Settling the planet Mars , what is the best way to go about this ? Should we build thousands of giant domes , live in lava-tubes , or terraform this heavenly body ?

I hereby suggest that the best and only workable paradigm for achieving this is that of paraterraforming ; particularly subterranean living .

The qualifier here is that these abodes can be constructed not only in lava-tubes, but in the many other types of caves which are present within the crusts of planets which have been subjected to powerful and long-term hydrological and volcanic actions .

Examples of the above include sea-caves, Karst-caves , ice-caves , and even giant-overhangs . These natural formations could , and doubtless would , be augmented and eventually supplanted by man-made constructions .

Given that Mars's crust is frozen to great depth , it is likely that there would be no difficulties arising from the pressures generated by underground water-tables . This means that more area would be available for habitation on Mars than is available on all the continents of Earth .

The resources necessary to enable the survival of humans on Mars do exist there already , but will require technology and hard work to extract for use .

Water , minerals/metals , and even energy will all need to be mined , transported , processed and stored using specialized systems and technologies custom-made to function in the harsh environment of the Red Planet .

*Ever advancing technology is likely to make the above achievable before too long , but the preparedness of mankind is quite another question .

11 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

Settling the planet Mars , what is the best way to go about this ? Should we build thousands of giant domes , live in lava-tubes , or terraform this heavenly body ?

I hereby suggest that the best and only workable paradigm for achieving this is that of paraterraforming ; particularly subterranean living .

The qualifier here is that these abodes can be constructed not only in lava-tubes, but in the many other types of caves which are present within the crusts of planets which have been subjected to powerful and long-term hydrological and volcanic actions .

Examples of the above include sea-caves, Karst-caves , ice-caves , and even giant-overhangs . These natural formations could , and doubtless would , be augmented and eventually supplanted by man-made constructions .

Given that Mars's crust is frozen to great depth , it is likely that there would be no difficulties arising from the pressures generated by underground water-tables . This means that more area would be available for habitation on Mars than is available on all the continents of Earth .

The resources necessary to enable the survival of humans on Mars do exist there already , but will require technology and hard work to extract for use .

Water , minerals/metals , and even energy will all need to be mined , transported , processed and stored using specialized systems and technologies custom-made to function in the harsh environment of the Red Planet .

*Ever advancing technology is likely to make the above achievable before too long , but the preparedness of mankind is quite another question .

What would be the point of settling Mars, in your opinion?

58 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

I hereby suggest that the best and only workable paradigm for achieving this is that of paraterraforming ; particularly subterranean living .

We haven’t demonstrated the ability to do that on earth. What’s the reasoning for thinking it would work on Mars?

Mr.Exchemist&Mr.Swanson , we do already have the technology for deep excavation and pressurization . Both the ancient city of Derinkyu and the Greenland A.F. Base "Camp Century" are examples of this , along with a multitude of deep mining-caverns and of course deep-fracking .

True , it would not be cost-effective to mine anything on Mars and transport it back to Earth . However , space-tourism , space-produced art , music , ballet , and sports performances would be unique , and resultingly priceless . Added to this would be low-gravity medical treatment and recovery , along with the inevitable alternative-living and retirement communities , and you have a surprisingly robust economic base for a Martian society.

2 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Mr.Exchemist&Mr.Swanson , we do already have the technology for deep excavation and pressurization . Both the ancient city of Derinkyu and the Greenland A.F. Base "Camp Century" are examples of this , along with a multitude of deep mining-caverns and of course deep-fracking .

I wasn’t aware that people lived for extended times in fracking holes, or even the Greenland AFB, hermetically isolated and completely self-sufficient. (does an ancient city count in any way as a paraterraforming effort?)

We tried one of these years ago - Biosphere II - and it was a failure.

You’re ignoring the hurdles this presents. You can’t talk about space tourism, etc. until the technical problems are solved.

Good points Mr. Swanson , however... I was speaking of the near-future , and presuming that space technology continued to advance at it's current pace .

BTW - The "fracking" example is addressing the capability to pressurize underground spaces , although subterranean caves would be easy by comparison .

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Professor-M

13 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Mr.Exchemist&Mr.Swanson , we do already have the technology for deep excavation and pressurization . Both the ancient city of Derinkyu and the Greenland A.F. Base "Camp Century" are examples of this , along with a multitude of deep mining-caverns and of course deep-fracking .

True , it would not be cost-effective to mine anything on Mars and transport it back to Earth . However , space-tourism , space-produced art , music , ballet , and sports performances would be unique , and resultingly priceless . Added to this would be low-gravity medical treatment and recovery , along with the inevitable alternative-living and retirement communities , and you have a surprisingly robust economic base for a Martian society.

I am very sceptical that the demand for space tourism or these completely undeveloped ideas like space art, music, ballet and sport (!?) would justify such a massive engineering exercise.

What would be this low gravity medical treatment you have in mind? So-called microgravity, in Earth orbit, has some applications but that is because one is in free-fall, equivalent to zero-g. Mars has ~40% of Earth gravity. What medical procedures would benefit from that?

Mr. Exchemist , although we have yet to experiment with low-gravity medicine , logic and theorization indicate that many surgical procedures and orthopedic treatment regimens would enjoy reduced strain and potential for tissue damage if the patient were operated upon in 38% gravity , then pursued their recovery in it also . This would be especially helpful for elderly , sickly , and obese persons . Some individuals might even be incapable of returning to full gravity afterwards , and thus would become members of the alternative-living community .

The tourism , sports , and art elements are self-explanatory , as they are huge money-makers even here on Earth . In the end , it's simply a matter of ROI ; if the up-front investment is small enough , then investors will leap tall buildings to grab that profit !

**At present ? OBSCENE ! 🤯

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Professor-M

9 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

Mr. Exchemist , although we have yet to experiment with low-gravity medicine , logic and theorization indicate that many surgical procedures and orthopedic treatment regimens would enjoy reduced strain and potential for tissue damage if the patient were operated upon in 38% gravity , then pursued their recovery in it also . This would be especially helpful for elderly , sickly , and obese persons . Some individuals might even be incapable of returning to full gravity afterwards , and thus would become members of the alternative-living community .

The tourism , sports , and art elements are self-explanatory , as they are huge money-makers even here on Earth . In the end , it's simply a matter of ROI ; if the up-front investment is small enough , then investors will leap tall buildings to grab that profit !

The point, in this case, is that the up-front investment is gigantic.

As SpaceX failures shows we don't even have the ability to get any significant equipment that far. It is not trivial.

12 hours ago, Professor-M said:

The tourism , sports , and art elements are self-explanatory , as they are huge money-makers even here on Earth . In the end , it's simply a matter of ROI ; if the up-front investment is small enough , then investors will leap tall buildings to grab that profit !

These can, and should, be quantified, because otherwise this is just trying to sell us a monorail.

13 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Good points Mr. Swanson , however... I was speaking of the near-future , and presuming that space technology continued to advance at it's current pace .

BTW - The "fracking" example is addressing the capability to pressurize underground spaces , although subterranean caves would be easy by comparison .

Fracking is pressurizing with liquids, which is a different proposition. Especially considering that you are doing the opposite of trying to make a sealed environment.

On 7/21/2025 at 11:29 PM, Professor-M said:

logic and theorization indicate that many surgical procedures and orthopedic treatment regimens would enjoy reduced strain and potential for tissue damage if the patient were operated upon in 38% gravity , then pursued their recovery in it also

Isn't it the other way around? Taking away the resistance of being active in gravity leads to worse health and recovery outcomes. You would want to be in very good health to attempt a trip to Mars - and you will arrive in poorer health after that trip.

Not sure of it, could be wrong, but I thought the less stressful/easier on the body/aging more slowly meme was something Robert Heinlein came up with in his "Man Who Sold the Moon" story and it got taken up by other space optimist SF writers - the 'whatever it takes' space mogul determined to reach the moon started claiming people would live longer in low moon gravity to help promote his space program - an appeal to older rich people who had money to invest - not because it was true but because no-one knew what prolonged low gravity would do so he could say it because it might be true.

But the whole Mars colony thing is science fiction - fiction being the important word. (But it might be true).

It seems to appeal to a primitive human urge to seek out new, resource rich lands in times of stress and trouble... and conquer them. A rerun of European colonisation. And perhaps you too can become a Founding Father. Except Mars isn't resource rich, it is the antithesis of resource rich, a global wasteland. Earth is littered with the remnants of failed dreams in the barren places - and none of those were anywhere near as harsh and as barren as Mars.

We don't even know if the great many essential mineral ore deposits an advanced industrial economy (the barest minimum for survival) even exist on Mars, let alone economically viable and accessible to any colony site.

There are worthwhile things to do in space and some are very ambitious - the capability to divert big asteroids or comets on collision course would be good. Much better to save Earth for everyone like that than build a bolt hole on Mars for a few and letting Earth die.

Edited July 22Jul 22 by Ken Fabian

On 7/21/2025 at 2:29 PM, Professor-M said:

Mr. Exchemist , although we have yet to experiment with low-gravity medicine , logic and theorization indicate that many surgical procedures and orthopedic treatment regimens would enjoy reduced strain and potential for tissue damage if the patient were operated upon in 38% gravity , then pursued their recovery in it also . This would be especially helpful for elderly , sickly , and obese persons . Some individuals might even be incapable of returning to full gravity afterwards , and thus would become members of the alternative-living community .

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Isn't it the other way around? Taking away the resistance of being active in gravity leads to worse health and recovery outcomes. You would want to be in very good health to attempt a trip to Mars - and you will arrive in poorer health after that trip.

First Where did the figure of 38% come from ?

You need to provide references for this.

Second I agree with the point that if you were unwell enough to need the surgery, how would you fare in the ascent from Earth in the first place ?

However Both NASA and my local sports medicine clinic disagree with Ken's bald statement about worse outcomes.

Do you have evidence for this Ken ?

I don't wish to advertise but my only reference for this comes from their information so I have clipped it.

I have never needed this treatment, but their other NASA piece of kit (photobiomodulation) certainly helped with my osteo arthritis condition.

59 minutes ago, studiot said:

First Where did the figure of 38% come from ?

You need to provide references for this.

Second I agree with the point that if you were unwell enough to need the surgery, how would you fare in the ascent from Earth in the first place ?

However Both NASA and my local sports medicine clinic disagree with Ken's bald statement about worse outcomes.

Do you have evidence for this Ken ?

I don't wish to advertise but my only reference for this comes from their information so I have clipped it.

I have never needed this treatment, but their other NASA piece of kit (photobiomodulation) certainly helped with my osteo arthritis condition.

38% is correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Mars

As a kid i used to think that we can take a plant and supply it all essential things like CO2,H2O etc in a chamber which is sealed but have a outlet which filters oxygen out with any water vapour which will fill atmosphere with O2 slowly if it is done on large scale.In addition i thought that we can use CO2 present in atmosphere of Mars to reduce it.

Hahahaha.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by Dhillon1724X

@studiot The 38% figure isn't mine but seems correct for Mars gravity vs Earth.

Better recovery outcomes with gravity? I admit where that came from was subjective and anecdotal rather than researched and referenced - based on my experiences and those of people I know. The sooner you can be back on your feet and are active the better the recovery seems to be the more usual post op medical advice. Where it is not (or too early) there will usually be some options, like specialised beds, use of pools for exercise or other kinds of supporting devices - including that amusingly named 'anti-gravity' treadmill that looks like it suspends you by your waist to take weight off the legs, trip to space not needed.

But, yes I grant there may well prove to be advantages to some kinds of medical care in low gravity in some cases, if that were an available option ie been tried and tested. And the travel to space is less like an extended extreme amusement park ride, ie not traumatic. And not hugely expensive.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by Ken Fabian

I note the self styled professor has been active since my post by hasn't deigned to answer my question directed at him about the 38% since he was the member who introduced that specific figure into a general statement about the effect of gravity on medicine. (Which I quoted).

Thanks to those who pointed out that this is the gravity of Mars.

My second point seems to have engendered knee jerk reactions to my second point, rather than discussing the only actual evidence we have about the effect of gravity on recovery outcomes.

@studiot Not knee jerk - my initial comment may have been (off the top of my head and not researched) but after some looking I'm not convinced it has been shown to be wrong. Mars gravity is a lot less than Earth but isn't zero/microgravity; there is no actual experience to go by for that, even with mice, rats or other animal models. Even floating in water or suspending someone by a harness to take weight off legs does not fully mimic low gravity, which will have other effects, including on internal organs and blood (and lymph?) circulation. I note that just maintaining bone health in zero gravity requires serious persistence at resistance exercise. Without a spinning orbital habitat to mimic Mars (or moon or other) gravity the effects of partial gravity the medical outcomes remain speculative without going there.

Not the same as Mars gravity but in zero gravity some mice were tortured surgically given broken bones to see how they heal - and had worse outcomes than on Earth (even before the 'euthanasia' bit). The Effects of Spaceflight and Fracture Healing

Another source (the source paper "Fibular fracture healing in a chronically unloaded condition is impaired when compared to the healing response in a weight weight-bearing condition") has a broken link (something becoming more common for US science sites) but I came across this quote from it, (possibly derived from the same experiments in orbit?) -

Fibular fracture healing in a chronically unloaded condition is impaired when compared to the healing response in a weight weight-bearing condition.

Not Mars gravity but given the vast array of medical problems humans are susceptible to (besides bone breaks - of particular interest in space, because of bone deterioration) it seems very possible, even likely that some may get benefits exceeding the harms - but I think it is getting ahead of ourselves to claim it as fact.

Edited July 25Jul 25 by Ken Fabian

Does the discussion of health benefits of low or zero g include the effect of vibrations and pulling 3 or 4 g’s during launch to get there?

I found this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

On 7/20/2025 at 9:26 PM, Professor-M said:

Settling the planet Mars , what is the best way to go about this ? Should we build thousands of giant domes , live in lava-tubes , or terraform this heavenly body ?

Why "or"? It must be "and"

Did we choose what kind of car we must produce: only gasoline, only diesel, only electric, etc.?

On 7/20/2025 at 9:26 PM, Professor-M said:

The resources necessary to enable the survival of humans on Mars do exist there already , but will require technology and hard work to extract for use .

Therefore, we should to use androids, thousands of androids. With AI, and robots operated by humans, on the place. Self-replicating (would be prefered) androids, which can make all works we do on Earth: mining, producing, construction. Android do not need the shield from radiation and they do not breath. All of them (androids and operators) will build the cities for future settlers. While androids and robot operators will build the cities, the settlers will come and come, and they will participate in other various jobs. If something will happen wrong on first steps, we could leave all androids on Mars and evacuate only humans, while there are not big number of last, yet.

How about an idea to use mega transformers 🙂- specially made spaceships - which will do hardest works on Mars? Firstly it easy to transform spaceship to tunnel boring machine, to digger under Mars's surface.Because both of them are form of cylinder.

Benefits of low or g is for problems with skeleton, especially with spine and legs. Especially for old people. Also if you wish to grow (increase your height and weight), you should live on the Mars or Moon from few months to few years.

If anybody asks for benefits to settle the Mars, we have similar questions on the Earth:

• why people live on the small islands in in the compact group. in the ocean, far from the mainland?

• what benefits to live in the desert or polar regions for the people who live there?

While there are many perfect places to live with comfort and have job and all necessary.

Edited August 1Aug 1 by kba

To settle on mars first we need Spaceships capable to reach there in short time.
We will need budget friendly ways to do this.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

To settle on mars first we need Spaceships capable to reach there in short time.
We will need budget friendly ways to do this.

I agree that such spaceships would be desireable.

But I also remember that depends on two things.

Firstly 'settlers' implies they do not intend to come back.

This was the case with many migrations and settling in the past, to the Americas, Australia and Africa.

Further these settlers endured voyages of sometimes several years.

I would also suspect that the payloads of those early ships were comparable to what we could send to Mars, before trying to settle.

Incidnetally have you seen the film The Martian ?

6 hours ago, kba said:

Therefore, we should to use androids, thousands of androids. With AI, and robots operated by humans, on the place. Self-replicating (would be prefered) androids, which can make all works we do on Earth: mining, producing, construction.

Which we aren’t close to having even on the friendly environment of earth.

6 hours ago, kba said:

Android do not need the shield from radiation and they do not breath.

Radiation is very much a problem for certain electronics

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Incidnetally have you seen the film The Martian ?

No,I dont watch movies that much.

If humans are still evolving and can adapt,
then maybe humans born on mars will have some changes.
Maybe their next generations will be real Martians.


Is there any chance that any species on Earth can be sent to mars and its oxygen is maintained normal-then decreases a little-then little more and at last to level of mars.
Will it adapt or its next generations will adapt to that reduction if its done very slowly.