Hey everyone, the excitement surrounding
the Aremis 2 mission has finally begun
to dissipate a little bit, but there's
still a lot to talk about in terms of
the future goals of the Aremis program.
What's coming next and what are the
long-term intentions? Let's talk a
little bit about what we might be seeing
over the coming decades. The Aremis
program officially began in 2017 and the
name comes from the Greek goddess who is
the sister of Apollo, thus spiritually
linking the Aremis program to the
legendary Apollo program of the 60s and
70s. There were 17 Apollo missions in
total, so Artemis has a long way to go
in order to match the achievements of
her little brother, but the plans are
already spectacular as they stand. For
those who are unaware, the initial
stated goal of the program was to return
humans to the moon. Artemis 1 was an
uncrrewed moon orbiting mission. This
was to test the new Orion spacecraft and
space launch system rocket to make sure
everything was ready for astronauts.
Artemis 2, which we just observed, sent
four astronauts on a lunar flyby. This
was the first time humans had been to
deep space since the Apollo missions. It
was also the farthest humans have ever
been from Earth, just edging out the
previous record from Apollo 13. They
also conducted the first ever
space-to-pace call, chatting with
astronauts on the International Space
Station, and they performed a number of
interesting experiments. The Avatar
experiment placed stem cells from the
four astronauts on chips to gather
information about the effects of
radiation and microgravity on biological
tissue and testing of optical
communications was performed. Overall,
the mission was a great success that
reignited enthusiasm for space travel in
the general public. In case you've been
living under a rock, let's enjoy a
montage of some of the incredible
footage and images that the Aremis 2
mission gave us. Set to one of my own
songs specifically inspired by the
future of space travel called The
Emergence.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
So, what's next? As we said, the goal is
to put people back on the lunar surface,
which will require a lunar lander. This
will be either SpaceX's Starship HLS or
Blue Origins Blue Moon. So, Artemis 3
planned for mid 2027 will involve
testing one or both of these in Earth
orbit. Rendevous and docking operations
will occur as well as tests regarding
propulsion, life support, communications
systems of the landers, and new space
suits that will be used on the lunar
surface. In this way, Artemis 2 and
three resemble Apollo missions 8 and 9,
respectively, given the parallel mission
goals. If everything goes smoothly,
Artemis 4 is planned to launch in early
2028, carrying astronauts to the lunar
surface once again. The space launch
system will send an Orion spacecraft
into orbit just like it did for Artemis
2, while a human landing system lunar
lander will have to be sent up privately
for rendevous with Orion. And the
precise lander will depend on the
results of Artemis 3. While the Apollo
missions typically had astronauts on the
lunar surface for only a day or two or a
record- setting 75 hours in the case of
Apollo 17, Artemis 4 astronauts are
expected to spend about a week on the
moon, specifically at the unexplored
South Pole region. And finally, Artemis
5 is planned for late 2028 and will
begin the process of building a
permanent lunar base that will ideally
serve as a prototype for an eventual
Martian base. As always, this timeline
is subject to revision, as was the case
with the first two missions, especially
given the uncertain status of NASA's
funding in this and subsequent
administrations. But these are the plans
as they stand at this current time. This
leads us to a tantalizing possibility
that so many of us have pondered our
whole lives. What would it be like to
live on another celestial body? We've
seen it in countless movies and TV
shows. colonies on the moon, on Mars, on
other planets and moons in the solar
system, and even other star systems
altogether. But now we are very
seriously planning to take this step as
a species. What will these bases look
like? Who will live there? And what will
they do? And perhaps most importantly,
what are the biological concerns
regarding living off of Earth? We are
the products of hundreds of millions of
years of evolution that occurred on
Earth under a specific set of
environmental inputs. What challenges
will our bodies face on other worlds?
How do we address key challenges
regarding radiation, reduced gravity,
extreme environments, and psychological
stressors? How will children born on
other worlds be fundamentally different
from the rest of us? Will we evolve? If
so, how and how fast? Believe it or not,
there are plenty of academics who spend
a lot of time thinking about these
questions. One such academic is Dr.
Scott Solomon, professor of biosciences
at Rice University. Yes, the same Rice
University where this happened.
>> Mr. Fina,
>> don't worry. They're not all like James
Tour over there. Scott has a doctorate
in ecology, evolution, and behavior, and
his expertise regarding biological
diversity has allowed him to investigate
this very research question. What will
happen to humans that are in space for a
long time? In fact, this is the subject
of his new book, Becoming Martian: How
Living in Space Will Change Bodies and
Minds. This question is just as crucial
as all the engineering endeavors that
allow us to build the equipment to take
us to these places since we have to
function in proper health in order for
these colonies to be successful. So, it
deserves significant discussion as well.
There are a lot more factors in play
than you might think and I had a chat
with Scott to discuss some of them. So,
let's talk to Scott now. Scott, thanks
so much for joining us. Uh we're going
to talk a lot here about moon bases and
Mars bases and all kinds of uh amazing
things, but let's just start with what
we know. So we know that people have
been up to the ISS and uh are have been
dealing with freef fall for long
durations uh which is why they have
equipment on board and things like that.
People have also been to the moon which
is 16th the earth's gravity but not for
long enough to get significant
biomedical data. So let's talk a bit
what do we have a sense of what would
happen if humans were subjected to
partial gravity on the lunar surface for
long periods of time.
>> Yeah, you've brought up some really
important points. Uh we don't know
about6th gravity for much time at all,
right? 3 days is like the max that
anybody spent there
>> or even one day, right? Or I thought it
was like less.
>> Yeah. Yeah. the I think the most the
longest or some of the Apollo missions
was about 3 days but um and and NASA
chose not to actually collect much
biomedical data even on those that did
go. So what was happening to them during
those you know 1 to 3 days? Um we have
some idea like they were okay generally
speaking there there was one cardiac uh
incident that we know about uh but not
anything life-threatening. Um so the
short answer is like we don't actually
know much. we can try to extrapolate,
right? So, we can sort of make some
educated guesses about how much does our
knowledge of being weightless, you know,
quote unquote zero g
>> give us insight into what it would be
like to be in a lower gravity
environment for a long amount of time.
>> But maybe being in at least some gravity
is enough, right? That's a possibility.
Maybe our muscles and our bones don't
weaken as much in 16thg
um as they do in in zero g or maybe they
don't at all. Uh the short answer is we
don't know.
>> Yeah, because on the ISS they have like
those kind of treadmills and things like
that. H how frequently do they have to
do that kind of stuff? Maybe we would
have to do that just a lot less or they
would have to do some kind of special
lunar exercises or something. I don't
know.
>> That's right. Yeah, they I mean on ISS
they exercise two hours a day every
single day. They get wow that's more
than I thought. No days off. Yeah, it's
a lot. And it's it treadmill is part of
it. It's also resistance exercise. So
not weightlifting of course because
weight has no no meaning but uh like
resistance bands that kind of thing. So
they keep their their muscles from uh
getting too weak and then because bone
responds to muscle that helps to
minimize the bone density loss but it
doesn't eliminate it.
>> Right.
Okay. So so that's one issue. Uh another
issue is radiation. Right. Because here
on Earth, we have this wonderful uh
magnetic field. The moon doesn't have a
magnetic field, so they're subjected to
a lot more radiation exposure. So, I
guess just being there for a day or two,
maybe it wasn't such an enormous
concern. But if we're going to be there
long term, ideally, we're going to build
some kind of base and shield ourselves.
But, you know, while we're building
that, what do we do? Are we going to
live underground? What what what's going
to happen? And if underground, what are
the psychological ramifications of that?
Let's talk about that. Yeah, there's a
lot there. So, as you said, there's no
magnetic field on the moon. It's far
enough from Earth that it's outside of
the protection of Earth's magnetic
field, which is not the case for the
International Space Station. I think
it's worth, you know, pointing that out.
People sometimes don't realize that the
ISS is close enough to Earth that it's
getting shielded from a lot of that deep
space radiation, um, you know, that
that, uh, you know, you do experience
and the Artemis 2 astronauts have
experienced as they they've made their
way around the moon. Um, so yes, there
are ways to block it, right? So you
could create um, you know, a habitat
that has enough shielding on it that
you're not being exposed to it or as you
point out, you could go underground. Um,
it doesn't take that much lunar regalith
to to block um, you know, most of that
radiation. Um, you know, I I forget what
the exact estimates are, but it's
something like, you know, only like 4 in
I want to say something like that. It's
not it's not actually all that much. So,
one possibility is, you know, you
whatever you're using as your habitat,
whether it's a, you know, like a lunar
lander, uh, that you've then converted
into a habitat, you just pile that, you
know, that moon dirt that that, uh,
lunar regalith right on top, and that
could help you quite a bit. Um, but the
thing is, if you're going out, if you're
doing any work out on the surface, if
you're going exploring, I mean, I think
people don't want to go to the moon and
and then just like stay underground all
the time. uh you are being exposed to um
to a fair amount of radiation. I mean
there's also no atmosphere. That's the
other thing, right? So the on on the
surface of the earth, it's the magnetic
field and our atmosphere that are both
doing some shielding,
>> right? Because cosmic rays are scattered
in the upper atmosphere. So that all
kind of dissipates. Yeah. So that's an
interesting point you bring up there.
There's only a few inches or possibly a
makeshift kind of shelter would suffice.
But then the thing is, you know, you're
going out for a couple hours at a time.
Then cumulatively, if you're living
there for months on end, that does add
up to very significant exposure, way
more than than the Apollo astronauts
even just being there on the surface for
a day straight. So I guess that is
something to to consider.
>> The other thing is like solar activity,
right? So galactic cosmic rays are are
one of the challenges, but it's also
solar radiation. And so, you know, as we
know, sometimes the sun is more active,
and that's been happening recently.
We've been seeing flares or coronal mass
ejections. If that kind of a thing
happens, then it would be uh, you know,
a lot more radiation that would be
headed towards the moon.
>> Yeah. And if you're there for a day, h
roll the dice. But if you're there for
months and months, you're probably going
to get a solar flare at some point. So,
we do need a a plan for that.
>> The good news there is that like they at
least have some warning, right? So there
is some amount of time between when that
activity happens on the sun and when it
actually reaches the moon. So as long as
we're monitoring it and sending the the
you know the alarm signal up,
>> they could you know potentially go and
see
>> is it like 10 minutes or how long
>> does it take forget the near light
speed.
>> Yeah. Well yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So it's
not a lot. It's not a lot of time but
hopefully enough that people could uh
you know take shelter.
>> Yeah. I actually do. I don't know if you
watch For all mankind on Apple TV. It it
I do love that show. And there is that
one scene uh where that female astronaut
there is that solar flare and uh one one
astronaut kind of falls and she makes
the decision to go and rescue him, but
but the the the exposure in that 30
seconds or so she comes back, she goes
blind and stuff. It's uh Yeah, that's
pretty cool.
>> There's a lot of good science in that
show. Exactly. That makes you think.
>> Yeah. I love just the the standpoint of
like thinking about everything that
could happen scientifically and then
just building a fictional narrative
around it. Like, oh, that's a thing.
Okay, now that's a plot point in this
episode.
>> Exactly.
>> It's pretty great.
>> Yeah. No, it's fun. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, so thinking even longer
term than that, right, we're thinking,
okay, a few months we got to build a
base. Now, we're talking about really
sustained human settlements. Um so if
that is the case that means there will
you know ideally one day be the first
baby that is born on the moon or on Mars
even uh or just you know any even in spa
in you know in orbit or whatever just
anywhere but here. So that would be a
huge first. Um how let's talk about
child birth first. How would child birth
work in zero gravity or lunar gravity or
Mars gravity? What would be different
there? Well, I think there's a lot of
things for, you know, any kind of a
medical procedure is much more complex
in a zerog environment, right? You know,
we saw actually with Artemis too, they
were practicing doing CPR, right?
Because that is it sounds like a simple
thing to do, but because you know, you
push on somebody and they go back and
you go back. So, like that actually is a
more complicated thing. Yeah. Um and so
just the logistics of um you know trying
to create a clean environment for a
child to be born in would be tricky. Um
if there's any complications that happen
during the pregnancy, it could be a lot
more complicated, right? That you know
involves uh the potential of like
requiring a cescareian section, a
C-section birth. any kind of a surgical
procedure in a um in a zerog environment
is quite complex because then you have
to contain you know blood and other body
fluids. Exactly. So um so I think that's
a an important point to consider. Um but
then there's the possibility that um the
person that is giving birth may be in a
weakened state. Right? So if you are
somebody who has been in a lower gravity
environment for some amount of time then
uh you know you have to take into
consideration possibly weaker muscles
potentially more brittle bones. And some
of the bones that tend to become more
brittle because of being in a lower
gravity environment include uh the
pelvis and the hip. And those are you
know of course you know bones that are
uh you know relevant for childirth.
Yeah. And uh we know that if there are
fractures in those bones, for example,
in the pelvis uh during childirth or
before it um it can be uh something that
could lead to, you know, substantial
additional complications.
>> So I think child birth could be a lot
more risky in that lower gravity
environment. Now again, I'm talking sort
of like starting off with zero g partial
gravity becomes again that thing where
like how much can we extrapolate, you
know, how much do we know? should be
easier, a little bit better. But how
much better?
>> Yeah, zero gravity seems kind of
impossible to me. I think lower gravy
without the issue of containing fluids
or at least not as not not this disaster
of all the fluids floating around. Um
maybe then, you know, like mandatory c
C-sections might be a way to do it, but
um who knows? Maybe we'll figure
something else out. Um then okay then
the other thing though right the baby
when when when when babies or you know
when the fetus is developing on earth uh
the fetus is is in contact with any
microbial life that uh that the mother
is you know surrounded by you know
externally internally um and then once
the baby is born obviously they're born
into this world of of microorganisms
everywhere um so how would that differ c
I mean on the moon like the lunar the
the the lunar environment doesn't have
all of these microorganisms. I mean, I'm
sure we bring some with us, but what's
different there?
>> Yeah, I think this is a really important
thing to think through. So, um, as far
as we know, you know, as a um, a fetus
is gestating inside the womb. It's it's
in a sterile environment. Like, we don't
think there are any microorganisms that
it's interacting with then. So we get
our microbiome, all of those bacteria
and other microbes that we now know are
actually really important for our
bodies. We get them partially through
the process of being born. So as we pass
through the birth canal, we are
acquiring some of our mother's microbes
and that's how our microbiome first gets
seated and then as we are kind of going
out into the world and interacting with
other individuals, our our mother but
also other family members. And then, you
know, as you think about like a toddler
going out and putting everything in
their mouth, right? Like part of what's
going on is they are establishing their
microbiome and our immune systems are
developing and being able to fight off,
you know, most of those microbes that
could uh otherwise make us sick. So
>> slowly and iteratively, one step at a
time, one pathogen at a time. Yeah.
>> Right. And and so, you know, um as you
point out, we know that we will bring
some of those microbes with us to space.
Like there have been these cool
microbial studies on the ISS that show
it's not sterile. Like there's microbes
growing there and uh they are actually
doing interesting things that we can get
into. But you know, we know that we
bring them with us. So there will be
some microbes on, you know, in a moon
base or anywhere that we go in space,
but it's only going to be what we take
with us. And what we take with us is
only a tiny slice of all of the
microbial diversity of of Earth.
>> So you and I, we're breathing air right
now. We're taking in all different sorts
of microbes. And for the most part,
they're not harmful to us,
>> right? Commensal, infectious, all Yeah.
All variety.
>> Yeah. I wonder if it'll be the the point
of like figuring out like everyone it'll
be a newborn fecal transplant for
everyone, right? Something like that.
>> Well, and that is actually something
that's being experimented with on on
Earth even right now because we know
like when a C-section birth happens that
part of that seeding of the microbiome
doesn't happen in the same way. It's
it's ideally a sterile procedure. So,
you know, there's um there's some
interesting evidence that suggests that
like it is beneficial to uh find ways to
seed that baby's microbiome with
mother's microbes. Um and so there's
some tests that are kind of trying to
see if that can be done. So, you know,
maybe we will apply that same technique
to what's happening in space. But even
still, even still, right, it's still
going to be
>> less microbial diversity than what child
on Earth would be uh exposed to,
>> right? And as long as they have whatever
they need in the microbiome, that's one
thing. But then in terms of pathogens, I
guess the the idea is like if this is a
permanent colony and a lot of these
people are presumed to never go to Earth
ever, like maybe at all. Maybe it's just
sort of this thing of like, oh, that's
an Earth pathogen, so we don't need to
protect against that. We live on the
moon or we live on Mars. But then the
question becomes, this is an isolated
colony. you know, people coming to the
colony may be carrying, you know, the
the the ultimate nightmare is an
outbreak, uh, you know, of some kind,
uh, you know, a pandemic for some
earth-based pathogen on a lunar or lunar
or a Martian colony that is not equipped
to, uh, you know, even influenza or
something like that. That would be
crazy.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think it's worth
thinking though through how like there's
the potential of minimizing the numbers
of infectious diseases in a in a you
know, a settlement in space, including
on the moon, because you can do you can
do quarantine, you can, you know, avoid
most pathogens from getting there. So,
like at face value, that's a really good
thing, right? like, hey, no malaria on
the moon cuz there's no mosquitoes
hopefully and like, you know, other
infectious diseases that we can,
>> you know, take basic steps to to prevent
their introduction to to the space
environment.
>> But if somehow something does make it
there and if you've now got generations
of people that have never been exposed
to it,
>> then you've got sort of what happened
when the first Europeans came to the
Americas all over again.
>> Smallox. Yeah.
>> Yeah. You've got, you know, a whole
bunch of people that have no resistance
to these infectious diseases, and we
know how disastrous that that can be.
>> Oh boy. Yeah, that's another sci-fi
series right there, the first space
pandemic.
>> And it's funny because that's actually
been explored in science fiction going
all the way back to HG Wells and War of
the Worlds because that was like
ultimately what stopped the high-tech
Martians, right, from uh invading Earth
was was Earth's bacteria. So
>> gave it a cold. Yeah. Just like Yeah.
Yeah, it's it's it's um it's I think
very relevant for our future, but it's
actually one of the sort of oldest ideas
in sci-fi.
>> Um okay, so continuing with this concept
of of just these isolated populations,
another thing to think about from the
standpoint of evolutionary biology, um
we could what what is the possibility of
seeing these populations uh diverge from
Earth's population? um what kind of
changes would we see in terms of you
know phenotype uh what what might happen
there?
>> Yeah, this was actually the the thing
that got me into this topic in the in
the first place because as you know I'm
an evolutionary biologist and thinking
about the idea of taking a small number
of individuals from one place and then
putting them in a new environment that
is different. That is what happens all
the time on earth when like an island
gets you know seeded by new life and we
understand quite a bit about what
happens right I mean I I became an a
biologist uh after going to the
Galopagos Islands as a researcher uh as
a as an undergraduate student and you
know I think it's no coincidence that um
you know going back all the way to
Charles Darwin it's islands that have
inspired uh evolutionary biologists and
that we keep going back to islands to
study that process. So, we know a lot
about what what happens and and
isolation is a key part of it. So, being
just separated from other members of
your species is part of what kind of
kickstarts that separation that can
eventually lead to like the formation of
new species,
>> right? Yeah. Different set of stimuli to
to to adapt to. Of course, I mean that
makes perfect sense. And then the other
issue though is is uh how small the
population would be. Now would you know
there you have enhanced genetic drift I
think because of how small the
population size is. Are we going to see
faster evolution? Are they going to
evolve much more rapidly than you know
organisms on earth?
>> Yeah. So there's a few things here. So
one is that you're absolutely right that
the size of the founding population is
known to be a really important factor in
uh in in island biology and island
evolution. We have this thing called the
founder effect where basically like the
number of founding individuals and their
genetic diversity has a really big
impact on what can come next and usually
what we see is a loss of genetic
diversity. I mean usually it's like
whoever gets there is not a
representative slice of the population
that they came from. Right.
>> Yeah. No matter how hard we try, you
know, depending how many people it is.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, so the number matters, the the
kind of genetic composition matters. Um,
and then you know how much contact there
is between that population and the
source population moving forward. All of
that matters. Um, but you're asking
about the rate of change and the rate of
change is something interesting too
because uh there's a couple of factors
that affect the rate of change. one is
is basically like how strong is natural
selection and and that's sort of a
function of like how bad is it to be
there like how different is the
environment right so imagine like you
know two islands and you know you go
from one to the other and it's basically
the same environment okay no big deal so
like selection is not very strong if the
environment is dramatically different
then any individual that has a slight
advantage over the others in being able
to live in that environment is much more
likely to survive long enough to pass on
their genes and those genes become much
more common in each generation. So the
strength of natural selection is a
function of like how radically different
the environment is.
>> The moon, Mars,
>> pretty different environment. I think we
can agree on that.
>> And actually dangerous enough to like
you know we we are no longer in the food
chain here on Earth and we have support
systems and we have hospitals and we
prop up the weak and the you know
everything. But that yeah, the Martian
landscape is so perilous that maybe we
would return to natural selection be
being a strong driver over there. I mean
with that and then also the diversity
like do we have a sense of like what the
minimum size of a population would be
whether it's 50 or 300 or what to like
maintain genetic diversity as as the
colony continues to procreate and
proliferate. Um, do we have any hard
data, quantitative data about that kind
of stuff?
>> There have been some models, people have
tried to estimate this and the models
range dramatically from 100 to, you
know, 10,000. Um,
>> but what I would say is that it's hard
to really just focus on a number because
the composition matters too. You could
have 10,000, you could have a million
individuals, but if they're like, to be
really extreme about it, if they're
genetically identical, then actually it
doesn't matter because if they're not
well suited to that environment, a
million genetically identical identical
individuals, they're not going to
survive very well.
>> The variation would be insufficient. I
think this would be a case where the
anti-woke would cry DEI um but would be
totally at a loss to be able to
comprehend how crucial the genetic
diversity of sending you know sending a
diverse population would actually be
scientifically.
>> And this is actually the other part of
the equation for how fast evolution
happens because how strong natural
selection is is one part but the other
part is what does natural selection have
to work with? Because natural selection
all it can do is sort through whatever
there is and just say like yeah like
this
>> this trait is better in this environment
this one isn't. It can't make new
traits. That's what mutation does. So
that basically you have to have some
genetic diversity for natural selection
to work with. So we can either send a
genetically diverse population to start
with
>> and or acquire more genetic variation
there. How does that happen? Mutation.
And that's where it gets interesting
because mutation's always happening. I
mean, that's just sort of like, you
know, it's just happening in the
background. But we also know that there
are things that can make mut mutations
more common. One of those things is
radiation.
>> Yeah. So having a higher radiation
exposure, if it's not so high that it
just kills people, but if it's high
enough that you're getting some
mutation, a lot of that mutation is not
going to be helpful, but every now and
then you will get a beneficial mutation
happening and that could actually
increase the the pool of possibilities
for natural selection. So yeah,
>> combine that with high strength of
natural selection, I think you would
actually get quite rapid evolutionary
change.
>> Yeah. Do do we do you have any sense of
like what is it all speculative or are
there any identified morphologies or or
or phenotypes that you think would be
beneficial on say like the Martian
environment?
>> Well, I think we should be clear that a
lot of what we're talking about is you
know by nature speculating because we
can't ever predict with any certainty
what evolution will do. we tend to in
evolutionary biology kind of, you know,
look backwards and and reconstruct what
has already happened. But I also think
it's useful as an exercise to kind of
ask, well, what are the parallels
between that evolution that we would
expect to happen out in in space and
what we know has happened in the past on
Earth? Like we understand the process of
evolution. We have, you know, 4 and a
half billion years of evolutionary
history on Earth to draw on to look for
examples. And so that's what I've tried
to do in my in my you know writing and
in u in my book is to say like how can
we apply what we know to to sort of come
up with some plausible scenarios. One
thing is like okay let's talk about
radiation. We know what radiation does.
It damages DNA. Organisms differ and
actually humans differ in the extent to
which we are able to handle that damage
and repair it. Mhm.
>> So, one possibility is, you know, if you
sent a genetically diverse population,
uh some of those individuals are likely
to be better than others at at uh you
know, tolerating radiation uh exposure.
And so, you might imagine that those
that are better at it are likely to to
pass on more of their genes. And so,
over time, you get more radiation
resistance evolving. That seems likely.
>> More enhanced DNA repair pathways or
something like that. Yeah,
>> that's right. or something like we know
that pigments are used by many organisms
to uh either block damage from from uh
radiation or to repair it. So you know
we have melanin in our skin that's
helpful with um you know protecting us
from uh ultraviolet radiation. Other
organisms use pigments like carotenoids.
This is what you know makes uh carrots
orange, right?
>> U most animals can't make carotenoids.
They get them from their diet. But
there's one kind of insect. there's a
type of aphid that has actually acquired
the genes for making carotenoids and
they became orange in the process. So we
know there's like at least a precedent
for that among some uh organisms on
Earth. Now we can't say that that's what
would happen on Mars, but it's kind of a
fun thought experiment to think like
well something like that could you know
you could imagine another type of
pigment
>> being used for radiation protection and
that would come with a fun side effect
of uh you know, changing their color.
>> Those damp bright orange martians, that
would be crazy. Yeah. I mean, you think
about it, right? A pigment can be
biosynthesized. You acquire the ability
genetically to biosynthesize it. That is
favored uh you know, in that landscape
because it confers a survival advantage
in terms of uh resisting uh you know,
DNA damage
>> could happen. Yeah. I mean, thinking
about it just like how how much
evolution would have to take place? Like
will could there be
would we refer to these populations
eventually as new species? Like will it
be homo martianis? You know what I mean?
How long would that take to get there?
>> I don't know. It's that's crazy to think
about.
>> It is. is and I think but I think it's a
useful exercise because I like to make
sure that people like are who are
wanting to create a true settlement on
the moon or on Mars or elsewhere like
understand like what the consequences
would be of doing that centuries down to
say yeah well or even maybe faster than
that if that evolutionary process as I
predict it would indeed be accelerated.
So um you know what we know is that
species tend to come into existence um
in situations where there isn't much
opportunity for them to exchange genes
with other species. So in other words
like if you have um you know an island
situation where individuals aren't able
to easily move between islands right
that's a setup for evolving new species
speciation. Um, and so if you on the
other hand are exchanging, if you're
going back and forth, right, if you're
sending people back and forth between
Earth and Mars regularly and they're
exchanging genes,
>> then that would actually make it less
likely that a new species evolves there,
right? Because basically like any new
kind of variation that comes into
existence kind of gets gets spread,
right? And you can't become separate as
>> if it's not truly isolated. If we're
continuing continually adding to the
Martian population from from Earth, uh
yeah, that would
>> that's right.
>> mitigate that. Yeah.
>> So then you have to ask, well, why why
would that happen? Like what would cause
you know like what influences how often
we send uh ships back and forth? And you
can think of a lot of things. I mean the
economy, the political will, the you
know the who knows geopolitics but um
but there's another factor that I think
uh could play a role and it goes back to
what we were talking about earlier with
microbes and infectious disease because
if it's true that you uh you know would
be at risk of spreading a disease if
you're coming from Earth and going to
you know Mars where they don't have all
of this uh you know microbial diversity
then you really need to keep those
people separate to keep them safe,
right? You would need to to like an
enforce a quarantine or or just keep
them separated. Um, and the reverse
could be true. You could have the
evolution of some kind of unique
pathogen on Mars that would be super
dangerous to people on Earth that
haven't been exposed to it.
>> That's true.
>> Um, so I think like actually infectious
disease could play a really major role
in uh making it hard to go back and
forth between planets once you have
people actually born on those other
planets. Um, and if that's true, that
would make speciation, the evolution of
a new human species on another world,
much more likely and much more rapid.
>> Wow. Yeah. The pathogens, they just get
us at every turn. We can't escape. We
can't even go to space and get away from
these things.
>> We're living in a microbial world.
>> Yeah. We're just we're we're just
guests. So I mean the last thing I mean
I think given given what we're saying
about evolutionary principles um
>> you know where where does technology
come into play where will there be some
technological innovation that can
mitigate some of the these negative
eventualities. We're talking about
pathogens. We're talking about other
possible negative uh ramifications. You
know bone density and all these other
things. Is it is it are can we
genetically engineer ourselves in a in a
in a positive way or will we go the
route of cybernetics? Will we merge with
some kind of technology? What I mean
this is way speculative but any thoughts
here? uh it is and at the same time
there are people actively working on it
and that was one of the things I was I
was excited to explore as I was you know
researching my book is that there are
are labs and I I visited some of these
where people are actively working on
trying to see can we take say genes from
tardigrades which are known to be able
to tolerate extreme environments
including space and insert them into
human cells and the short answer seems
to be yeah we can and those human cells
at least grown in in culture in a
are able to become more radiation
resistant. So, you know, nobody has yet
tried putting that into a a living
individual person or even an animal.
>> Yeah, absolutely. But if that were to be
possible, it's interesting to think
about, you know, what are the what are
the limits of that? Like
>> do we what are the discrete proteins
that are being expressed? How does that
work mechanistically? Well, so for an
one example of this is there is a gene
called DUP and this stands for damage
suppressor. This was a a gene that was
identified in tardigrades. It produces a
protein called DUP. Uh this is a damage
suppressor. So radiation damage to DNA
is being suppressed by this protein. And
so if you insert the gene DUP into a
human cell, it will produce that DUP
protein. and uh has been shown to uh
actively suppress radiation damage in in
in vitro. Right. So in in uh a
laboratory setting. Yep.
>> Right. And if that's happening in every
cell, then why wouldn't it happen in
every cell of a living organism?
Presumably. Uh we don't know.
>> Yeah. As you know, it gets more
complicated because, you know, genes
interact with one another and genes from
one type of tissue can interact from
genes from a different type of tissue in
ways that can be hard to predict in a a
simple lab study. But yeah, but that
people are actively working on that. So,
you know, there is this idea that uh we
can enable um future space explorers by
being able to basically equip them with
essentially superpowers, right? I mean,
it's the abilities of organisms from
Earth that are known to be able to
tolerate extreme environments, whether
it's radiation or temperature or
pressure. Um, we know what the
conditions are like in space. We know
that there are organisms that can
survive in extreme environments. If we
can identify the genes that are allowing
them to do that and show that you can
safely put them into a human cell, a
human tissue, a human individual, then
in principle we may be able to
essentially uh en enhance the ability of
people to adapt to the environment of
space.
>> Now I think it raises really important
ethical questions, right? Yeah. Um and
uh those are questions that we need to
be addressing along with the biological
questions. Yeah. Um but at the same
time, if we decide that it's important
to be living in space,
>> then you know maybe it's the most
ethical thing to do to make sure that we
are alleviating human suffering by using
those technologies
>> by equipping ourselves. Yeah, I can
already envision the push back from, you
know, especially the religious
community. Uh, and you know, the valid
push back could exist, but not for the
reasons that they would be citing. You
know, should we do this? Yeah. I mean,
it's it's a there arguments can be made
on both sides. All I know is it's
absolutely terrifying and fascinating
and uh I lament that I probably won't
live long enough to see a lot of this
change go down, but uh it's wild to
think about. So, yeah. Well, we're going
to learn a lot from the creation of this
moon base that, you know, NASA says
they're going to build within the next
decade. And so, if we truly did, as we
started the conversation talking about,
you know, what will happen to people
living on a lunar base, we will learn a
lot about what happens to their bodies.
And we have the potential of doing some
really cool science to see, can we use
genetic engineering? I mean, we'll want
to start with with animal models, I
would think, and kind of show that like
if it's safe and effective to use
genetic engineering to modify their DNA
to equip them with the ability to
tolerate high radiation, like that that
would be pretty incredible to find out.
>> It would be.
>> So, a lot of science to be done.
>> Yeah. Animal studies first as always.
Yeah. No, it's it it really is
incredible. I mean, I I think that's
what is lost with with uh with the hype
on around Artemis 2 right now is there's
just so much focus on naysayers. Like
whether it's moon landing deniers or
something like, "Oh, they're just
they're just orbiting the moon right
now. They're not even doing anything."
They're even like, "Okay, man. They're
orbiting it once, then they're going to
land, then they're going to build a
base, then it's going to be a Mars
base." Like, think long term. Like,
we're actually doing it. We're actually
doing the future thing right now. It's
just the first steps, but it's
incredible.
>> Cool. There's some cool science being
done on this mission, right? So, you
know, there's this cool experiment
called Avatar where it's basically
organs on a chip. They've actually taken
stem cells from the four Artemis 2
astronauts and put them into a device
that keeps those stem cells alive while
the mission is orbiting the moon. And in
theory, if we can study those cells and
understand how like the radiation
environment is affecting them in the
future, we could send something like
that to other places, we could send a
chip like that to Mars without having to
send people there and then we can look
at what is the effect of that
environment on those cells and have a
better idea about how dangerous it's
going to be or how we can help shield
them from radiation. So that that
science alone, yeah, sure, we're doing a
a trajectory that was done in the 1960s
and 70s, but we're doing science that we
couldn't conceive of even 10 years ago.
So that that's exciting to me.
>> That is crazy. I didn't even think of
that. Send human cells to Mars first
before people and see how that goes.
It's incredible.
>> Yeah. Well, I think that's that's given
us quite a lot to think about. Uh yeah,
where where can people learn more about
you and your your your book and things
like that?
>> Yeah, thanks. So, uh I mean I've got a
website solomon.ry.edu.
Uh but the book is called Becoming
Martian: How Living in Space Will Change
Our Bodies and Minds and uh it's
published by MIT Press. You can find it
on the MIT Press website or Amazon or uh
any place that you find your books. So,
yeah, check it out.
>> Fantastic. Thanks so much for talking
with me.
>> Thanks for having me on. This was fun.
Fascinating stuff. No, I get a little
giddy just thinking about it. Despite
the current war on science and the
despair I feel on a daily basis
regarding widespread disinformation and
public perception of science, there
lives a tiny atrophied optimist
somewhere inside me. And he does fully
believe that humans will live off-world
within the century. And while it saddens
me to my core that I'll never get to see
these places and gaze up at a sky that
is different from Earth's, I will always
retain a sense of pride knowing that
I've been a contributor to the
pro-science faction that will have
gotten us there. The moon, Mars, and
other systems. I'll see you in my
dreams. Thanks for watching, Space Nuts.