The Soft Problems of Settling Mars

Sometimes the hardest problems are the soft ones

In January 1967, NASA had a problem. The Apollo 7 spacecraft orbiting the Earth was fine, but the crew was not. After a contentious launch, conflicts over scheduling a television interview, and a head cold that turned the command module into a used tissue container, Wally Schirra was irritated at Misson Control’s insistence that the crew wear their helmets during the upcoming reentry and landing. As Commander, he believed he had the final authority over the crew, not some people back on Earth. His response to NASA’s order was an unambiguous statement of their powerlessness: “you can come up here and put it on.”

While the astronauts landed safely and paved the way for the iconic missions to come, Apollo 7 revealed a truth about human spaceflight: not all challenges are technical. Mission success is more than just a well-functioning spacecraft. It also requires a well-functioning crew.

Many die-hard advocates for settling on Mars focus on the technological challenges, mainly the hardware needed to get people there and keep them alive once they arrive. However, the software issues — how those travelers deal with isolation, limited resources, and conflict — are often ignored. The psychological and interpersonal challenges of a one-way trip to Mars can lead to failure and death just as easily as a leak in the hab. These soft problems deserve just as much attention, and luckily, people are starting to take notice.

On April 20, 2023, SpaceX’s fully integrated Starship took flight for the first time. While the test flight was short and ended with a bang, it proved that the massive reusable rocket was more than just a design on paper. The types of ships needed to ferry humans to Mars were no longer things of dreams. They were real, and for many, this marked the start of a journey toward eventual Mars settlement.

While the hardware was coming along, several people noticed many other unsolved problems with sending people to Mars. Two books released in 2023, Erika Nesvold’s Off Earth and Kelly and Zach Weinersmith’s A City on Mars, discussed the major ethical and practical problems facing people living on Mars. Just as Starship’s flight highlighted the hardware challenges, these two books highlighted the software challenges.

These soft problems of Martian settlement must be worked alongside the hard ones. Since Starship’s first test, we’ve seen two more, each accomplishing more than the last. Progress is being made fast, and it won’t be long before Starship flights are as routine as any other rocket launch. I don’t think we can say the same for the soft problems. Dedicated people are working hard on many of the soft issues, but the concern is that they won’t be done in time. Social science is notoriously slow, a problem compounded by the lack of funding for research in these areas. Private companies are willing to pour billions into designing a spaceship because it can generate revenue. Researching the ethical and philosophical issues a Martian settler might encounter can’t be easily sold for profit.

There is currently no incentive to spend money on soft problems. Maybe a private company will start thinking about these issues a year or so before the first settlers leave for Mars, but it will be too late by then. Soft problems are complex and require iterative development, just like hard problems. This leaves us with one option: Hope that experts in various social science fields who are passionate about space travel will pick up the baton and start the race. On their own. Guided by their desire to see successful settlements on other worlds.

This is a journey I’m starting myself, and I find it just as fascinating as watching rockets lift off the pad. While I am tackling some of the soft problems related to crime and justice, many fields can benefit from this treatment. To anyone with expertise in economics, government, education, healthcare, or a litany of other fields, I hope you will join me. Here are a few ideas for how we can begin to address these soft problems.

1. Set the goal

Predictions about the future are notoriously bad. Trying to figure out now what a person on Mars will do in 20, 50, or 100 years is a fool’s errand. This is why we must avoid promoting the means of achieving a goal and instead focus on the goal itself. Technology and culture will both change and so will the process of achieving success. But the goal is less likely to change. People today want a fair justice system, and this goal is likely to remain in the future.

When examining these soft problems, it is crucial to focus on the desired end state and avoid prescribing solutions. It won’t be helpful in ten years if you’re advocating for outdated technology or pushing a set of norms that people no longer follow. This approach, however, must be balanced with reality. It does no good for the goal to be some utopian dream that could never happen. There is crime now. There was crime in the past. It would be foolhardy to imagine a future with no crime. The goal should not be to eliminate crime but rather to focus on proactive approaches for preventing as much crime as possible.

2. Get to First Principles

First principles are the fundamental concepts underlying an idea. They are the root assumptions underlying more complex ideas. It’s easy to figure out the first principles in the hard sciences. A rocket launch is governed by first principles like gravity and the conservation of momentum. When you understand these first principles, you can deduce what is possible. A rocket with a thrust-to-weight ratio of less than one will never make it off the pad because physics says so.

First principles thinking is more difficult with the soft problems. Underlying many of the soft problems are things like ethics, morality, and philosophy. Here, there isn’t always a clear-cut answer. When discussing responses to crime, there’s no good first principle for the ideal punishment. We can’t plug numbers into an equation and get out a guaranteed yes or no like we can with physics.

This doesn’t mean the exercise is hopeless, however. When you break complex problems down to first principles, you often find new ways of looking at them. For example, considering punishment as a utilitarian exercise reveals that on Mars, it might not make sense to incarcerate an offender, as this could do more harm than good for the community. Sanctions meant only to punish someone don’t seem helpful when basic resources are in short supply and labor is needed.

3. Build the Framework

I often think about the scaffolding of modern-day life — the invisible things that support the world we live in. A wi-fi router lets you connect to the internet. A GPS satellite shows your position on your trip to the store. A Supreme Court case from 1963 ensures that you’ll have an attorney if charged with a crime. This scaffolding is all around us, and to most, it is invisible. We don’t think about the router or satellite or legal case even when presented with the direct effects. This should be our goal with the soft problems — create the framework that will effortlessly support the people living on Mars.

When you have a good grasp of the first principles, you can use them to build the framework. Starting with philosophy and ethics, you can explore the different ways to respond to crime. There could be responses that seek to punish an offender or responses that aim to make victims whole again. You could respond by rehabilitating someone or revealing the truth of their actions to the community. These options make up the framework supporting the idea of justice.

The framework allows people to choose the response that fits best with their specific circumstances. It is a menu of options, with the costs and benefits, as well as the first principles reasoning of each choice laid out. This doesn’t mean we can’t make recommendations. Social scientists often have great ideas for the best approach to a given situation. But it does mean we should be fair in our assessments of the options, viewing them through a lens of the future, informed by the past, and mindful of the situations we’ve experienced in the present.

We can’t wait much longer. Social systems are built day by day, with norms becoming law and policy over time. Once the first settlers land, they will start to shape the future. The least we can do is give them the tools they need to be thoughtful and purposeful in their decisions. Just as the crew of Apollo 7 had to make their own decisions, so will future Martians. After all, when the first fight breaks out on Mars, you can’t just radio back to Earth and ask them to come put the handcuffs on.