How to Cope With Living on Mars

How to Cope With Living on Mars

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 86 Comments


[MUSIC PLAYING] So delighted to be
at this theatre. In fact, I’m going to
come around the front because it’s the first time
I’ve actually ever been here, let alone speak here. And it feels so close,
I can touch you all. So Iya and Jill are going
to be the brains of tonight. I’m going to give you a
little bit of the brawn. Now, my name’s Adrian Hayes. I hail from the New
Forest down in Hampshire. I live at Lymington. But I lived most
of my life abroad. And I wear a number
of different hats– as an adventurer, I suppose
professional adventurer, that’s what I’ve been,
but I’ve been doing it since I was about
16 years of age, that 20 years has
just flown by– but also as a speaker,
as an author, and as a leadership team and personal
coach, as an executive coach. I’ve got a campaigning hat, an
author hat, a few other things, as well. And it’s the exploration
side and adventure side and the leadership team
coaching that Mars One, the Mars One project– and
belay on the financial latest repercussions just been
announced last week– but Mars One asked me to
come and be an advisor. I’m also an astronomy
and space nut. Since I was a young boy,
I’ve followed the last Apollo missions– as a very young boy– which gives away my age. But so Mars One
brought me in, really, to advise on the dynamics
and all the human aspects of long expeditions, plus
the team dynamics, which, of course, is so critical. Now, I have been lucky enough
to have been on our own planet in some places that have
felt like a different planet. This was the top of Greenland,
the very, very north of Greenland, a place
called JP Koch Fjord. And it is one of the
most amazing places I’ve ever been in my life. And I think what
made this so special was because we thought we were
only about a handful in history who’d ever been down there. This is right on
the Arctic Ocean. No one had ever been there,
apart from two Norwegians. That’s all we think. A most magical, pristine place. And the other place,
which is even more so. Because Greenland,
there is life. Sometime birds do come across. You know there’s polar bears. There is settlements. And sometimes an
airplane goes across. And you look up
at this upstairs, and you’re thinking,
they’re in business class, watching this film,
tucking into a nice meal, and we’ve been on this
road, crossing the length of Greenland, for 67 days. Now, this was Antarctica. And this really was
the most it felt like being on another planet. Because the difference
between Greenland and everywhere else on our
earth is that in Antarctica, nothing lives. Nothing lives. You’re on your own with the
sky, the sun, and the ice. There’s no birds. There’s no mosses. There’s no flowers. There’s no aircraft
flying across the sky. You really feel like you’re
on this different world. And apart from the sheer
beauty, what was so special about these places
is the wavelength that our brains became on. And I’m thinking of how
contemplation and focus and deep thinking– all these
things that you don’t have in today’s world, and I’m coming
back to this in five minutes or so. Because when I came
back to the real world, the so-called real world,
it took me about a year to get over this. Now, this, to an
explorer, this is great. So what’s next? Because exploration
has been continuously, through the years, a looking
beyond the greater boundaries. And of course, Mars
is one of them. It’s in our sights. It’s in our sights
within a generation. I think it’ll be
longer because I used to sell airbuses for my living. And every aircraft that’s ever
been produced has had a delay. So it’ll be late 2030s,
2040s, maybe even longer, before anyone will
end up going to Mars. That picture in
Antarctica looked great. But the difference
going to Mars– firstly, those great
vistas, that viewpoints. Half the time, Mars
is clouded in dust because the atmosphere is
so thin that that dust just obliterates all vision. Secondly, you’re always going to
be cut off from the fresh air. And I know myself– I’ve been on a ship for about
a week without any fresh air, and I’m going stir crazy. It’s called cabin fever. So the fact that you’ll never,
ever be able to go outside and sample that fresh air–
even at home, working at home, I’ve gotta get outside– that’s a real, real challenge. And some of you here, maybe,
work in an office without any natural light– anybody here– how that is difficult, as well. So there’s a challenge on that. But secondly– there’s a
challenge in some of the things that I do that you
might lose your life. But we think we’re
doing it to keep fit. We’re getting very, very fit. When you go to Mars,
you’re actually in danger of
destroying your health. The radiation– the radiation
risk is very large, indeed. The chance of you getting
cancer is quite extreme. You are going to be
subject to relationships. The Mars One project
was a lifelong mission. You can’t start dating somebody. And you’ve been dating
them for eight years, and then you tell
your partner, well, I’m going to Mars next month. And she says, well,
how long you going for? I say, I’m going forever,
and you’re never coming back. Now, that was the
Mars One project because it was a
one-way mission. So you got dangers
to your health. But also, the bodies
work in remarkable ways. So when we go to cold– this is my two teammates on
my North Pole expedition– when you go to extreme
cold, and this was minus 60, the body reacts. It takes your blood away
from your extremities and pushes them to
your vital organs. Because it’s about survival. It doesn’t think one step ahead. And so you might get frostbite. You might lose your
fingers and your toes. The body doesn’t think that. That’s not priority. When you go to
altitude, the body produces more red blood cells. And what you have going round
your blood is this red sludge. And again, it helps
protect your vital organs, but it doesn’t protect
your fingers and your toes. You might lose them. The body doesn’t think you might
be on a smartphone in about 24 hours. Our world today that we
live in, I’m absolutely fascinated with this. And Iya might have some
more words to say on this. Psychologists and
scientists are finding that our brains
are changing shape to cope with the
onslaught of information. We were not designed
to be sitting in front of screens and smartphones. So the brain is saying, I
don’t need deep thinking, contemplation, strategizing. I just need be multitasking. And it’s actually changing
the shape of our brains. Now, when you go into space,
basically, the body says, I don’t need legs. So it starts to dissolve
your legs, which is why we always say– I asked my parents when I
saw astronauts coming back, why can’t they walk? That was just a week
away, two weeks in space. If you’re going
for a long mission, you may not have any
legs at the end of it. Mr. Blobby’s coming back. But the science behind
the Mars One project, the science behind that, was if
you were on Mars for 10 years– because some people might
think, well, how do you know? OK. There’s always going
to be technology to get us back in due course. Because the
technology of Mars One was that we’ve got
present technology to get there and land
much earlier than we’ve got it to bring us back. But after 10 years at the
lower gravity your legs, your bones will
be so brittle, you won’t be able to enter
the Earth’s atmosphere. Your bodies will shatter. Your bones will shatter. So you’re putting
your health at risk. So why do so many people
want to go into space? NASA had about 18,000
applicants applied last year. The Mars One project
had 200,000 people applied to go to Mars
on a one-way mission. That may sound a
little bit stupid. So why do so many
people want to do it? Well, I wrote my new book,
which I’ve just written, on one man’s climb. And it’s about my journey up K2. But it’s as much a journey about
human development, society, real teamwork, and the our
lives in the world below as it is the story of
climbing a mountain. And I go head-on into chapter
one about why people climb K2, climb Everest, why
more and more people are doing such extreme things. And the number one
reason is significance– significance. And I love that
Shackleton quote. Because back then and
throughout history, it’s a basic human need,
either intrinsic significant– personal goals, self-worth,
direction, meaning– or extrinsic– respect,
recognition, fame, honours, and awards. What’s happened in the world– and I find this
absolutely fascinating, and I am going to be, probably,
trained to be a psychologist when I get too old to do
these longer adventures– is how the world’s changed
in the last 20 years. The internet has
given us all more this need for
intrinsic significance. We see the world out
there, and we’re not prepared to be pawns
on a production line. And social media has
given us that drive– subconsciously or consciously–
to show it to the world. Basically, look what I’ve done. And you can see it in
every single thing– selfies, social media posts,
pictures on business class, Ironman Triathlons, climbing
Everest, climbing K2. Space is just another example. So that’s why people– the first part I want
to speak about– why people want to go there. I think it is for significance. And Mars One, we’re going to
beam this as a reality TV show. It’s to be like Love
Island without the tans, the six-packs, and without
swapping partners every week. But that is what I
believe the main reason people want to get there. Now, the second
part I want to ask is the personal characteristics. What do you think
you need to be, person-wise, to get to Mars? And there is one thing
that any astronaut shares with us who do long camping
trips across icecaps and jungles and deserts. And that is you’ve got
to be extremely fit. And I remember when
I watched Superstar– Superstars, I think, when I was
a kid and saw racing drivers. And I thought, oh, they’re
not going to be fit. That’s the footballers
and the rugby players. They were the fittest
sportsmen on the planet. And it’s a similar thing. You have be supremely
fit to be an astronaut. Now the other thing, something
they don’t share with us, is you have to be
supremely intelligent. You have to be a
master in biology, in science, in medicine, in
engineering, astrophysics, jet engine propulsion–
all these things. You’ve got to be bright,
extremely bright. But what else? What else do you need? Now, I’m going to expand
this, expand this to, really, to a wider circle of
what skills we really need in today’s workplace– all
of us, all of us sitting here. Because it’s quite relevant to
what you’re looking at Mars. Now, of all these
surveys of skills needed in the
workplace– and this is in the face of
AI and technology, which I, incidentally,
think that AI is one of the greatest
challenges we actually have in the universe today. Climate change gets all the
headlines and pronouncements and statesmanlike speeches,
but AI and other things are just as big a
problem as that. So Google commissioned a survey
of 400 CEOs across the world. And they asked them what skills
were needed in the workplace today and moving into the
future for all levels. And they were, number
one, problem solving– OK– number two,
teamwork, number three, critical thinking, and
number four, communication. And the others sort of fell
away a little bit behind. These were the top
four by some way. And I looked at this,
and I thought, well, this is quite interesting,
as a leadership and team coach, personal coach. Because the first two
obviously go to the person– problem and critical thinking– and the second two,
really, on the teamwork and communication–
about the other. Now, put them together,
and you’ve got something– I’m going to play a little
clip from Apollo 13, one of my favourite
clips from this film, about putting these
four things together. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] – Gene, we have a situation
growing up there– carbon dioxide. – We had a CO2 philtre
problem on one of the modules. – Five philtres on
a limb, which are meant for two guys
for a day and a half. So I told the doc– – They’re already up
to eight on the gauges. Anything over 15, and you
get impaired judgement, blackouts, the beginnings
of brain asphyxia. – What about the scrubbers
on the command module? – That takes square cartridges. – And the ones on
the limb are round. – Tell me this isn’t a
government operation. – This just isn’t a contingency
we even remotely looked at. – Those CO2 levels are
going to be getting toxic. – Well, I suggest you
gentlemen invent a way to put a square peg in a round hole– rapidly. [CLATTERING] – OK, people, listen up. The people upstairs
handed us this one, and we gotta come through. We gotta to find a
way to make this fit into the hole for this
using nothing but that. Let’s get it organised. – OK. – OK, let’s build a philtre. – Somebody get some
coffee going, too someone. [END PLAYBACK] There we go. So of all these attributes
and self-determination and discipline and perseverance
and all these other things, you’ve got to be
a problem solver. And I think how many
people here saw the Martian with Matt Damon? Yeah. I think that goes
to show you’ve got to have that ability to
solve problems on your own and as with a team. All the other attributes,
I think you probably know as good as
me what you need, those personal
attributes, to go to Mars. But to me, the
real critical thing is these personal
attributes are overshadowed by the team attributes. And this is where
my passion comes in, my passion for
teamwork comes in. And if I asked you what
makes a great team, you’ll all know the
answers because you’ve all been in great teams. We do very little on our own. You’ve all been in great teams. You’ve all been
in mediocre teams. You’ve all been in
some pretty poor teams, I expect, in your life. So as I said, what
makes a great team? Its camaraderie. It’s fun. It’s respect. It’s a great leader. It’s communication. It’s all these things. But these two things–
teamwork and communication– are absolutely critical. Now, let me give you some
examples away from space about some great teams. The first one I’m going to
show is an SAS four-man patrol. Here they are. They’ve been blacked
out– balaclavas. We can’t show their faces. But there’s a misconception
about SAS four-man patrols. Because there’s a
buddy-buddy system. You’re dependent on each other. A lot of people think
that people in the SAS are alpha males, egos,
all the rest of it. No room for that. I spent two years in 21 SAS,
and I would call myself a Zulu female, far from an alpha male. Now, let’s look at another
team in the sporting side. This is a team that’s not
bad in their field of sport. They’ve been number one
in the sporting world in their own sport for
the last 500 years. And again, there is no egos. There’s no stars
in the All Blacks. That understanding, that
camaraderie, that gelling, that clicking, it is part of the
values of being an All Black. And I think this is where
football sometimes falls apart. Because there are many egos
and many stars who think they’re better than
the rest of team. I’ve obviously been on some
fantastic expedition teams– many. I’ve been on some
bad ones, as well. But this is my buddy for
K2, Al Hancock, Canadian. Now, the trust I have
in Al is second to none. I would trust this guy
for the rest of my life. I’ll always climb together. And this is the
Mars One project. And their whole philosophy
is we’re not even selecting individuals. We’re selecting teams. But all these teams, all these
teams, they put work into it. They put work into
making that great team. And this is one of my
favourite quotes of teamwork. “I am a member of a team,
and I rely on that team. I defer to it and
sacrifice for it. Because the team,
not the individual, is the ultimate champion.” It’s absolutely fundamental. Military, sport,
expeditions, and space– teamwork is fundamental. Let’s go to the corporate
world, or the other world. Now, how much work
do we put into this? Well, firstly, we reward people
by individual performance. Remuneration is commission. Bonuses is based on
individual performance. Does that A team work? Not really. And what work do we put into
making great teams down here on C level? Well, mostly, we do sweet FA
except for the once-a-year team boating day. Yes, you’ve got it. Now, let me just
tell you, these will bring one thing and one thing
only, and that is called fun. You do not become an SAS
four-man patrol member by crossing some
grass on some planks. You do not become the All Blacks
by building a structure out of cardboard, wood,
plastic, and balloons. You do not climb K2 by crossing
a swimming pool with floats and logs and tape
to bond together. And you do not get into space
by going 10-pin bowling. You get my point. It’s critical. And to show you– and
I could go on with this because it’s my
passion, it’s my work, I live and breathe this stuff–
but let me give you one example of how Mars One was
taking this teamwork– a four-man team. Let’s take the four
of you here, OK? The four of you here–
two men, two women. Could you just sit next,
just one seat there? Because I want you to be a team. Now, the openness and
transparency of this team was if you had a problem with
this person here, first of all, it’s brought out onto the open. It’s discussed and made
transparent without taking it personally. And either he changes his
behaviour, whatever it is– he belches when he eats,
he’s got body odour, he talks too much, whatever–
either he changes his behaviour or you go to another team. Now, that is quite
revolutionary in teamwork. Because the world
will say, accept people for your differences. Accept everyone’s different. Accept him. Accept that he has body
odour or he talks too much. Excuse me. Don’t take it personally. OK. But no. The thing is if
it’s not confronted, it will fester in
you and fester in you and fester in you the
rest of your life. So it has to be confronted. And so we have that
agreement with Hancock. We had this implicit
set of agreements. It’s all about the agreements. And we had one of them, of
many, many, many agreements, is that we could say whatever
we could to each other without taking it personally,
without anyone taking it personally. Because if you take your eye off
the ball, if you’re festering, if you’re annoyed, whether
it’s climbing a mountain, whether it’s playing
for the All Blacks, whether it’s in a
four-man patrol, whether it’s going to space,
if you’re festering on somebody that’s gnawing you and
you haven’t discussed it, you could lose your life. It could be dangerous
to man or life. So that is just
a smitten of some of the attributes of
what I’m basically saying is why people do these things– which I’m saying is
significant, is a major driver in today’s world– with some harmless examples,
some unintegral examples, and some, as happened last week,
very, very dangerous examples; why people with the
personal characteristics– you’ve got to be intelligent,
a expert in your fields, and fit, a problem solver,
and a great communicator; and above all this,
team dynamics. You have got to work
on a team for what’s going to be a very,
very long mission. That’s the spin. I’ll be there at the end to
answer any more questions. But thank you very
much for listening. And here we go to Mars. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Hi. It’s nice to be back here. I’ve been here in
June last year. And we were talking,
we were celebrating, the Odyssey 2001, which
was a really good event. So I think I’ve recognised
a couple of people from the audience. It’s lovely to see you back. I would like to introduce
you to one concept about future exploration. And I always wondered
about what will happen when people are faced
with a extreme situation, when they faced something that
they’ve never faced before. And I started with
personal exploration. My mother is in audience,
and she does know some of the things I’ve done,
and others she doesn’t. I shall not reveal
them all here. But I wanted to jump
with a parachute. I wanted to skydive. I wanted to feel the air. I wanted to know how
it feels when you’re faced with a situation when
you don’t know what will happen and how you would react. And future missions–
missions to Mars– will be in the first instance,
the exploration within. Before we explore the space– outer space, beyond
our orbit– we’ll have to explore
the space within. And this journey is
so personal, and so much has to be supported by
the team that surrounds you, that it’s vital to understand
that, or at least study it. Because we don’t know it. We do know some
concepts from people who explored by
themselves, or by people who went on Antarctic missions,
or the submariners who travel underwater for a long time. But we do not know
what happens, really, in every individual’s mind. So what I want
you to do today, I wanted to take you through
some personal inner experience that astronauts and cosmonauts
had when they went into space. So these are the
three images captured of Alexey Leonov, whom I
have been fortunate to speak with one-on-one. And he told me very
beautifully of why he decided to become an astronaut. Firstly, he wanted
to become a pilot. He’s actually an artist,
and he likes to paint. And he wanted to fly
higher so he can capture how, really, the clouds look. So he wanted to get
closer to the sky and then to be
able to capture it. And the image here
that you see, he is actually in the outer
space and unable to control his movements and
doesn’t know whether he will be able to get back
into the spacecraft. Because what happened is
that when they were training in the parabolic flight, which
the aircraft dips and climbs, and they simulate the
microgravity, he was told and he was trained
to compress his body and push as hard as he can in
order to exit the spacecraft, but within this
parabolic flight. And that’s what
he has practised. And when he’s done that,
when they open the hatch, and he compressed
himself as tightly as possible and propelled himself
against the spacecraft, he actually shoot out so
fast that he was surprised. His colleague was surprised. And he was unable to stop
bouncing back and forth from the spacecraft. Because there was nothing
on the outside to grasp, and his tether had an
elastic element in it. So he would stretch quite
far and then bounce back into the ship. And that was pretty much
the first man in space. It was terrifying because
his suit started to expand. And not only that he
had nothing to grasp, his gloves were
separating from his body. They were coming apart because
the pressure of the suit was growing and
the suit expanding. So he couldn’t get into his feet
of the shoes or the space suit. At the bottom, he
couldn’t feel it. And also, his gloves
were starting to expand, and he couldn’t actually
compress his body. And he sweat so much
that he, actually, was swimming in his boots
by the end of the mission. And this is the
person who speaks very calmly about being in space. And then, when he comes back,
he talks about its beauty and how it changed him. So in all this extreme
immensity of what this person experienced,
he’s actually had the time to
witness and really appreciate what was
happening with him. And I think no one,
no psychologist, can ask a questionnaire,
can compose a questionnaire, to ask what the person
really feels inside. And really, the astronauts, they
touch us by what they tell us and what it really felt like. And that’s what touches us. And that’s what expands
our understanding and expands our curiosity. So this is a quote from
a German astronaut. And I think this is a quite
interesting change in value and change in perception,
which we do see when astronauts and cosmonauts go to space. Because we have these concepts. And one of the
concepts he discusses that he has always been told
that the Earth is surrounded by the ocean of air. So the atmosphere
is like a big ocean. But when he came out into space
and saw just a slight curve and the thinnest, thinnest
sliver of the atmosphere, and he realised that
it’s not an ocean. Not the way we thought of it
as such a massive component of our Earth. It’s just a very thin,
fragile atmosphere. And that perception,
it really moves people. And then, they actually do,
when they come back to Earth, they do things differently. It change them from within. It change their behaviour. It change their value. And equally so, it happens
through, pretty much, every astronaut, although
it’s not spoken widely. But this phenomena is not
captured or explored yet in depth. So if we could play
a video for a moment. So this is an Gene
Cernan mission. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] So I just want you to
listen to what they say. [BEEP] – Uh, Dave and Jim, while
you’re doing the dusting there, did you get a check on the
LRV mirrors for the Solo? I must not have copied. [BEEP] – Yeah, they’re both open and
all four have been dusted. [BEEP] – OK, good. [BEEP] – The tape came off
your [INAUDIBLE],, Dave. – Did– did it really? – Yeah. It’s ripped on both sides now. – Wonder where I’m getting that. – Might be getting
it in the rover. – Yep, could be. [STATIC] I think I see where
I’m getting it. No, it couldn’t be there. No, the seats are smooth. – OK, Dave. – OK. Give me the brush. I’ll put it back. You can head in and
crank up the LEC, and we’ll haul all that
stuff up nice and easy-like. – OK. Thank you. – OK. I’ll leave– [END PLAYBACK] So what has been
happening there is that they were just
doing a regular thing on the moon, which you do. They were dusting each other off
and checking the instruments. So there was nothing
really extraordinary happening on the moon while
they were doing their work. They were just doing
fixing things around. They were doing this
in very bulky suits. But the work that
they were doing is very calm, very
collected, just something that,
probably, you would do– I don’t know– repairing
something in the backyard. It’s not an extraordinary work. But the environment
where they’re in and what they’re doing
and how they got there and the whole concept of
where they are doing it is what makes the
difference on their attitude and how they treat each
other and what they do and the fact that they need
to rely onto each other to survive. So if there is anything that
someone is asking you to do, they will do it
instantly because they depend on each other. And in this case, they
had dust that they needed to remove from each
other from the sensors. And in fact, later
in this video, he does climb back
to check the systems. And among all of this,
they need to pay attention to the environment. And this is another quote
from Eugene Cernan when he was talking about
being on the moon and then coming back and saying
how, actually, he doesn’t think of the moon as being far away. It’s now became
part of his home. It’s not a romantic idea of
being on the moon or just looking at the moon. He’s actually
worked on the moon. And he thinks it’s
actually something that expanded to be his home. So that concept of thinking
that we can actually reach other planets
really has already happened in human experience,
although it’s not a planet. It’s a planetary body. But nevertheless,
it’s something that is completely isolated from us. And speaking with
Eugene Cernan, you would find him very,
in a way, ordinary. But he listens with such depth
to every one of your question and tries to answer
it exactly to what you’re trying to ascertain. So he can really tell
you about the experience that he had so he
can really touch you so that you can understand
what has happened to him and with his team. So this is something
that they have discussed coming back from the moon. So “we spent most of the way
home discussing what colour the moon was.” Out of all the things you
could be discussing being on the moon, they would be
discussing what colour the moon was. It’s so unusual, if you wish. This is another quote from
a NASA astronaut Russell Schweickart. And he’s talking about the
experience of being outside and how much difference it made
to his own personal perception, and how suddenly,
everything becomes different and very precious. And the image that
you see is actually part of Australian landscape. But we had some
astronauts report to us that when they look,
during the experiments, into their microscopes and
they’re studying some cells, or they’re studying tissue, and
then they look out of the ISS, and they look down on Earth,
and they see the same thing, and they have to double-check,
are they still looking at the microscope, or are they
looking, actually, on Earth? So there is this
macro and micro effect when you’re looking
from something in a very detailed level and
when you are looking back at our Earth. And these are the impressions
that astronauts find most difficult to communicate. Because it’s something
that touches you, and it changes you forever. And you really don’t know how
to explain it to somebody else. This is something that future
crew might see in space. This is taken by Cassini. And if you can imagine flying
and suddenly seeing something just propelling past you when
you have not seen anything for a very long time, and
it reminds you of something off the movies that
you’ve seen back on Earth, it might be quite
frightening, to start with. But then, when you
recognise the body, you understand what it is. So in the future, we
need to imagine what will happen on other planets. And we can only really do
that through understanding what is happening
to us within and how we explore and understand
the environment around us. And my colleagues in the
audience, Olga Bogatyreva, and myself, we were
working together on the project for
European Space Agency to develop tools for
psychological support for long-duration missions. And part of that tools,
we had to understand the type of issues the crew
will experience and have. And of course, as
a psychologist, you would start with something
that’s already defined but things that are already
defined quite far down the line in terms of where you don’t
want the astronauts to reach, such as depression, or they
might develop some phobia, or they might
develop aggression, or they might find that
it’s very boring, and they, as a result, would be very
different in their behaviour. But in order to
understand that, you need to start from
very little things, to understand the little
elements of the environment that they work in,
and then combine them to understand
what type of issues that they’re likely
to encounter. And what we have done is
we have systematically went through every
single experiment which has been done to isolate
people in a environment that is likely to appear as
missions to the moon and Mars. This included, as well, all
Antarctic missions and records that we had, all
the experiments that were done on Earth on
simulating Mars missions, and also all the ISS and
space station in orbit. We had collaboration from
NASA and ESA and Roscosmos. And we’ve defined this
field of problems. And what you see in black
is not meant to be read– this is just kind of
a visual landscape– is the issues that are crossing. If you can look, for
example, on Excel file, you have an issue on the
left, an issue on the top. And on the cross, when
they meet together, there is a specific
problem or scenario. For example, in a
long mission, you will have things that
will start to break. They will start to chip. It’s inevitable. Two years in spaceflight,
it’s not likely that it will go out
without a problem. And if these things
continuously happen and something else happened,
so the problems, they escalate. They don’t happen
just on one thing. And these issues escalate
and become something that the mission
control has to resolve. And we needed to
outline systematically every possible scenario based on
understanding of previous work. And what we come up
with is this matrix. And as you can see,
the points in black, it’s something
that were recorded. But the rest of it we
haven’t even described. So if you look at
this field, about 75% of potential situations we have
not even seen in simulation. We have not considered. And we not even ready, at the
time, how to prevent them, how to monitor them,
and how to resolve them. So as part of this
work, we’ve met with a team of psychologists. We’ve met with the submariners. We had Antarctic
mission commander. We had astronauts and
psychologists and fire brigade commanders who were
helping us to define how to overcome the situations. And this, actually, is
captured in this book. This is based on
official ESA report. But what we did find is that
in a long-duration mission, we will not be able to follow
the existing methodology on how we support the crew in space. Currently, on the
International Space Station, we support astronauts
and cosmonauts completely and solely. We don’t allow them to
resolve problems themselves if the mission
control can do that. We monitor them for every
possible breath they may take. We don’t trust them
to resolve anything. We do not give them any
responsibility or knowledge on how to do things. They follow the
specific procedures. However, if there
is an incident, they are very capable, and
they are always consulted. Because they’re trained for it. But in a sense, they totally
rely on mission control. In the future, this
will not be possible. So in the future,
the trust will have to be transferred to people on
the mission who are actually departing Earth. They will have to
have full knowledge and full responsibility
for what they are doing. And as a result, we’ll have
to have a full trust in them, that they are capable to do it. And when people are
not trusted with what they would like to do, they
give up responsibility, and they do not want to
even attempt or start. They lose motivation. And in the future,
in order for us to understand that
anything happens internally with a human being,
we will have to trust these people to tell us. Me, as a psychologist– and this is still, currently,
the model on how we study and research people
inner experience and any psychological and social
development that happens– we actually externally
observe and interpret. This can no longer happen
in exploration missions that go beyond Earth orbit. We have to completely
trust the crew. We have to develop new tools. We have to develop
new ways of teaching the crew and that individual
to tell us, to share. And they become an
investigator, they become the principal
investigator, they become the researcher,
they become the scientists on how the human personal
inner space changes– and tell us. Because you can’t
tell about somebody else what they experiencing
until they tell you. And similarly, we have to do the
same in future Mars missions. So this is a quote. This is, actually, I
really love this image. To me, it looks like an
autumn leaf on the ground. But it’s actually
an image from space. And here, Robert Cenker talks
about what it is really like and how the experience
changes people. And he says that his wife knows
by the change in his voice. The children know
that he’s changed by the way he looks at them. And his parents know
how he’s changed because they watched him grow. But really, no one can
experience this and understand this unless they’ve been there. So it’s so difficult. They
have no tools currently– not astronauts, not
cosmonauts– on how to really express an
understanding on what is actually happening. And some are better than others. But that transformational
experience is very inner spaced. And I wish we could find the way
that the explorers can share. So my really open question
is that, how can we explore this inner space? Is it at all possible? Are we ready as humanity to let
go and let these people tell us what they experience
rather than us assuming what it will be like on Mars? [APPLAUSE] Oftentimes, on these
sorts of panels, there’s all this exciting
stuff about going to Mars and how we would colonise
it and everything. And then I come in
with the legal stuff and like, how would you
insure your spacecraft? And I appreciate that that
is not the sexiest of topics. But what I’m here
to say to you is that I think we need to think
about the politics and the law behind space exploration
and, for example, the potential
colonisation of Mars. And this is not just out
of my own mind, actually. It’s been going on
for a long time. Yeah. So I’m at the London
School of Economics. METI is Messaging
Extraterrestrial Intelligence. So that’s an organisation that
I’ve been involved in where we’re trying to reach out to
potential extraterrestrial intelligence else
around the world. And I used to be editor in
chief of Space Policies. So that’s my background. But the three things that
I want to talk to you about are some really tough questions. What are the legalities
of potential colonisation? That’s what I’m
going to focus on. I know that sounds a little
bit dry, but I promise you, it’s more interesting than
it maybe sounds, initially. And then, I’m going to
briefly raise some questions that I don’t have
any answers to, which is, who do we
want to represent us when we go out into space? And also, what are the
ethics of colonisation? So those are the three things
that I’m going to talk about. But again, I’m mostly
going to be talking about the legalities of it. So one of the
things I like to do, it’s always interesting to
get a sense from the audience, it wouldn’t be a
space event if there wasn’t one picture of Neil
Armstrong with an American flag on the moon. So I’m going to
ask you, the moon– separate– but out
of curiosity, show of hands, who thinks that
where that flag was planted meant that the Americans
owned that part of the moon? OK. Only a couple of people. It’s interesting. I’ve been asking this question
over the years for a long time. And I think people
are increasingly aware it’s confusing, right? Colonisation– this is
what we’ve always known. If you plant a flag somewhere,
that means you own it, right? And that’s what
the Americans did. That’s what Neil Armstrong did. The fact of the matter is
that, at the time, they knew– the Americans knew– that it did not mean that they
owned any part of the moon. And this is because celestial
bodies and outer space in general is not
subject to appropriation, according to international
outer space law. A lot of people don’t realise
that there is such a thing as outer space law. To be honest with you, I didn’t
before I started researching it about 20 years ago. But there is a body
of law that humans have established through
the United Nations to govern outer space. And the most important
treaty is the first treaty, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. And what it says is outer space
is the province of all mankind, right, so it kind of
belongs to all of us, but also that no nation may lay
ownership to any part of it. It was interesting. I was looking for a picture– I thought I had a picture
of the front of the treaty. There’s only, like, five
copies, and one of them is in Kew Gardens. But if you Google
the treaty itself, this is the picture you get. It’s a lot of white men, OK? It was subject to the time. But you can kind of get
a sense of what happened. So yeah. So as of 1967, we all, as a
collective through the United Nations, decided that nobody
could own outer space, right? So when Neil Armstrong
planted that flag on the moon, it was purely symbolic. And in fact, they
talked about maybe making it the
United Nations flag or doing all sorts of things. But they decided to go
with the American flag, even though it was
“for all mankind.” So outer space is the
province of all mankind, and it cannot be
nationally appropriated. These are the two main
things that the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 lays out. There are five main treaties
that govern outer space, but the Outer Space
Treaty is the main one. Some people refer to it as the
Constitution for Outer Space. So it was ratified by almost
all countries around the world, and it’s widely respected. So it forms the basis
of outer space law. And yeah, again, it
says that outer space is the province of all
mankind, so amongst all of us. But at the same time,
nobody can own it, either. I’m just going to point out
because I’ll come back to this that it says that outer
space cannot be nationally appropriated. Just a brief bit of history. How did we get here? One of the things
that when I started researching in this area, I
thought, why did we even come up with law for outer space? These discussions
started in the 1950s before we had even launched
anything to outer space. Why not leave it anarchic? But if you put yourself back
into the historical context, it was the Cold War, and neither
the Soviet Union nor the United States wanted to leave outer
space as an anarchic realm, right? They wanted to lock each
other into some sort of an agreement about how
we would govern outer space. And that’s how we ended up
with the Outer Space Treaty. What’s interesting
is that there were two obvious legal analogies
that we might use. The first was the
airspace analogy, right? So in the 1950s, as well,
commercial air travel was increasing. And so there was this idea
that, well, legally airspace was you had your territory
above your country, and it went up and
up and up and up. So maybe for outer space, once
we realised we were probably going to start entering
outer space soon, we sent that into
infinity, right? And that was one of the
things that they considered through the United
Nations Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space. The other one was a
high seas analogy. So as many of you will
know, you have a country. But then, once you get
past a certain point, the high seas are what we
call neutral territory. And so they are not owned
by any particular country. That doesn’t mean that they’re
not subject to regulation, but they’re not owned by
any particular country. What’s interesting is
that the United States and the Soviet Union, who
were the two main players in the international
system at this time, had different opinions about
which approach we would take. The Soviet Union preferred
the airspace analogy, and the United States preferred
the high seas analogy. And this was largely down
to the issue of spying. So if we had an airspace
analogy, basically, the territory from here up
would be completely belonging to the UK, and nothing
could cross over. The United States had
a stronger interest in being able to spy
on the Soviet Union by being able to have
objects cross around. And the Soviet Union
had more of an interest in keeping it closed. It’s more complicated
than that, and I won’t go into a huge amount of history. But in essence, what we ended
up with was the Outer Space Treaty, which said it’s
neutral territory, i.e. the high seas analogy. Outer space does not
belong to anyone, and it belongs to
everyone at the same time. But the key point
that I want to make– and again, I kind of
feel bad because I know this isn’t as romantic
as we all want to always think about space exploration–
is that the ideas behind space exploration
are really exciting. But politics will inevitably
be involved in anything that we do. So that’s where we’re at with
the legal infrastructure. What does this mean
for celestial bases, so like a base on the
moon, or for colonies? And I’m going to go through
four main points here. Firstly, entities may legally
occupy a space in outer space but not own it. There are also
liability issues– I know that sounds
really boring, it’ll sound more interesting once
I get to it, I promise; issues of mining– people are talking a lot
more about mining these days; and then finally, issues
about private entities, as opposed to countries. So on the first one– entities may occupy a space
but not claim ownership of it. So one of the legal precedents
that we have for this is Antarctica. You can have a
science base that’s set up on the continent
of Antarctica, but you don’t own the
land that’s underneath it. So if we were to have
a colony on Mars, one of the possibilities is that
you would sort of be squatting there but not
actually owning it, according to the legalities that
we have in the current setting. I find it kind of ironic because
migration is such a big issue here on Earth. And yet, according
to this principle, it would mean that anybody
could come into the colony that you had. There would be no
rights of exclusivity. There is a precedent for this
geostationary orbital slots. Satellites occupy a place, but
they’re not allowed to own it. So legally, this has been
going on for a long time. But if it were to extend to
the area of Colonisation, it would probably–
well, it would inevitably get a lot more
legally complicated. But one of the things– I’m going to go on to
ethics briefly at the end– but one of the things that
I want to briefly bring up with you is is this something
that we want to change? So as it stands
right now, no country may lay ownership
to a celestial body. And I know the idea
of Mars Colonisation and bases on the moon
is really exciting. But do we want to open that
up to people being able to do? If Neil Armstrong had
planted that American flag– I’m a Yank, you can
hear by my accent, but I’m actually quite glad the
Americans don’t own the moon– if he had planted
that flag there and it meant that
Americans owned the moon, would we be OK with that? So I think we need to think a
bit through the ethics that’s behind the law. On the second issue,
liability, I’m going to go pretty
quickly through this. This is just that
everything that goes up into outer space is
launched according to it has to be registered
with the launching state. So that means that a country
has to take responsibility for everything that goes up. I know it’s legal stuff. But at the same
time, I think we need to think about
the practicalities behind the excitement
of potentially colonising another planet. So let’s say something
goes really wrong. What happens? As it stands right now,
it’s the responsibility of the country who
has technically launched the object. And I don’t think that’s
necessarily right. Because anymore, it’s
not really one country, or it might be
multiple countries, or it’s a country partnered
with a private entity. But at the same time, if
there’s one thing we all know, it’s that we can be
litigious as humans. And so if something horrible
goes wrong, who’s responsible? Who’s responsible? So I think that that’s something
that we need to think about. Mining– this is something that
keeps coming up more and more so, I think, because we
are technologically closer to being able to
potentially mine resources. So according to the
Outer Space Treaty, you cannot extract resources– no, no, sorry. I have to be very careful here. According to the
Outer Space Treaty, outer space is for the common
heritage of mankind, right? So it doesn’t really
say what exactly that means in terms of mining. There was another treaty
that tried to look into this, but it basically failed. This is a really fast-moving
area legally right now. And the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, for
example, is really talking a lot about
this right now. The United States in
2015 passed something they called the Commercial
Space Competitive Act, which said that American
corporations could exploit resources in outer space, which
kind of goes against everything that has been before, although
it was interesting because they added a caveat that this was
so long that it was in line with the international treaties
that the United States has signed up to. So it’s really not clear. Mining– a couple
of weird ideas. Some people say if we extract
resources and bring them back down to Earth, they’re
no longer celestial resources, so they’re subject
to appropriation. Other people say if
we exploit resources in situ, which is more likely
what we would be doing if we had a colony on Mars, for
example, that it doesn’t apply to Earth laws because it’s
a different jurisdiction, I guess you could say. So there’s a lot of
discussion about this. And also, for example,
the Apollo missions, they brought back 842
pounds’ worth of space rock. So at present, it’s allowed
to bring things back for scientific purposes. But how do we define that? So I think that’s something that
we really need to think about and that I would encourage
all of you to think about. Are we comfortable with the
idea of extracting resources from the moon or from
Mars for our usage? This is where law
crosses over into ethics. I don’t know. How do we feel about that? Honestly, I’m not entirely
sure how I feel about it. I put up this Japanese
whaling thing. You’re also not
allowed to whale, according to international law. But the Japanese do it
for scientific purposes. I think there could be a
chance that people would try to get around
the legalities of it through these sorts of caveats. But the fact of the matter
is that, technically, you’re not supposed to be able to mine
resources from outer space. The last one that I think
is really quite important is are private entities exempt? So the Outer Space
Treaty of 1967– again, very well-respected,
written in 1967– and it says that no, no
country can appropriate space, and it says that no country
can appropriate nation space and that there’s no national
sovereignty over outer space, right? So this is very much
focused on countries. And this is because it was
a product of the time– 1967. There were commercial entities
dabbling in outer space. But for the most part,
as they wrote this up, it was countries that were
dealing with outer space. So I don’t think that
it was them thinking, oh, we’re happy for
companies to do it, but we don’t want
countries to do it. It was more the
emotional ethos that we want outer space to be neutral. But now that we’re
in a situation where we have a lot of
private entities who are entering into
the space industry, there’s this question
of whether or not this means there’s
a loophole legally for those types of actors,
those types of entities. I’ve put up a picture here. I got asked– they’ve died down
a bit– but for a long time I got asked about
these companies that were selling plots of land
on the moon or plots of land on Mars. And the legal
reason for that was because they were
saying countries can’t lay claim to outer
space but companies can. And so I’ve claimed the moon. Just sorry to anybody
who bought one, but they’ve actually sold the
moon over 36 times or something and Mars, as well and all that. And I don’t think it
would hold up legally. But that’s where the legal
precedent comes from. Because the original
treaty was so focused on states and
countries and nation-states. So what does it mean
now that we have all of these other entities
that are not government-based? And so going forward,
I’m just going to go through this very quickly. To me, that’s what
I know legally. For me, I think it raises a
lot of questions ethically. So one question– should
Earth law apply to space? We’ve been operating on this
system for more than 50 years. There are some people– sorry, actually, that didn’t
show up very well in my Prezi, I didn’t realise that– but what
it says is some people say that we should scrap the
pre-existing laws. We’re in a different era. I don’t like the idea of
starting over from scratch, but there are some
people who say that. Some people will
say that technology is going to drive what
we’re going to do, anyway, and then law will just
have to catch up with it. Again, I don’t agree with that. I think we should have
conversations about what we want moving forward. And ultimately, it’s really
nice talking about exploration, and I know it seems
like kind of a downer, but I don’t like
the idea of space being completely anarchic. I do think we should have
conversations about what we want for it and
what regulations might be in place for it. The last thing that I’m
going to leave you with, just ethically– so again, we’re in
a different era. I agree that outer
space law, which was developed in the
’50s, ’60s, and ’70s was very much state-focused. And now, we have
public-private partnerships, we have companies and
all this, and technology is moving forward. So I’m not denying any of that. But one of the things that I
think we need to ask ourselves is who do we want to
represent us in space? I think this is a question
that we take for granted. And I’m often interested– I ask audiences sometimes,
oh, are you comfortable if the first colony on
Mars is by a company? You say SpaceX,
people like Elon Musk, and they’re like, yeah, great. But then you say, well,
what if it’s Lockheed Martin or a Chinese company? People aren’t necessarily
comfortable with it being a company. Should it be an
individual country? Should it be a
collective of countries? It does look like these
sorts of not necessarily settlement of Mars but
long-term engagement with Mars is going to happen. And one of the
things that I think that we need to ask ourselves,
and that I want everybody to think about, is who
we want to be doing that. Who pays for it? And who is the vanguard
for our civilization as we go to the Red Planet? Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

86 thoughts on “How to Cope With Living on Mars

  • GRATE MUSIC Post author

    This guy sure knows a lot about #Mars and no one has ever been there or anywhere in #deepspace 😳

  • Brian Tweed Post author

    1st here. It's a miracle.

  • User Droid Post author

    Why the rainbow theme on the RI logo

  • Indigo Child Post author

    Lol really? You've been that and that's how your so knowledgeable? How to live in Mars lmao.

  • Laura Harris Post author

    The human body is not designed- it is adapted.

  • pcuimac Post author

    "Colonization of Mars" Biggest hype without any beef on the bones. Mars is worse and deadlier than every place on Earth. We need robots in space, not humans who die nearly instantly when something goes wrong.

  • Neuro Weaver Post author

    This man needs to be sent to Mars. His overinflated opinion of himself can no longer fit in this planet…

  • mitzvos Golem Post author

    no species has been able to reproduce in space or low zero gravity so far…
    This is silly

  • Ti-Ra- Ti Post author

    Thank you for such an informative message. I received so many important messages from this. Because let’s face it. It’s not just about going to Mars. This is life in a nutshell. Plus if your on the path of ascension then this really resonates

  • Sandcastle • Post author

    I think coping with getting to Mars is going to be harder than coping with living on Mars.

  • Patrick Flé Post author

    46:59 "…a lot of white men…" so what? Sorry, from 43:05 on it's hardly bearable gibberish out of the 3sigma sciences

  • Sergusy Post author

    If you want to send someone to Mars choose me. I would go if I could have gotten an opportunity.

  • Tordogor ACG Post author

    Not colonizing ANY planet is a good way to cope..
    Build large orbital habitats elsewhere in the Solar System and then move farther through the Kuiper Belt to the Oort Cloud.
    Go to the Centauri Oort and inwards. Repeat as many times as neccessary.
    Getting trapped to another deep gravity well, be subjected to the uncontrolable vagaries of geology and meteorology … again!?
    It is like to leave a cavern to move to another; when you can built a nice cottage in the surface.
    Pure Planetary Chauvinism …

  • tim hem Post author

    erm, he has no data to know long term effects of low gravity, but he confidently tells us your legs would shatter if you came back after 10 yrs on Mars

  • Paul C Johnson Post author

    Living on Mars one has to take EVERYTHING with you on the trip there; not possible.

  • Pat Pezzi Post author

    16:32 very bad example there. The Mars One project has gone bankrupt.

  • Nicholas Post author

    Came for the comments, left after the advertisements.

  • TardWrangler Post author

    How about we cope with living on Earth without insane psychopathic oligarchs trying to destroy the fabric of our civilization before we contemplate Mars.

  • Tonton des Bois Post author

    You should think about to cope with living fairly on earth before…

  • Michael Bayerl Post author

    Your quote about teamwork at 17:00 is much more dramatically captured in this pre-game speech by American football coaching legend Bo Schembechler. https://youtu.be/qjv2iDxiGBI

  • Michael Hood Post author

    there's a military base there Now ask them

  • Carlo A Post author

    Go on a suicide mission to Mars? No thanks, i'd rather go swimming in the Ganges River.

  • PuppetXeno Post author

    Poor science and too many assumptions. Significance? Define the meaning of significance. Ask a buddhist while you're at it. Good luck & keep dreaming

  • Thomas Gassett Post author

    Why would we want to live on Mars? The cosmic radiation would shred your DNA. All you could do is live underground … which we could do here or on the moon. Living on Mars is science fiction, and a really stupid idea.

  • Gareth Booth Post author

    At 47 mins, "It's a lot of white men." Charming.

  • Seppo Ilmarinen Post author

    Those first twenty minutes were basically the Royal Institution gone "lads lads lads", it was hard to watch…

  • nice2care Post author

    2:48 No penguins in Antarctica??

  • Daryl Bartlett Post author

    this make me not open the internet

  • Charles Gourin Post author

    When are we going to drop that stupid idea of Mars colonisation. Mars is all the problems of space plus all the problems of being on the wrong planet. Colonisation of space in rotating habitats makes so much more sense. Those who dream of living there should start by living 10 years in a small trailer on the site of a nuclear disaster in the cold desert of Gobie, it will be paradise compared to Mars. If a colonisation mission like this was ever put together the next generation would dream of only one thing, walking on beach eating an orange.

  • John Burr Post author

    All of those psychological risks are only drastic for people with certain personalities. They happen to be in the majority here on Earth, but there are still many of us who don't have problems with those things.

  • Andrew Palfreyman Post author

    This is BS. This august forum is for the likes of Faraday, not blokes peddling books about self-worth.

  • John Burr Post author

    Also, we only know about the physical affects of 1G and 0G on the body. We don't know anything about in between those. There is a likelihood that Mars gravity is plenty strong enough for human health.

  • Jasmine Luxemburg Post author

    So unconvincing, so boring ! His egotism is out of control !

  • John Burr Post author

    Why can't the colonists form their own government? Why does it have to be governed by any earthly entity?

  • Dimitar Mazulov Post author

    Honestly if i can speak from a perspective of another country well for me it does not really matter who owns the materials that are mined.The thing is if someone leaves he who leaves should not forget the people that cant leave…And i think with the children that now are into our timeline are actually more of a working together as one…and the thing is people that are from two different places are ok with eachother and seeing how evolution works and all the languages that are bombarded and the barriers falling it should be ok to know that people would be fine and cooperating aslong as there is no secret thing that is going on behind the scenes in order to bring humanity back to the ground again.Also we cannot speak about space law as we currently dont know if we are alone as species and the thing is if there are other species we need to find a way to communicate with other races… like the point being if we come across something we cannot understand… it would be really hard to come to an agreement… like you can speak with a person and get things that you agree and you dont but you cannot speak with a being that is not aware of the speaking as a way of transfering information and agreements… Like it might not be aware of that like the agree part.. because i might be like local wild life here on earth some sort of creature that just goes with its instincts not like a space ship creating being but like a tiger but on a different planet… so defences should be a priority aswell…and honestly what works as a weapon in space condition? we actually dont even have a thing that can do that… like a laser rifle but where is the laser rifle?Like its hard to make a weapon that can sustain plasma and release it at any time…also i think that if we come across some wierd alien wildlife it would be nice to not eraducate it straight away because there might be more…That is what i can say with the information that is commercially open.

  • R D Post author

    This channel is going to the dogs.

  • never mind Post author

    Coping with living on Mars is easy. Dress warm and hold your breath. Forever.

  • MariusVan Post author

    This is such a poor presentation. I have so many questions…

    Who are these people? Why are they so (self-)important? Especially the last presenter, Jill Stewart, with all the "I don't like it", "I don't agree", "I think it should be like this", etc… sorry, but WTF are you, and why should anyone care about your opinion? You don't think space should be anarchic? Ok, so? Maybe I think it should be, and you've presented no information to sway me, what now? Just present the issues, discuss them, let people make up their own minds about it. All the writing mistakes on the slides, and going out of her way, for no reason at all, to mention the "oh, it's a lot of white men <snicker>" bit left a very bad impression. Yes, this was the 1960s, the highest levels of diplomatic leadership of USSR and USA. All white men. They're also all old, and wearing suits. So? They're also all displaying various stages of hair loss, are full-haired people being oppressed? Do you disagree with their decision? Do you not like their conclusions? Their methods? Their rationale? I have eyes to see the picture for myself, and enough historical knowledge to deduce that they're probably all white men, you don't need to tell me. Oh, I see, all those evil privileged selfish toxic white men were exploiting th…. oh wait, they did a good thing? Hmm… So why even bring it up at all, only to not follow through? Leave your social justice nonsense at home.

    And the other two were just selling their books. Shameful. I hope they at least paid the RI lots of money to have a platform to push their books and agenda.

    Faraday must be spinning in his grave.

  • 007atermis Post author

    Oh boy another bunch of Elon Musk admirers….roll eyes…… How many more snakeoil salespeople is RI going to give voice too…..oh wait as many as needed when they give generously …..

  • Count Dracula Post author

    57:45 if you bring enough mass back to earth the orbital distance to the sun will decrease, although it may take a very long time until that starts to happen.

  • zapfanzapfan Post author

    Skip to 21:02 Thank me later…

  • bennybat15gaming Post author

    How about you sort a working microphone out before we go to Mars?

  • Paal K. Post author

    "Human laws about outter space" ?? – Well, good luck in promoting such an arogant idea! 😀 … Don't expect the space to give a big damn about that though.

  • David s Post author

    Alot of white people there. All three presenters are white. Some white men in the audience. White men in a picture too.

  • V. B. Post author

    not good

  • Open Mind Post author

    I think people who loves to live alone & introverts should be the choice .You don't want an Extrovert ,travel loving guy to live rest of his lives in Mar's bunkers .Let face the reality We Extreme Introverts are the future of Space Exploration

  • Simon Nicol Post author

    I think the laws should be changed. I think for any country or any company that landa a single rocket on Mars, they should be entitled to claim the land within a 100 mile radius. This would create a new land rush which would vastly increase the amount of research and development of rockets and development for space exploration. This is what the world needs

  • Kwai Chang Caine Post author

    Why is the first person unable to pronounce "Antarctica" correctly since it's a word that is pronounced exactly as it's spelt which is not always the case in English?

  • Datawind Post author

    She reminds me of the actress, Ingrid Bergman !!

  • 007atermis Post author

    Sending people to Mars is logistically impossible. There is no way you can build a complex to support human life and keep it fully maintained at 100%. Remember the Eden project? If science cant maintain a stable environment on Earth what makes people think you can do it on Mars. Help is 34 million miles away and if an emergency arises help will be only be 300 days away at a minimum providing the rockets dont blow up on launch.

  • Andreas Wagner Post author

    27:00 ff: Every state leader should undergo such an experience…..

  • neddy laddy Post author

    Cope with living on Mars.A fantastic skill to attain.

  • Zu_alt_fuer Post author

    is it already time to unsubscribe this channel? i do think so…

  • monsDK Post author

    its just empty talk. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • Peter Cichy Post author

    What that Ri rainbow suppose to mean?

  • the deeliciousplum Post author

    A huge thank you to The Royal Institute for hosting Iya Whiteley and Jill Stuart. Iva and Jill added so much to my passion for exploring. 🌻

  • To Err is Huma Post author

    "There were a lot of white men"….so woke you're racist. DOWNVOTE for the racists.

  • D Nickaroo Post author

    There will be no trip to Mars. Climate disruption is occurring much faster than expected — we meed to be more concerned about Earth rather than mars (all supplies would have to be taken there). Why waste so much money when damage from the last Hurricanes has not been repaired.

  • deltahfman Post author

    lol functioning on Mars – Not even been to the moon yet – stop pushing the agenda

  • WestOfEarth Post author

    Loathe to watch this vid. In our ascendency, the human species clearly adapted and evolved roles for individuals of the 'tribe'. What we call night owls are the night watch guarding the tribe while others slept. The eccentrics of today were the shamans. And then you have the explorers of the tribe – those that go out to find new sources of food or water. From an evolutionary standpoint, having the entire tribe venture forth would be genetically risky. But sending out a few of what we today call introverts, fearless, keen on exploration, comfortable with solitude, preserves the tribal genetics should the lone 'introvert' perish. While also preserving the tribal genetics if the 'introvert' was successful in finding new resources. I'm a firm believer that our current catalog of psychological traits had an evolutionary purpose, many of which may be suppressed today due to our modern lifestyles.

  • Jovan Janevski Post author

    I'd like to plant potatoes on Mars, to keep me company. In perfect harmony and what not…

  • Set Yeva Post author

    I stopped watching after 5 mins of the "look at me pub bore", a quick scan of the comments section confirmed my suspicion, "no science here", I'm out. Thank you @MartiusVan and others for the confirmation, saved an hour of my life. Shameful indeed!

    PS: I feel sorry for that audience.

  • Glenn Edward Pace Post author

    Why does she have two mics?

  • David Ogawa Post author

    38:40 book title: "Toolkit For A Space Psychologist"

  • Lakario Davis Post author

    From hearing most of the astronauts talk about things. It seems to me that Nasa choosed to keep them a little dumbed down. Some of them don't even believe we should even be focused on space. I've even seen some talk about seeing things alive out there or alien craft. I'm trying to refrain from saying they weren't very educated. but they were definitely on a need to know basis only. and not told or taught much of anything that didn't relate to the mission. And even in their old age they don't seem to have tried to seek more either.

  • Feiner Fug Post author

    All that self-advertising talk belongs into a pub.
    This is defiling the royal institution. For shame.

  • Mike Avenoso Post author

    Look to the submarine force to see how to live under stress and isolation. We've been there and done that.

  • SpaceManAust Post author

    I don't think I will go to mars not after what this man said about mars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP9CLEOnBb8&t=102s

  • Ironside Post author

    Please help to maintain the standards which we have come to expect from the Royal Institute, please do not include shameless and inarticulate self-promotion at the beginning of an otherwise informative and interesting lecture

  • For School Post author

    Let's take care of our own planet first. We have such amazing life and places to explore here. F you and going to mars! ridiculous!

  • Keith Callen Post author

    No birds in Antarctica? Seriously!?

  • Joe Turner Post author

    Feck that. I have a hard enough time living on Earth.

  • Katie Kat Post author

    These talks should not have been given at The Royal Institute. There was absolutely no science in them. They were mostly boring. The last talk was the worst of all of them. I feel so bad for the people who actually paid to be there and had to sit through such talks that were completely irrelevant to them. Very disappointed.

  • Katie Kat Post author

    Don’t penguins count as life?

  • nufuture Post author

    May all the misusers of earth go to mars, and allow the lovers of earth to do what’s necessary to bring her back into balance. I welcome that.

  • spot Post author

    So this is the RI going Brexit.

  • antonio volpe Post author

    Mars proponents are idiots

  • duncansargent Post author

    What happened last week then?

  • Asdayasman Post author

    >How to cope with living
    Finally
    >on Mars
    dang

  • MG1 Post author

    1- they told us you can not see stars on the moon. this clip show you can.
    2- it is easier for American to claim to have been to Paris, if Paris is in Texas. It will be extension of their home. MG1

  • Lily Jade Post author

    If i get bored working on Mars, how do I get off planet?

  • Mitzos SirReal Post author

    climate change gets all the headlines because its fuckin important and could wipe all life from this earth. obviously AI is not important when compared to end of all life, dont u think? kind of a stupid thing to say imo. but maybe i am just a dumbass

  • Stephan Brun Post author

    When you're on Mars, Earth is a long way away. You have to make or keep your own law. Also, what does she care that the people on the photo are white men?

  • Steve Matthews Post author

    The first guy ends around 20:50 , the worst 20 minutes I've ever heard at RI . That was embarrassing.

  • Naram Sin Post author

    I stopped watching as soon as he said that he was a personal coach.

  • Guy Graham Post author

    Did they really go to the moon ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *