from genetic factors, for example. Changes in bone and muscle mass, sleep patterns and cardiovascular fitness will also be compared. To monitor their mental health, Kelly and Kornienko will face a battery of tests that assess the impact of microgravity and sleep deprivation on cognition and behaviour. They will also each keep a journal that will be analysed to assess their emotional and psychological well-being.
These measures should tell us a little more about how astronauts cope in such a confined environment, orbiting just above Earth. But taking humanity to Mars is a challenge in a different league: for a start, it would be seven months before anyone else could arrive to restore order if things began to fall apart.
In the pressure cooker of an off-world colony, that might justify the use of precautionary measures such as round-the-clock psychological profiling. For example, NASA is currently funding the development of wearable technology that will help astronauts proactively manage their mental well-being and relationships with other crew members.
, a psychologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing, is designing sensors that constantly monitor a set of variables, including an astronaut’s movements, vocal activity, heart rate and face-to-face interaction with others. Any repeated red flags – such as a raised voice, spiking heart rate or lengthy periods spent alone – would be picked up by an algorithm that monitors team dynamics and would trigger what NASA describes as “countermeasures”. For instance, the system could notify a team leader who would then check up on the crew member. The goal would be to give individuals the tools to keep themselves in check – but would it be enough? “You can’t take a walk to get some air,” says Kozlowski.
That’s why Cockell and others think we need to do a little more work investigating how human relationships should be managed in space. Cockell’s main research interest is how colonies of microbes survive in extreme environments, but he started thinking about the structure of human societies 10 years ago – particularly the issue of freedom. “It occurred to me then that very little thinking had been done on liberty in space,” he says.
Space could be a hotbed for tyranny. “The extremity of the extraterrestrial environment is likely to lead to dictatorial conditions,” says Cockell. That’s partly because power would naturally fall to whoever controlled the life-support systems. Everyone would need access to limited supplies of food, water and air that may be rationed out by just a few people. The lethal conditions would also encourage safety procedures and levels of oversight unseen on Earth, says Cockell.
“Power would naturally fall to whoever controlled the life-support systems”
It might be tempting to say that in such an environment, personal freedoms are just luxuries we have to dispense with. But for Cockell, that could jeopardise the success of an early scientific outpost, let alone a thriving society. “If a colony of people degrades into a small group of tyrannically controlled slaves, then that will affect what type of science they do,” he says.
The challenge is to carve out a role for the individual among the conformity and rigid controls that would be necessary for survival in an off-Earth settlement, he says. Cockell now helps organise the annual , where like-minded researchers meet to discuss the dangers for independence, democracy and good governance when humanity finally drives its flag deep into Martian soil – or indeed elsewhere. At last year’s conference, researchers began to draft a provisional social contract – something like a bill of rights and responsibilities for space explorers.
Javier Martin-Torres at Luleå University of Technology in Kiruna, Sweden, who works with NASA’s Curiosity rover, was one attendee. For him, the number-one concern is the question of equal access to life support. “Unless comfortable environmental conditions are reached, the colony will always be in a constant state of panic,” he says. “A fear of space will only empower those controlling the conditions.”
Martin-Torres thinks this can be addressed by ensuring that environments are redundantly protected. For example, life-support systems should be designed so that a loss of pressure or an oxygen leak can be contained in an area that can be shut off without affecting the colony’s operation. “None of the provisions should be one-of-a-kind,” he says.
Ensuring the survival of the whole should be everyone’s responsibility. Each activity – whether pressurising chambers, cleaning spacesuits or reporting scientific findings – should always be performed under the principle of “colony first”. “In such an unfriendly environment, the spirit of community would be absolutely essential,” says Martin-Torres.
If that sounds a little touchy-feely and, ultimately, unenforceable, there is another factor at play. Stuart Armstrong at the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute thinks that any tendency towards tyranny would be tempered by a settlement’s dependence on its Earth-dwelling partners. This would dissuade colonies from slipping into social structures or adopting political processes that differ radically from those of affiliated terrestrial governments.
“Most colonies are likely to be a bit socialistic,” says Armstrong. Colonists would be obliged to work for their society’s greater interests, but they should also expect considerable social welfare – and high levels of surveillance. For colonies to survive long-term, they must create conditions in which individuals can lead happy lives in spite of such constraints. “Sending someone to Mars will be very expensive, so you’ll only send skilled people,” says Armstrong. “But skilled people will only go if they think the benefits outweigh the costs.”
Yet it is about responsibilities as much as rights. At first, the glue of space colonies is likely to be science. With research the sole purpose of the early settlements, decisions would typically be made in the interests of this goal. The well-being of the settlers would, of course, be paramount, but ensuring that areas of scientific interest are not contaminated or irreversibly damaged would be a prime directive.
When it comes to human rights and responsibilities beyond Earth, we aren’t going in blind. “Space is not a blank canvas,” says Cockell. There are established legal systems and dedicated United Nations agencies with remits to ensure that the zeal of spacefaring nations remains benign. It’s written in that rights and sustainability should remain clear goals, no matter how lucrative the heavens are as a tool for economic and scientific development.
The exploration and exploitation of space should only be done for the betterment of humanity as a whole, says Simonetta Di Pippo, Director of the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs. Her agency serves the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was established at the outset of the space race and was instrumental in drafting the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
Fresh start
This multilateral agreement laid down some ground rules, banning weapons of mass destruction and preventing individual states from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies. , former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Space Law, says that the spirit of the treaty should guide would-be Mars settlers. “Going into space is an opportunity for humans to avoid repeating some of the destructive results of the colonisation of North America and other continents, such as land grabs and disregard for indigenous life,” she says.
So, as well as protecting human well-being, colonies on Mars would need to protect the planet. Thanks to data collected by four decades of rover exploration, we know that indigenous life there will be microbial at best. Still, Gabrynowicz points to specific clauses in the Outer Space Treaty that spell out colonisers’ obligations. For example, the treaty demands “due regard” and “consultation” in the event that one party’s activities threaten those of another – however tiny.
Of course, much of this remains wishful thinking. Even if all parties involved can agree on a bill of rights, there is no guarantee that distant colonies will stick to it. After all, international laws are violated on Earth. Yet despite the difficulties, some think our mass migration into space is an inevitability – and that it will involve adapting our existing norms well beyond the needs of a mere space colony (see “To boldly go forth and multiply“).
Meanwhile, Cockell and others have started a conversation about what freedom will look like when we eventually do leave home. Their collective efforts might one day lay the foundation for a bill of rights – a Martian Magna Carta – that ensures the only thing the first off-Earth colonists miss are home comforts, not basic human rights.
To boldly go forth and multiply
“FROM a biological perspective, interplanetary colonisation is the nature of life,” says writer Rhawn Joseph. “By colonising other worlds we are merely fulfilling our cosmic and biological destiny – to go forth and multiply.” However, we know little about how low gravity and cosmic radiation will affect colonists’ fertility and reproductive success.
Joseph has contributed a chapter on human reproduction to a book called – a collaborative manifesto that draws on the ideas of dozens of scientists, academics and astronauts. At worst, he says, children born on Mars could suffer from serious genetic, physical and intellectual abnormalities. Alternatively, adaptive gene selection might, over time, result in the evolution of a new species: the first Martians.
In what other ways might these people be different? Would humanity’s fundamental systems of belief alter when they put down new roots in extraterrestrial soil, for example? “Religious practices would have to evolve,” says of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “Over time, they would change in response to the psychological pressures felt by the people living in these off-Earth colonies.”
Customs would have to adapt too, he says. The Martian year, for example, is 687 Earth days long. Given that most religious holidays are tied to our calendar, Martian settlers might invent holidays to fill the yawning gap between one annual celebration and the next. It would be important for humans on Mars to be given the freedom to update thousands of years of tradition without feeling like they were severing ties with their heritage.
A Magna Carta for Mars
żěè¶ĚĘÓƵ asked at the University of Edinburgh, UK, at the LuleĂĄ University of Technology in Kiruna, Sweden, and at the University of Oxford’s University’s Future of Humanity Institute what a bill of rights for a colony on Mars might include. Here are some of their suggestions:
Article 1
All colonists have the right to access systems that help meet their basic needs, including supplies of air, water and food.
Article 2
All colonists have the right to access shelters that protect them from harmful radiation, depressurisation and thermal stress.
Article 3
All colonists have the right to contribute to the design of their own legal system, working in synergy with an Earth-based legislative body.
Article 4
All colonists have the right to access healthcare systems that address both their physical and mental well-being.
Article 5
All colonists have the right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Article 6
All colonists have the right to believe in and practise the religion of their choice.
Article 7
All colonists have the right to choose their own governor at regular intervals.
Article 8
All colonists have the right to transparent open governance.
Article 9
All colonists have the right to information, in particular any information that pertains to the safety and security of the settlement.
Article 10
All colonists have the right to participate in free and open debate.
Article 11
All colonists have the right to access a proportion of any resources that have been accumulated in the event that trade collapses with Earth.
Article 12
All colonists have the right to communicate with Earth.
Article 13
All colonists have the right to leave the colony and repatriate to Earth.
This article appeared in print under the headline “A Magna Carta for Mars”
