I've read a number of articles suggesting that the USA has a Mars colony, including (if I recall correctly, but I can't find the link now) one where an official in China stated that they believed the USA had a secret military base on Mars, and another that indicates that the USA attempted to recruit the great-granddaughter of President Eisenhower for a Mars colony project. While the latter seems to likely be malarkey, it seems to be one of the more common references to a USA Mars colony project. I'm curious about whether anyone's put any serious thought whether the USA could secretly create a Mars colony.

Is there any evidence that the USA either has or plans a secret colony on Mars?

Is it logistically possible that the USA could start a Mars colony and keep it secret?

  • 34
    It is not worth debunking unless you produce some minimal evidence to support this claim. – Wai Yip Tung May 28 '11 at 23:36
  • 16
    Related: Does the USA have a secret colony on Jupiter? (Joking aside; isn't this applicable to anything, and pretty much impossible to falsify... e.g. is it true that Barack Obama is actually a martian?) – Thomas O May 29 '11 at 0:00
  • 5
    @Thomas O - Obama can not be a Martian. They are all war-mongers, and he is a very peaceful president – user5341 May 29 '11 at 14:10
  • 8
    I was about to say: Why would the U.S. want a military base on mars? Who/what would it be defending/offending against? But then I realized this presupposes the U.S. Military uses logic to make strategic decisions... – Flimzy Nov 12 '11 at 11:05
  • 8
    @Flimzy - Actually a military base on the moon and mars would make great strategic sense... thus proving we dont have one. – Chad Nov 12 '11 at 23:41

Of course there is a secret colony on Mars. The same people that kept the secret that we faked the moon landing are also keeping the secret that we went to Mars and established a colony...

Okay, in all seriousness, please select a launch that was supposed to have sent anything off to Mars that included people or the equipment to support those people. Here is a list of all past NASA launches for you to choose from. I'm sure that whatever mission you choose, I will be able to knock a hole through any conspiracy theory that even the 9/11 troofers will think anyone who believes this is nuts.

The logistics in launching a manned mission to Mars would be so large that it would be impossible to hide it. Conservative estimates place the price-tag at $1 TRILLION, and hiding that sort of spending would be nigh on impossible (and keep in mind that most estimates of any government program are usually way under the real cost).

There are many ideas for a Mars mission, and if anyone got there, it would be a coup of historic proportions that no one would want to keep it secret. Much like with the moon landing hoax insanity, if we hadn't got there, the Russians would have been all over it. If the US has managed to get to mars, it would be front page news all over the world, and would be used in every possible manner to showcase the US in a positive light.

As Oddthinking said, "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence", and I have seen none!

| improve this answer | |
  • 8
    What, you seriously think they would list these launches? And anyway, they are done from Antarctica. – Lennart Regebro May 29 '11 at 9:15
  • 13
    Launches happen from as near the equator as possible to gain extra momentum from the rotation of the Earth. Antarctica would be the worst choice possible for a launch, not even mentioning weather conditions there. – Raskolnikov May 29 '11 at 9:57
  • 5
    @Raskolnikov - but that's where all the flying saucers are stored! – user5341 May 29 '11 at 14:29
  • 14
    Keep in mind, any launch on the planet will be spotted by a constellation of IR sensing satellites that the US, Russians, Chinese, and ESA have in orbit. There is virtually no way to "hide" a launch. Hence why the list of launches is complete. – Larian LeQuella May 30 '11 at 13:10
  • 4
    I thought it was common knowledge that the moon landings were faked in a sound stage on mars? – Brian S Jul 15 '14 at 14:52

Perhaps we can turn this ridiculousness into a lesson about skepticism.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. [Wikipedia: Scientific Skepticism]

This idea that "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" (also known as Sagan's Standard) means that we must provisionally accept the more prosaic explanation - e.g. that there is no secret colony on Mars - until some significant evidence suggests the opposite.

This is an extraordinary claim. It would require a huge conspiracy far beyond the bounds of any we have ever discovered to date. Because that extraordinary evidence is lacking - in fact any evidence at all is lacking - the only reasonable answer that can be given is "No."

| improve this answer | |
  • "or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science" -- Interesting definition. It's kind of an oxymoron now, because we're claiming that it's skepticism to staunchly defend the establishment. – Russell Steen May 29 '11 at 17:35
  • That definition is delightful (in general; not just for this answer). Whoever wrote it was brilliant. – Brian M. Hunt May 29 '11 at 20:44
  • 2
    @Russell, note the wording "often focus". That's because generally accepted science has normally passed through the test of critical examination. (I am loathe to describe science as "establishment", because it often contradicts the claims of those in "establishment".) That said, sometimes skepticism turns to face off against "generally accepted science" - e.g. I still have a bounty open on this question: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1779/… – Oddthinking May 29 '11 at 23:52
  • @RusselSteen - Its not like its a high bar to get over. It is just saying that if you want to be addressed seriously have some evidence to support it or at least the possibility. This is grounded in nothing more that a fantasy someone had while high. If i was inclined I am sure I could pull somethings together to make it look like it might be a conspiracy. But then there is something tangible to refute. And that is really all that is being asked for is something tangible to refute. – Chad Nov 15 '11 at 14:46
  • In fact, it's possibly arguable that in this case absence of evidence does constitute evidence of absence. With contemporary technology the number and average size of the launches you'd need to transport enough materiel and manpower to form a self-sufficient colony on Mars would be literally impossible to disguise, and yet absolutely nobody seems to have spotted any of them... – Shadur Feb 6 '15 at 8:34

I'd like to add that no one knows how to land a large payload safely on the surface of mars. According to that link, the prevailing opinion is that we have landed manned spacecraft on the moon, which is small and has no atmosphere; and that we've also landed manned spacecraft on earth, which is large with a thick atmosphere. Mars is inbetween the earth and the moon both in size and atmospheric density, so it should be easy.

Not so: the atmosphere isn't thick enough to appreciably slow a large vehicle enough to safely land or deploy parachutes, like they do on earth. But it's thick enough that, while hitting the atmosphere going mach 26 or so, you can't use rocket engines to slow the spacecraft: the exhaust from such a retro-engine would act like an unstable nose-cone, which would shake the spacecraft to pieces.

with current technology, the only way to land a colony on mars is if you send them off with a "it's about the journey, not the destination" mentality, since upon arrival they will become a smoky crater.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    well, doesn't debunk the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theorist would just claim that knowledge about such things has been suppressed together with everything else related to the project. That's the problem with conspiracy theories, they're impossible to debunk in a way that the conspiracy theorist will accept. – jwenting May 30 '11 at 5:57
  • @jwenting true, but it's a non-trivial problem that might take them by surprise, I guess. – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 15:15
  • another thing to consider is that we've become pretty good at landing things on earth from orbit. STS, Roton, SS1/2, Buran, etc.. This probably translates to Mars as well, though I'd want some unmanned attempts first to see if our calculations are correct :) – jwenting Jun 1 '11 at 5:40
  • @jwentling that's the point made by JPL in the story I posted: a payload big enough to support humans for years can't be appreciably slowed by the martian atmosphere, and unlike landing in a vacuum, rocket engines can't be used to slow the craft either. Landing a huge payload there would be a huge feat of engineering – Carson Myers Jun 1 '11 at 18:38
  • 1
    @jwenting In the years since this answer was posted NASA has had some success with landing payloads more or less intact on Mars. It turns out to be really really hard (although also really really crazy awesome)... – Shadur Mar 5 '15 at 22:27

Another idea would be radio amateurs.

Radio amateurs regularly pick up communications between ground stations and spacecraft.

For example we have the story of this guy and if you're willing to believe agencies of US government, there's also this project for space shuttles and another project for ISS.

Another point would be various SETI programs that are currently in existence. Unfortunately, I don't have any links at the time, but I believe that some of them could notice communication between a Mars colony and Earth.

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    Silly thought there, needing to use radio. The Mars colony uses telepathic communications. – user3344 Nov 12 '11 at 12:13

How does this idea rate with the moon landing hoax conspiracy believers? If we have not even managed to land people on the moon, how on earth could we set up a colony on Mars?

And a trip to colonise Mars will take one hell of a lot more than just a Saturn 5. Instead of a week or so to get 3 people to the moon and back, we're talking 6 months in space, plus all they equipment required to live on Mars indefinitely. Start with many tons of plain soil, so the colonists can grow plants and try to feed themselves. We'd also need to include a medium sized nuclear reactor, so the colonists will have enough energy to extract water from the Martian regolith - once we know where to look for water. Let's say that 3 or more Saturn 5 missions might be a bare minimum for a few people. And, going by the number of failures for much simpler Mars missions, let's double that number for redundancy, so say 6 trips. Then remember that the Saturn 5 no longer exists and nothing else comes near its lifting capacity.

Apollo could hold 3 people on a moon mission. For a colony to survive, I would expect closer to 100 people. That's 33 Apollo's, each with it's own Saturn 5 (or larger). Where did they all take off from? It's not something you can hide easily. And how many people could live in an Apollo-size spacecraft for 6 months, and remain sane enough not to kill each other?

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    who needs to go to the moon when you have aliens and their spaceships at Area 51 and can use those to go anywhere? doh! Be creative, stitch enough conspiracy theories together and anything is possible :) – jwenting May 30 '11 at 5:58
  • You need to cite references for your claims: "trip to colonise Mars will take one hell of a lot more than just a Saturn 5.", "3 or more Saturn 5 missions might be a bare minimum for a few people", "the Saturn 5 no longer exists", "colony to survive, I would expect closer to 100 people". This answer currently does not meet the standards for a Skeptics SE answer. – Chad Nov 14 '11 at 13:40
  • 1
    well, the only remaining Saturn V is an empty shell in a museum (unless you mistrust NASAs official fleet figures nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/vehicles.html). russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_mars.html gives some figures for a proposed Soviet mission of similar size. astronautix.com/fam/saturnv.htm lists data for the Saturn V. The Russian plan was for 127 tons vehicle weight, the S V had a payload limit for escape velocity of 45 tons. So indeed 3 would be needed just for the vehicle, more for crew and consumables (fuel, food, etc). – jwenting Nov 15 '11 at 7:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .