Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Estimation of a genetically viable population

for multigenerational interstellar voyaging: Review
and data for project Hyperion
Cameron M. Smith n
Department of Anthropology, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97201, United States

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: Designing interstellar starships for human migration to exoplanets requires establishing
Received 27 September 2013 the starship population, which factors into many variables including closed-ecosystem
Received in revised form design, architecture, mass and propulsion. I review the central issues of population
10 December 2013
genetics (effects of mutation, migration, selection and drift) for human populations
Accepted 20 December 2013
Available online 30 December 2013
on such voyages, specifically referencing a roughly 5-generation (c. 150-year) voyage
currently in the realm of thought among Icarus Interstellar0 s Project Hyperion research
Keywords: group. I present several formulae as well as concrete numbers that can be used to help
Multigenerational space travel determine populations that could survive such journeys in good health. I find that
Space genetics
previously proposed such populations, on the order of a few hundred individuals, are
Space colonization
significantly too low to consider based on current understanding of vertebrate (including
Space settlement
human) genetics and population dynamics. Population genetics theory, calculations and
computer modeling determine that a properly screened and age- and sex-structured total
founding population (Nc) of anywhere from roughly 14,000 to 44,000 people would be
sufficient to survive such journeys in good health. A safe and well-considered Nc figure is
40,000, an Interstellar Migrant Population (IMP) composed of an Effective Population [Ne]
of 23,400 reproductive males and females, the rest being pre- or post-reproductive
individuals. This number would maintain good health over five generations despite (a)
increased inbreeding resulting from a relatively small human population, (b) depressed
genetic diversity due to the founder effect, (c) demographic change through time and (d)
expectation of at least one severe population catastrophe over the 5-generation voyage.
& 2013 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on the biological dimension (specifically the population

Because any currently conceivable interstellar voyage
will be multigenerational, modeling interstellar vessel
population must consider both cultural and biological
change over time. Cultural change will be addressed in a
separate study (note, however, that culture can be affected
by, and can affect biological change, such that ultimately a
biocultural model must be synthesized). Here I will focus
n
Tel.: þ1 503 725 3081.
E-mail address: b5cs@pdx.edu
genetics) in order to estimate a multigenerationally viable
human interstellar vessel population as a reference figure
for planners of such journeys, in particular on the roughly
5-generation timescale addressed by Icarus Interstellar0 s
Project Hyperion research effort to develop a concept
for a manned interstellar vessel [1]. Other authors have
addressed the issue of interstellar colonist populations
with variable results that are discussed in other sections
of this paper; I largely find that these earlier estimates are
too low for safety over several generations, and I propose
some figures that better accord with current knowledge of
vertebrate populations and population genetics.

0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2013 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.12.013
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29 17

Fig. 1 indicates the timescale pertinent to this paper
which models arrival at an exoplanet system roughly four
light years away in about 150 years (five human genera-
tions) if we achieve, in the next century, the same 1000-
fold increase in mechanized speed as achieved in the last
century from the locomotive to the Voyager probe (velo-
cities from about 30 miles per hour to about 30,000 miles
per hour, respectively). I emphasize that the point is not to
journey endlessly, but to colonize a distant planet, where
the human population could grow again – this requires
arriving at such a destination with a genetically viable and
healthy population. As I show below, one source of
humanity0 s longevity so far has been its large population,
and while we should not plan to grow beyond our
resources, being widely spread (e.g. among more than
one solar system), genetically and biologically diverse
(as in current large populations of humans) and populous
(as has been the case for our species for at least 5000
years) are characteristics of species and genera that have
survived for long periods in evolutionary terms [2]. Inter-
stellar migration is taken as a method to emulate these
characteristics to preserve civilization and our species in
the long term [3].
2. Biological Issues in interstellar voyaging
Evolution is manifest any difference in the genetic proper-
ties of parent and offspring generations. Particularly in
sexually reproducing species which combine parental DNA
in sperm and egg production, producing novelties, cloning is
rare, and evolution occurs at each generation. Thus, inter-
stellar voyaging must grapple with genetic evolution. Four
essential factors condition the genetic composition of any
population. They are discussed below, with notes on their
implications for interstellar voyage populations.
2.1. Mutation
Mutation is the production of new genetic character-
istics, also known as diversity. Mutagenesis occurs in many
ways, including (a) mechanical deformation of DNA during
replication, (b) alteration of DNA by mutagens such as

Fig. 1. Space and time scales addressed in this paper. On the left axis is time in years and human generations, while on the right are ballpark figures for
significant changes in human biology and culture. Only biology is addressed in this paper.
18 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
radiation and certain chemicals, (c) the recombination of
parental DNA in the production of gametes (sperm and egg
cells), (d) the failure of mutation-repair processes, and
(more so in prokaryotes than eukaryotes), and (e) hori-
zontal gene transfer, the acquisition of heritable DNA
alteration during the course of life [4]. Whatever the cause,
mutations generate differences between parent and off-
spring, and differences among members of any given
generation. Currently, humans are estimated to have about
38 DNA base pair mutations per human gamete (sex cell,
either egg or sperm) as a result of recombination during
gamete formation, with each newborn carrying roughly
50–100 total mutations (genetic differences among the 3
billion base pairs of the human genome) from its parents
and/or siblings [5, p. 966]. Mutations may be advantageous,
conferring an advantage to the carrier and making it more
likely that the mutation will be passed on to the next
generation, disadvantageous, conferring a disadvantage
(e.g. poorer health) to the carrier, making it less likely that
the mutation will be passed on to the next generation, or
neutral, having no measureable effect on the likelihood
that it will be passed on to the next generation; this does
not mean, however, that neutral mutations never become
more or less common in populations, as we will see below
in Section 2.4.
The genetic diversity of a population (D), an important
quantity in long-term population planning, is a product of
a mutation rate (μ), the population size (Nc or Ne, intro-
duced below), and time (t), because mutations accumulate
in a genome over time [6, p. 151]. Note that t indicates
generations (or intergenerational interval), not years.
Human generation time (the number of years between
birth and when an adult actually has offspring) has been
estimated many times and within limits (ranging from c.
25 to 30 among many sampled human populations) is
“rather consistent regardless of the cultural and environ-
mental differences among human societies” according to
Matsumura and Forster [7, p. 1504] and here I use 30 years,
averaging their estimated 25–35 year generation times.
Mutation rate is quite variable among species, subpopula-
tions of species, families, individuals, sexes and even bodily
tissues [8] so no single mutation rate can be used in all
calculations. Having said this, an average nuclear mutation
rate per generation for modern humans has been estimated at
1.3  10  8 per generation [9, p. 4]; as mentioned, such a figure
is used to help calculate figures that will be introduced below.
Compared to on Earth mutation by increased exposure
to cosmic radiation will likely increase during interstellar
voyaging, but will presumably be eased again when a
planet with a magnetic field serves as a shield in as on
Earth. How much mutation will occur as a result of cosmic
radiation is a topic for a separate paper, but current
estimates do not suggest that it clearly precludes multi-
generational human interstellar travel [10]. As with pro-
pulsion issues, for the purposes of this paper I am
assuming radiation hazards will be suitably mitigated.
2.2. Migration
Migration is a change in the genetic properties of a
population as a result of individuals physically moving into
or out of that population [11]. Migration is driven by many
motivators; two obvious kinds are “push” factors that
compel migration due to local competition, and “pull”
factors including the perception of new, nonlocal oppor-
tunities; note that human migration may be driven by
cultural imperatives not found in other life forms [12] and
intent is not necessarily implied here. A human population
aboard an interstellar vessel would not have in- or
out-migration until a new planet is reached, where the
population could grow again and might split up, resulting
in out-migration; therefore migration is not considered in
this study.
2.3. Selection
Selection is the favoring of certain individuals and
characteristics in a population over others, often manifest
in differential reproductive success of individuals such that
over time, a population of a species or an entire species
becomes tailored to its environment as poorer-fitted
individuals become less numerous and more fit individuals
become more numerous [13,14]. Selection can be natural
(e.g. the effect of natural environment) or cultural (e.g.
humans make careful mate choices, affecting genetics, and
cultural information changes by an evolutionary process as
well, a process beyond the scope of this paper; see [15,16]).
In nature the term “selection” is unfortunate in that it
implies an intent or directionality for which we have no
evidence. Certainly human beings select for and against
certain properties in our domesticated species, propagat-
ing those we prefer and eventually terminating those that
we do not. But most selection is not the result of such
choice; rather, factors such as temperature, precipitation,
radiation, the presence of predators and so on determine
which individuals (and thus which genes) will survive to
form the next generation, and which will not. Selection,
then, is non-random differential survival of randomly vary-
ing individuals in a population. Selection is not random
because the better-suited tend to propagate while the less-
fit propagate less, leading to order over time rather than
disorder.
It is commonly thought that modern medicine and
technology have all but ceased natural selection in modern
life, but this is not the case; selection continues, especially
where access to hygene and nutrients are not guaranteed.
In the developed world there is also selection as in the
cases of increased rickets among recent migrants from the
Indian subcontinent to the cloudy British Isles [17] and
synthetic compounds found in the uterus and fetus,
undoubtedly affecting the genome even early in life,
selection that we are only beginning to understand [18].
While interstellar migration populations will inhabit
carefully constructed environments and will have superior
health care, it remains possible that new and unexpected
conditions related to interstellar travel (e.g. non-Earth-
normal gas atmospheres and pressures, as well as gravita-
tion, in interstellar craft) could cause selection on the
human population, especially in gastrulation, early in life
when things are quite fragile. Also, when an exoplanet is
reached and settled, no matter what technology is used to
adapt, some new selection will surely shape the human
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29 19

genome before cultural and technological buffers can Table 1

be invented. Because we cannot profitably predict such Heterozygous decay. Heterozygous decay in a 5-generation timescale in
various populations. Heterozygozsity begins at 0.5 (50%).
selective pressures at present, selection is a topic for a
separate paper, and is not considered in this study. Note Population Generation Years Heterozygosity
that selection continues in the human genome, and some
argue that it has increased in speed in the past few 20 1 30 48.75
millennia [19]. 20 2 60 47.53
20 3 90 46.34
20 4 120 45.18
2.4. Drift 20 5 150 44.05

150 1 30 49.83
Drift drives genetic change by a sampling phenomenon 150 2 60 49.67
unrelated to selection; it reflects a degree of randomness 150 3 90 49.50
affecting the likelihood that genes are propagated and is best 150 4 120 49.34
150 5 150 49.17
understood in the following example: “Imagine an organism
whose genotype is such that it expects, on average, to have 1000 1 30 49.98
1000 2 60 49.95
2.4 offspring. In fact, it might have no offspring, or one or two
1000 3 90 49.93
or three or more offspring. The outcome is simply the luck 1000 4 120 49.90
of the draw. Similarly, imagine an allele that never affects 1000 5 150 49.88
fitness, and that is present in 100 copies. In the next
2000 1 30 49.99
generation, maybe there will be only 90 copies, or 120 copies. 2000 2 60 49.98
The actual number is drawn from some probability distribu- 2000 3 90 49.96
tion with a mean value of 100” [20, p. 704]. Over time, then, 2000 4 120 49.95
2000 5 150 49.94
simply due to random sampling error, gene frequencies
change even absent strong selection. Drift is most active in
small populations that do not grow, and clearly a concern
in modeling multigenerational voyaging with a rather fixed below) and t¼elapsed generations. Table 1 shows that on
population over some generations. the five-generation timescale considered in project Hyper-
The principal effect of drift in closed populations can be ion, heterozygosity (beginning at 50%) would drop to
estimated by modeling the loss of heterozygosity, which is 44.05% in five generations in a population of 20 indivi-
a measure of the fact that in many genetic maladies, two duals; this six percent increase in homozygosity is roughly
copies of a deleterious gene (one from each parent and three times the amount allowed by animal breeders, who
each variant of the single gene called an allele) must be are familiar with the issues of inbreeding (an increase in
present for the deleterious effect to be expressed in homozygosity due to shared ancestry), and would be
an individual. For the individual organism, heterozygosity deleterious to the population. In populations even slightly
is a statistical concern regarding the probability that an larger, however, only one or less than one percent of
individual carries two different forms of a gene. For heterozygosity is lost in five generations; these results
populations, heterozygosity can also refer to the amount confirm O0 Rourke0 s estimation that from the perspective of
of allele diversity in the gene pool; for example, if hetero- heterozygotic decay and voyages on the order of 5–8
zygosity is 0.5, half of the alleles of a certain gene are generations in duration, populations over 150 or so indi-
deleterious and half not; this is an average for many viduals are entirely sufficient [24]. This is also confirmed in
deleterious genes in a human population. As a closed Strickberger0 s estimation that (under realistic conditions) a
population that does not substantially increase in size population of 1000 sexually reproducing life forms would
continues to inbreed (as on a starship), the statistics of take several hundred generations to lose just 10% of their
mate-selection dictate that the number of heterozygotes original heterozygosity [25, pp. 711–713].
decreases, increasing homozygosity, or the chance that For these reasons we can say that any population over
individuals will carry two copies of the deleterious allele 100 or so will be sufficient to avoid drift-related inbreed-
(one from each parent), leading to expression of such ing effects, including heterozygotic decay, on multigenera-
genetic maladies. Often seen in cases of incest, this results tional voyages in which population does not significantly
in the concentration of deleterious genes and reduced increase. Fig. 2 reiterates this point graphically, showing
overall health of the population; close incest, for example, that the drift-related loss of heterogeneity should be lower
causes mental disorders [21,22] and one study has shown than 5% – even in roughly double the time of any voyage
that first-cousin matings among Amish, Indian, French, currently conceived – for Ne populations of 150 or more,
Japanese, Pakistani, Swedish and Utah populations pro- though populations below this (e.g. 20) lose heterogeneity
duced up to 22% infant mortality, roughly double the much more rapidly.
percentage seen in offspring of unrelated individuals [23].
The reduction of heterozygosity in a population is 2.5. The founder effect
steady and can be determined from the equation:
The “Founder Effect” is the phenomenon in which
Ht ¼ H0ð1  1=2N e Þt
a subpopulation migrates away from the local origin,
where Ht¼heterozygosity after t generations, H0 is the establishing a new population that no longer interbreeds
initial heterozygosity, Ne ¼ Effective Population (discussed with members of the original population such that all
20 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
0.50
0.45
Heterozygosity
0.40
Ne 10,000
Ne 1,000
Ne 150
Ne 20
0.35
2 4 6 8 10
Generations
Fig. 2. Rate of heterozygotic decay for Ne at 150, 1000 and 10,000.
Vertical axis is heterozygosity, starting at 0.50 (50%) for a given allele.
Horizontal axis indicates generations, and vertical line at five generations
indicates the thoughtscape of this paper. Model assumes a panmictic
diecious population under Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and thus differs
somewhat from any real population, but indicates the essential point that
populations approximating an Ne of 10,000 are safe from heterozygous
decay on the order of the 5–10 generation timescale envisioned by
current interstellar migration planners.
descendant characteristics will be strongly conditioned by
the founding population only, which might not be a
statistically representative sample of the original popula-
tion and will have its own unique characteristics, that will
further diverge from the donor population over time [26].
Clearly, the Founder Effect is of critical importance to
considering interstellar colonial populations because they
will be a subset of the entire human gene pool and will be
reproductively isolated from the human gene pool the
moment they move away from Earth (using radio trans-
missions to update genetic material aboard a starship, and/
or using sperm and egg banks are both hypotheticals I do
not discuss here). The initial, founding genetic character-
istics of colony population, then, will have to be carefully
considered to sample as much of Earth0 s human diversity
as possible; the number of people required to reflect this
diversity is a figure important to this study, and is returned
to below.
2.6. Inbreeding, Allee Effect and the extinction vortex
Several other population genetic issues must be
addressed when considering an initial population of
humans for multigenerational health (two such population
figures, Ne or “Effective Population” and MCP or ‘Minimum
Viable Population’, are discussed at length below). Breed-
ing among small populations has the effect of increasing
the frequency of deleterious genes in the population,
popularly known as inbreeding [27,28]. Thus, breeding
population size and inbreeding concerns are directly
related. Also, populations are most vulnerable to any
catastrophe when they are small, not normally because
the entire species is killed during a single catastrophe, but
because only enough need to be killed to drop below the
species0 Minimum Viable Population and because such
population “bottlenecks” can have significant deleterious
genetic effects [20, p. 706]. Small populations are also
subject to genetic fixity, in which once-rare genes can
rapidly become widespread, even if they are deleterious
(they may be immune to selection if they are not imme-
diately lethal or are linked to otherwise-indispensable
functions); such drift-driven fixity occurs in about 4 Ne
generations [29, pp. 766–770]. Note that the time until
fixity is a mean value.
Small populations that suffer catastrophe can be sub-
ject to the Allee Effect, in which the demographic structure
is so perturbed that “nongenetic” reasons prevent popula-
tion recovery [30, p. 1457], for example, if too many young
are killed in a catastrophe and breeding partners can no
longer be found, leading to an “extinction vortex” phe-
nomenon of obvious interest to the project of human
interstellar voyaging. The extinction vortex has received
much theoretical and experimental examination, and
recently it was quantified that “…in accordance with
theoretical models of population dynamics… for popula-
tions that go extinct, time-to-extinction scales logarithmi-
cally with population size” [31, p. 58]; the same reference
[31] provides a useful introduction to this phenomenon.
2.7. Discussion
Mutation and migration essentially introduce variation
into gene pools, while selection and drift erode variation
(there are exceptions to these generalization). The trick to
maintaining good genetic health is to at least balance these
processes. In nonhuman populations this is largely done by
instinct, whereas in humans, a small portion of instinct is
elaborated by overriding cultural norms regulating repro-
ductive activity. A review of the essential processes of
population genetics suggests that for the timeframe dis-
cussed in this paper, selection, drift, mutation and migra-
tion are not as significant as population size, as reflected in
founder population demography. Long-term survival num-
bers large enough that catastrophes can be sustained
without entering an extinction vortex. This is most clearly
addressed by ensuring that that the founding population is
large enough to persist over mutigenerational time.
3. Estimating human population sizes for interstellar
craft
3.1. Quantifying population issues for interstellar voyaging:
Effective Population (Ne), Minimum Viable Population (MVP)
and census population (Nc)
Since Sewall Wright first explored specific population
issues in his 1931 publication of “Evolution in Mendelian
Populations”, three figures (discussed below) have been
devised to better undersand these issues. Importantly,
these figures were largely theoretically considered until
the 1970s, when awareness of modern extinction rates in
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
wild populations led to the rise of the field of conservation
biology. Among this field0 s many concerns has been to
identify the number of individuals, of a given species,
required to maintain that population in good genetic
health for some time (such figures help to determine the
size of wildlife refuges, for instance).
One of these figures is Effective Population, or Ne. This
figure, defined somewhat variably in the literature,
broadly estimates the minimum number of individuals of
a species that can interbreed while producing viable off-
spring for some generations without suffering the effects
of inbreeding [25, p. 711]; another way to think of it is as
an ideal figure representing the number of individuals of a
species that demonstrate the same amount of genetic
variation as the entire population, or, alternately “…the
number of individuals in an ideally behaving random-
mating population that has the same magnitude of genetic
drift as the actual population of interest” [32,8] (note that
in all cases the sampled population is assumed to be
genetically healthy on a multigenerational scale). Ne is
normally lower than the actual number of organisms in a
population because Ne only includes reproductively viable
individuals (that is, sexually mature but not senescent).
Ne (an harmonic rather than arithmetic mean) varies by
the reproductive biology of the species in consideration,
the species0 individual average longevity and other factors
(see [33] for cultural reasons for variation in the human Ne).
For many species, though, Effective Population ranges
in the low thousands, and “…from bacteria to humans
[Ne figures] are within an order of magnitude of each other.”
[34, p. 2161, 35, p. 314]. In modern humans, who number
into the billions, Ne is often calculated to be around 10,000, a
figure we will return to below. Ne is calculated in many
subtly varying ways, but can be largely thought of as a
function dividing the amount of genetic variation in a sample
of a species by an estimate of the mutation rate and
population of that species. Also note that Ne is always an
estimate, as it differs over time as the demographic history
changes of a species changes, and, further, that different Ne
figures can be calculated for different genes or other traits of
a species.
For all of these reasons Ne is always an estimate but
remains a genetically and realistically well-informed mea-
sure of the of the genetic diversity of a species, which itself
broadly indicates how many reproductive individuals are
needed, at minimum, to maintain species genetic health
(largely by avoiding the effects of inbreeding and loss of
heterozygosity) over multigenerational time [36,37, p. 2199,
38, p. 325], clearly a figure of interest in the topics of
this paper.
In nonhuman life Ne is often only 10–30% of the
population [39], with nonreproductive young normally
composing the bulk of the remainder, and only a small
percentage of nonreproductive elderly composing the final
fraction (this fraction is normally higher in highly social
animals, such as primates, where elders may provide
protection or alloparenting for the young). For a number
of reasons, Ne is normally 50% of the local breeding
population in traditional human foraging cultures (where
low populations are promoted) and only about 30% of that
population in farming cultures (where high populations
21
are promoted), issues returned to below [6, p. 147]. Note
that as humans are particularly active in making long-
distance mating networks, and are highly mobile, the
human Ne is well below the actual population of roughly
six billion. Recent profiling of human genetic diversity has
greatly improved our understanding of the human Ne
[40,41].
The second figure, Minimum Viable Population (MVP)
includes all members of the population, whether or not they
are members of the reproductive age cohort [42,43]. While
Ne is often calculated based on surveys of the genetic
diversity of species, MVP is normally a result of surveys of
the actual demographic structure (in terms of age and sex
subdivisions or cohorts) of real-world populations of a
species. The Minimum Viable Population is always larger
than Ne and depends on many variables including the
species0 reproductive rate, gestation time, longevity per
individual and so on [44]. Because MVP literature empha-
sizes the minimum number of individuals to support endan-
gered nonhuman population for some generations (often a
century, a figure of importance to humans attempting to
scale conservation efforts with human lifetimes and scales
of political attention), I prefer to use the third term, the
theoretically rather synonymous Nc, or census population;
this is similar to MVP but in its use does not emphasize the
minimum possible number, but rather a reasonable number,
to sustain the population over a given interval. Census
population, then, or Nc (which is often synonymous with
MVP in conservation biology literature), is strongly condi-
tioned by Ne and is often expressed as the n of reproductive
individuals plus all nonreproductive members of the breed-
ing population [45]. In human populations, Nc is often twice
the size of Ne in small, foraging-hunting-gathering popula-
tions (where populations are deliberately kept low to avoid
exhausting limited resources), and three times the size of Ne
in agricultural populations (such as those of modern
civilization supplied by agriculture, as will be the case on
interstellar craft).
In summary, Effective Population (Ne) is the minimum
number of reproductive individuals required to ensure
genetic health over multiple generations (in our case, five),
so it must be large enough in the population of the first
interstellar colonist generation to sample a wide variety of
the diversity of the human genome, because genetic diver-
sity is key to the genetic health of a population over time.
From Ne we can derive Census Population (Nc), the actual
number of a real-world human population – distributed
among a modern human sex- and age-cohort demographic
structure – of the first generation of a Interstellar Migrant
Population (IMP), including reproductive and nonreproduc-
tive individuals. This figure should be selected to be sufficient
to avoid inbreeding and genetic drift effects according to the
duration of the projected voyage and its unique properties
(compared to Earth conditions) of (a) low-to-no population
growth and (b) relatively small breeding pool with no
opportunity for in-migration of new genes during its voyage.
In this study I use five generations, each of 30 years
[46, pp. 420–422], for a total of 150 years. I adjust population
figures to account for various likelihoods of large-scale
disaster, which we can reasonably expect – or should at
least prudently model for – on such a voyage.
22 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
3.2. Survey of Effective Population (Ne), Minimum Viable
Population (MVP) and census population (Nc) Estimates
for various life Forms
Before proceeding we must remember that Ne, Nc and
MVP figures are calculated differently for different life forms,
and there is active debate among scholars regarding methods
to derive these figures. While none are calling to abandon
calculation of these figures, it is clear that there are no “magic
numbers” that apply to all species [47, p. 879], see also
[35,33]; at the same time, useful estimates can be made for
conservation efforts [48–50] analogous to the interests of
project Hyperion0 s goal of sending viable human populations
on intergenerational voyages. One reason for the variation in
calculating these figures is that subpopulations of a single
species vary genetically, such that they may have a different
Ne than another sub-population; also, one variable used to
calculate Ne is the rate of mutation, that is the rate of new
variation in the life form per generation; but this also varies
both among and within populations [9] and over time [51];
finally, the Ne might itself have changed through time, as is
suspected of the genus Homo [32], though it is still possible to
make useful ballpark estimates.
To estimate a genetically viable Ne and Nc for a five-
generation (c. 150-year) timespan, I surveyed the research
literature pertaining to these values published in the last 40
years, highlighting research (including meta-analyses) pub-
lished in the last decade to account for new genomic knowl-
edge that is reformulating evolutionary biology see [52].
I focused on animal life (rather than including plants or
microbes) and, in particular, vertebrate life, and of the
vertebrates, mammals, and of the mammals, primates, includ-
ing earlier and modern Homo. Such estimates include recent
studies using genomic data that have allowed high-resolution
understanding of modern humanity0 s Ne. Such estimates also
vary somewhat in their calculation of Ne for both methodo-
logical reasons and because humanity deviates in several
ways from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium conditions that
are the theoretical foundation of Ne estimates; for example,
humans exhibit (a) overlapping generations, (b) population
subdivisions, (c) local population extinctions, recolonizations
and migrations and (d) different reproductive patterns
between the sexes and cultures. The variation in the figures
examined here, and the ways in which they are calculated by
different researchers, are the reason for my not performing a
standard ANOVA on the data set presented in Table 2. How-
ever, there are significant patterns in the data set that are of
use to the estimates sought in this paper, which are required
as estimates of magnitude regarding the scale of operation
for interstellar voyaging. We see that demographically, in
humans, scales over 150 are advisable from one perspective,
and we shall see that from other independent perspectives
(e.g. Ne, Nc and associated figures) similar quanta are indicated,
giving us a magnitude-level understanding of realistic figures
for multigenerational, closed-population voyaging.
Note that human Ne figures vary in a rather tight range,
as will be seen below, when we consider the range of
variation among all organisms sampled in this study.
Results of the survey are found in Table 2. They include
low and high range estimates for Ne and Nc (representing
MVP), averages of these figures, an indication of the life form
studied (“Comp Sim” indicates a computer study only)
and references. Many of these studies derived such figures
from DNA diversity analyses, while PVA (Population Viability
Analysis; see [44]) was often used in conjunction with
demographic and population structure data to arrive at Nc,
synonymous here with MVP as described above.
Eight summary results are immediately apparent, some
tabulated for clarity in Table 3.
1. There is no single universally applicable Ne or Nc; this is
expected because these figures are derived with
slightly differing methods per study, for life forms with
different life histories, reproductive biologies and life-
spans and because these figures themselves change
through time [53,27].
2. Almost no study sets Ne below 1500, often setting
minimal Nc/MVP0 s of at least 5000 in nonhumans (Reed
et al. [44, 30] suggest populations “for long-term persis-
tence may range from 2000… to 413,000”) and 43,000
for modern humans; both, again, in the multiple thou-
sands rather than hundreds, for example, and in only one
of 61 cases below 100,000, setting the range between 103
and 104 in many cases. The exception [54] is a highly
abstracted model of Pleistocene hunter-gatherer popula-
tions, which I discount from this analysis.
3. Ne figures average just under 20,000 for all life forms
and computer simulations combined, but significantly
lower, just over 1500, for a few studies generalizing
upon “all animal life”. For hominoidea generally and
hominins specifically, data derived largely from DNA
diversity studies indicates an Ne on the order of 17,000–
20,000, while for modern humans an Ne of just over
10,000 is indicated by many studies, with attendant
Nc0 s of roughly 20,000 if modeling after historical
foraging populations (who prefer smaller populations)
or closer to 30,000 if modeling after historical pre-
industrial agricultural populations (who prefer larger
populations).
4. Only 13 of 61 studies yielded Nc/MVP figures for the
sampled life forms under 5000.
5. Ne for large mammalian species only twice exceeds
100,000 (this is also noted in a smaller sampling in
Refs. [32,15]).
6. Ne and Nc average (respectively) around 18,000 and
32,000 for the entire sample (n ¼61 studies), 14,500–
22,000 for all hominin estimates (n ¼34 studies) and
11,000–22,000 for all modern human estimates (n ¼18
studies, of which nearly half suggest an Ne approximat-
ing 10,000).
7. The metastudies [44,55,47] all estimate Nc on the order
of several thousand, ranging from around 4000 for
vertebrates and mammals specifically to 5000–7000
for samples of hundreds animal species from multiple
genera ([44] studied 102 vertebrates while [55] studied
212 varied species).
8. An important result not obvious on the table is that
in these meta-analyses, an Nc on the order of several
thousand ( 41500, o8000) was not found to vary
significantly by taxa (life form), trophic level
(e.g. carnivore or herbivore), or latitude (geographical
distribution) [44].
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29 23

Table 2
Survey of effective and census population data.

Ne low Ne high Ne average MVP average Organism code Reference

5000 Animal [47]

1000 5000 3000 15,000 Animal [50]
4500 Animal [66]
50 500 275 2475 Animal [35]
2000 Comp Sim [67]
5500 Comp Sim [49]
42500 Comp Sim [68]
1000 5000 15,000 Comp Sim [50]
556 1250 8750 Comp Sim [69]
12,300 24,600 Hominoidea [70]
21,300 42,600 Hominoidea [70]
25,200 50,400 Hominoidea [70]
10,841 Insect [55]
2200 Insect [42]
5137 Large vertebrate [55]
9000 12,000 10,500 21,000 Later hominin [63]
8000 11,000 9500 19,000 Later hominin [63]
7000 9500 8250 16,500 Later hominin [63]
18,000 36,000 Later hominin [71]
10,000 20,000 Later hominin [72]
10,000 35,000 Later hominin [6]
10,000 100,000 55,000 110,000 Later hominin [32]
21,000 64,000 Later hominin [32]
8800 17,600 Later hominin [32]
9000 17,500 13,250 26,500 Later hominin [40]
10,000 20,000 Later hominin [73]
9640 19,280 Later hominin [51]
6000 15,000 10,500 21,000 Later hominin [74]
10,659 21,318 Later hominin [41]
10,000 20,000 Later hominin [75]
3876 Mammal [55]
3500 Mammal [76]
43200 Mammal [77]
10,400 20,800 Mod human [70]
14,000 28,000 Mod human [78]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [32]
10,000 100,000 10,000 20,000 Mod human [79]
15,000 30,000 Mod human [80]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [81]
3000 15,000 9000 18,000 Mod human [82]
10,000 30,000 Mod human [23]
35,000 70,000 Mod human [83]
325 Mod human [54]
3100 7500 5300 15,900 Mod human [84]
5394 10,788 Mod human [51]
770 1540 Mod human [51]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [85]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [86]
10,000 20,000 15,000 30,000 Mod human [53]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [41]
10,000 20,000 Mod human [41]
4196 Plant [55]
3956 Small vertebrate [55]
100,000 200,000 Various primates [87]
9000 68,000 38,500 77,000 Various primates [88]
7000 57,000 32,000 64,000 Various primates [88]
500 4050 Various primates [89]
10,025 Various primates [90]
52,000 96,000 74,000 148,000 Various primates [85]
4102 Vertebrate [55]
4169 Vertebrate [55]
7000 Vertebrate [44]

While there is some significant variation in Ne and Nc the average Ne of roughly 10,000 individuals closely approx-
estimates for modern humans at large (including purely imates Relethford0 s similar conclusion, based on his own
theoretical modeling of ancient populations as well as survey of others0 estimates and his own mathematical esti-
empirically based estimates using genomic diversity data), mates [6]. This figure is high compared to other interstellar
24 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29

voyaging population estimates, such as Moore0 s widely an ancient state of small, dispersed human populations, into
discussed population of 80–150 individuals (therefore an Ne the hundreds of thousands of years ago, and thus often
of roughly 40–75) [56]. Such small figures are based on considered a stable reproductive units over long time for
anthropological observation that in many preindustrial members of the genus Homo (e.g. [54]).
human cultures, tribal or band populations of individuals There is a significant problem with these figures,
are often of this scale – the “Dunbar Number” of c. 150 has however, for multigenerational interstellar voyaging. Even
also widely been publicized as a viable, self-contained though human groups might have fallen into such low-
human population. Such low-hundreds to low-thousands hundreds figures for social (e.g. ethnic) and logistical
figures of “natural human populations”, when observed in reasons, they are (and in the past, were) never completely
modern non-industrialized cultures are often taken to reflect isolated populations, as would be the case on a starship.
Human cultures have long-range mating networks and
maintain large breeding populations even if they reside
Table 3
Summary of population data surveyed.
in smaller subunits observed by anthropologists [57];
Eckhard notes that even among historically known fora-
Average Ne MVP ging peoples, though they lived and traveled in such small
groups, a larger collective gene pool (Ne) was maintained
All studies 18,187 31,810
by “matings between members of immediately adjacent
Animal 1638
Comp Sim 7813 populations…[and modern foragers] have systematic (and
Hominoidea 19,600 often complex) arrangements for mate exchange among
Insect 6521 adjacent bands, either to make up for a shortage of mates
Large vertebrate 5137
of appropriate demographic characteristics or to ensure
Later hominin 17,819 51,075
Mammal 3688
amicable relationships, or for other reasons” [58, p. 243].
Modern human 11,168 21,964 Gamble emphasizes such wide, integrating social and
Plant 4196 breeding networks as particularly distinctive of the mod-
Small vertebrate 3956 ern Homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to the Neanderthals
Various primates 49,000 83,846
(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), who lived in smaller
Vertebrate 5090
All hominins 14,494 21,888 territories and might well have had smaller breeding
populations [59]. While some human populations have

Table 4
Effective and census populations and adjustments for safety considering various catastrophe probabilities and 30% mortality on interstellar vessels.

Ne Nc P L CF ICP, SF ¼2 ICP, SF¼ 3 Nc-Cat Ne-Cat NcSF2-CAT NcSF3-CAT NeSF2-CAT NeSF3-CAT

75 150 1.0 0.3 45 390 585 105 53 273 410 137 205
75 150 0.5 0.3 23 345 518 128 64 242 362 121 181
75 150 0.3 0.3 11 323 484 139 69 226 339 113 169
75 150 0.1 0.3 6 311 467 144 72 218 327 109 163
75 150 0.1 0.3 3 306 458 147 74 214 321 107 160
75 150 0.0 0.3 1 303 454 149 74 212 318 106 159

150 300 1.0 0.3 90 780 1170 210 105 546 819 273 410
150 300 0.5 0.3 45 690 1035 255 128 483 725 242 362
150 300 0.3 0.3 23 645 968 278 139 452 677 226 339
150 300 0.1 0.3 11 623 934 289 144 436 654 218 327
150 300 0.1 0.3 6 611 917 294 147 428 642 214 321
150 300 0.0 0.3 3 606 908 297 149 424 636 212 318

2000 4000 1.0 0.3 1200 10,400 15,600 2800 1400 7280 10,920 3640 5460
2000 4000 0.5 0.3 600 9200 13,800 3400 1700 6440 9660 3220 4830
2000 4000 0.3 0.3 300 8600 12,900 3700 1850 6020 9030 3010 4515
2000 4000 0.1 0.3 150 8300 12,450 3850 1925 5810 8715 2905 4358
2000 4000 0.1 0.3 75 8150 12,225 3925 1963 5705 8558 2853 4279
2000 4000 0.0 0.3 38 8075 12,113 3963 1981 5653 8479 2826 4239

3500 7000 1.0 0.3 2100 18,200 27,300 4900 2450 12,740 19,110 6370 9555
3500 7000 0.5 0.3 1050 16,100 24,150 5950 2975 11,270 16,905 5635 8453
3500 7000 0.3 0.3 525 15,050 22,575 6475 3238 10,535 15,803 5268 7901
3500 7000 0.1 0.3 263 14,525 21,788 6738 3369 10,168 15,251 5084 7626
3500 7000 0.1 0.3 131 14,263 21,394 6869 3434 9984 14,976 4992 7488
3500 7000 0.0 0.3 66 14,131 21,197 6934 3467 9892 14,838 4946 7419

11,000 22,000 1.0 0.3 6600 57,200 85,800 15,400 7700 40,040 60,060 20,020 30,030
11,000 22,000 0.5 0.3 3300 50,600 75,900 18,700 9350 35,420 53,130 17,710 26,565
11,000 22,000 0.3 0.3 1650 47,300 70,950 20,350 10,175 33,110 49,665 16,555 24,833
11,000 22,000 0.1 0.3 825 45,650 68,475 21,175 10,588 31,955 47,933 15,978 23,966
11,000 22,000 0.1 0.3 413 44,825 67,238 21,588 10,794 31,378 47,066 15,689 23,533
11,000 22,000 0.0 0.3 206 44,413 66,619 21,794 10,897 31,089 46,633 15,544 23,317
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
been very low for some centuries (e.g. castaway island
populations; see [60,61]), these are anomalous situations
in which the population size and social structure were not
the product of long cultural and natural selection, but
simply an historical contingency. I suggest rather that we
opt for population sizes that have been the product of both
cultural and biological evolution in our genus; such
populations, far exceeding the low hundreds, have so far
provided longevity for our genome over many generations
– as many as 3000 if we estimate the origins of modern
humanity around 100,000 years ago.
For all of these reasons, low-hundreds figures often
proposed as populations for multigenerational interstellar
voyages might work in theory, but likely underestimate
the actual size of a human gene pool required to maintain
good multigenerational health in absence of reproductive
links to other populations. Rather, I feel the Ne of roughly
10,000 or 11,000 – reflecting and concurring with high-
resolution modern data on living populations as well as
theoretical calculations – is a much more reasonable
estimate. For these reasons, I proceed below using these
more realistic population estimates based on the results of
the survey reported in Table 2. The following investigation
is heuristic, but not completely abstract: it is useful for
identifying, at least to an order of magnitude, reasonable
estimates for the population issues of this paper.
3.3. Estimating and modeling a viable population for
a five-generation interstellar voyage
Table 4 can be used to evaluate the suitability of certain
Ne and Nc figures for human populations on intergenera-
tional, closed-system voyages. The columns indicate various
quantities described below. One factor built into the model-
ing is that of catastrophe. An undertaking as complex and
long in duration as a 5-generation voyage to an exoplanet
will undoubtedly be over-engineered in its lifeless compo-
nents, as are aircraft and cars today. The human population –
the precious cargo – of such voyages should also be designed
to be resilient to shocks. Aside from mechanical failure in the
habitats themselves, the most likely large-scale catastrophe
that could occur in the envisioned voyage would be the
sweep of a plague through the population. Even the Earth0 s
worst recorded human plagues have never had a mortality
greater than 2% of the entire human population, but in
smaller subpopulations – such as Europe during the Black
Plague of the 1300s – average mortality was as high as 30%
[62]. I use this mortality figure in planning for disaster in the
calculations below.
The columns in Table 4 are arranged as follows, from
left to right;
Ne ¼ Effective Population ¼(n of reproductive indivi-
duals necessary to sustain genetic health while breed-
ing among the closed population).
Nc ¼census population (2Ne)¼total number of people
in the population, including reproductive and nonre-
productive members.
P ¼probability of catastrophe on 5-generation voyage,
from 1.0 (100%) to.03 (3%), dropping somewhat in each
25
row to model different contingencies.
L¼lethality of catastrophe¼percentage of Nc killed in a
catastrophic disease sweep on the order of the Eur-
opean plague of the 14th Century AD; here I use
0.30 (30%).
CF ¼Catastrophe Factor¼ (Nc  L)P ¼n of individuals to
supplement the starship population, to offset cata-
strophe, based on the expected lethality of the disaster
and one0 s comfort regarding modeling the likelihood of
a disaster
IMP, SF ¼ Interstellar Migrant Population with Safety
Factor¼ (Nc þCF)  [2 or 3]¼ the original population
(Nc) plus the number of replacements carried in event
of a catastrophe (CF), multiplied by two or three,
according to one0 s threshold for over-engineering.
These two columns represent the total number of
people (Nc) as the starship population, adjusted for
various probabilities of disaster; note that they always
exceed Ne.
Nc-Cat ¼for reference, the Nc minus 30% as in the case
of catastrophe.
Ne-Cat ¼for reference, the Ne minus 30% as in the case
of catastrophe.
The remaining four columns (on the right side of the
table) are most useful for evaluating whether, after
catastrophe, certain critical population size limits are
violated (discussed below).
NcSF2-CAT¼ the Nc multiplied by safety factor of 2,
minus 30%, the population lost in a catastrophe. This
is the n of people remaining after a 30% depopulation if
the original population were doubled as a safety factor.
NcSF2-CAT¼ the Nc multiplied by safety factor of 3,
minus 30%, the population lost in a catastrophe. This
is the n of people remaining after a 30% depopulation if
the original population were tripled as a safety factor.
NeSF2-CAT ¼the Nc multiplied by safety factor of 2,
minus 30%, the population lost in a catastrophe. This
is the n of reproductively active people remaining after
a 30% depopulation if the original population were
doubled as a safety factor.
NeSF2-CAT ¼the Ne multiplied by safety factor of 3,
minus 30%, the population lost in a catastrophe. This
is the n of reproductively active people remaining after
a 30% depopulation if the original population were
tripled as a safety factor.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Overview
Three lessons learned from the analysis of Table 2
are particularly important to understanding Table 3:
1. Viability over several generations is rarely considered
possible in numbers (Ne or Nc) less than a few thou-
sand. While an Ne of 500 has been used for many
species in conservation efforts, it is not a “magic
number” Still, attendant Nc0 s normally measure in the
low thousands at least, a figure acceptable to even
26 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29

scholars most critical of population viability estimates
[35, p. 314].
2. A cautious approach does not allow Nc to dip below
about 7000 individuals; this is particularly important in
vertebrates [44].
3. A cautious approach does not allow Ne to dip below
about 10,000; this is particularly important in the
genus Homo [6,63].
With these lessons in mind in Table 5 I review Ne and
associated figures of 75, 150, 2000, 3500 and 11,000.
With Ne (reproductive population) at 75 persons for an
Nc (total population) of 150 persons – the oft-cited
“Dunbar Number” – even doubling or tripling the Nc with
safety factors never brings populations into even the low
thousands for either Ne or Nc. These populations would
always be on the verge of disaster in the case of a Black-
plague-like catastrophe. The same applies to the estimates
with Ne at 150, giving an initial Nc of 300 persons, which is
little better; and in both cases the Ne, even after doubling
or tripling, is just at or even below 10% of the Ne of 10,000
that is apparently a good guide for human health. Though
these populations would not likely suffer from significant
inbreeding effects (as discussed in Section 2.4) they are
nevertheless demographically dangerous. For these rea-
sons I discount both of these founding populations (75 and
150) as too risky to ensure multigenerational success.
With the initial Ne set at 2000 the recommendation
that vertebrates over 1 kg body mass have an Nc of about
4000 [55] is met. In the first row we see that by adding
1200 individuals against the effects of a catastrophe, and
then doubling the population, we achieve a population
(Nc) of 10,400; if this population were to be struck with
catastrophe of 30% lethality, 7820 individuals would sur-
vive, fulfilling the general guidance to keep the Nc at or
above 10,400. Looking at the columns for Ne after cata-
strophe we see figures from a high of 5460 to a low of
2826; only one approaches even 50% of the recommended
human Ne, and most are far below it. For this reason,
founding populations on the order of anything under
about 10,000, while they might preserve Nc, are risky in
the event of disaster regarding maintenance of Ne. For
these reasons I discount an initial Ne of 2000 as too risky
for multigenerational success.
With the initial Ne set at 3500 the recommendation
that vertebrates in general have an Nc of about 7000 is met
[44]. In the column IMP, SF¼2 we see that any figure, from
18,200 to 14,131 (Nc0 s doubled) allows the roughly 7000
individuals thought to be a viable multigenerational verte-
brate population to flourish, even in the case of cata-
strophes, where we see 9800 to 19,110 individuals
surviving. To preserve Ne around 10,000 after a cata-
strophe (cell far right indicating 9555 survivors) can be
done by tripling the population (column IMP, SF¼3) for a
founding population of Nc 27,300. This is a reasonable
starting figure for an IMP.
With the initial Ne set at 11,000 the average living
human Ne (as reported in Table 2) is approximated. With
Nc0 s adjusted to accommodate catastrophe, ranging from a
low of 44,413 to a high of 57,200 when adjusted for
catastrophe, recommendations for Nc0 s over c.5000 and
Ne0 s around 11,000 after catastrophe are easily met by
doubling the population (columns NcSF2-CAT and NeSF2-
CAT). Tripling the population (column IMP, SF¼ 3) invokes
populations from nearly 70,000 to over 85,000, which
appears to be overkill as just mentioned; doubling is
sufficient to protect both Nc and Ne in a severe catastrophe.
In sum, I would consider roughly 10,000 an absolute
minimum Ne population, with an Nc at or exceeding 30,000
for a safe IMP; this aligns well with the currently known
modern human Ne, which ranges from 9000–17,000,
averaging somewhere in-between [40, p. 1963], and would
suffice to ensure enduring the modeled catastrophe.
4.2. A note on demographic structure
The demographic (age and sex) structure of such
populations as explored above will be important to

Table 5 2000
Sample demographic structures for an interstellar vessel at various
founding populations.
1600
Population

Generation 1 (departing Earth) M F Sum

1200
18 k population (Ne ¼9800)
Ne 6860 after catastrophe, Nc 13,720 after catastrophe
Subadult 4000 4000 8000 800
Adult paired 4000 4000 8000
Adult unpaired 900 900 1800
Elder paired 50 50 100 400
Elder unpaired 50 50 100
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Sum 9000 9000 18,000
Years
40 k population (Ne ¼ 23,400)
Ne 16,380 after catastrophe, Nc 32,760 after catastrophe Fig. 3. MATLAB population simulation results showing collapse of one
Subadult 6800 6800 13,600 subpopulation. Each line represets a reproductive community, composing
Adult paired 6700 6700 13,400 of multiple subpopulations over 210 years (seven generations) in which
Adult unpaired 5000 5000 10,000 each population begins at c. 1200 each. The collapse came in the form of
Elder paired 1000 1000 2000 an “extinction vortex”, discussed in the text, in which an initial event so
Elder unpaired 500 500 1000 depopulated the breeding population that age- and sex-structures were
Sum 20,000 20,000 40,000 disturbed, making it increasingly difficult to find mates. MATLAB simula-
tion provided by William Gardner-O'Kearney.
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
consider, but are only introduced here. As population cannot
be allowed to grow beyond certain limits in the closed
system of a multigenerational starship, reproductive rights
will not be as free as they are on Earth in many countries
today. Certain age- and sex-structures of populations will
have to be consciously maintained to give reproductive
individuals plenty of non-relative mate choices. Table 5
sketches out sample demographic profiles for migration
ships of initial populations (Nc) of 18,000 and 40,000.
Additionally, demographic simulations in MATLAB
indicate the population history for several demographic
profiles over several generations (Fig. 3), showing that
demographic structure at the outset can cause success or
catastrophe, and will have to be carefully considered.
Finally, note that the genetic and demographic health of
any plant and animal populations accompanying humanity
on interstellar voyages will have to be as carefully safe-
guarded as our own.
5. Conclusions
Considering what is known about vertebrate, mamma-
lian, nonhuman primate and hominin genetic variation and
population dynamics, multigenerational interstellar craft
populations that would be isolated and could not grow
significantly until an exoplanet is reached should not number
less than several thousand colonists at the outset. A total
population (Nc) of roughly of 10,000 would just barely
preserve the recommended 7000 individuals of a vertebrate
population in the event of a reasonably expectable cata-
strophe. Somewhat safer prospects are found with popula-
tions beginning around 14,000 individuals, but until the
founding Nc is on the order of 18,000, the critical human
Ne of roughly 10,000 could not be maintained in the event of
the modeled catastrophe. Any founding population with an
Nc above 40,000 initial colonists would be very likely to
survive in good health over five generations, even in the
event of a Black Death-style plague with a mortality figure of
30%; such a disease sweep is the most likely kind of
catastrophe for mutigenerational voyaging, even over such
effects as drift an inbreeding. However, a further genetic
catastrophe – one that would play out over generations –
might result from having a small founding population when
a new planet is reached. For this and other reasons discussed
below, I suggest planning for large Interstellar Migrant
Populations rather than small.
The current study employs various safety factors, cat-
astrophe lethality and probability of disaster per genera-
tion, and so on. These variable quantities may be altered,
and different risks taken in other models, but it is unlikely
that if we wish to make a success of such a voyage that we
will begin with populations less than roughly 10,000
people, supplemented to endure catastrophes of one kind
or another. Designers can work in a modular fashion such
that initial design work can begin as the final population is
determined; this is already underway in Summerford0 s
work on the Project Hyperion vessel design, which is highly
modular [64].
It is important to note that in previous estimates of
populations suitable for interstellar voyaging, an
27
Fig. 4. A multigenerational vessel schematic designed by Steve Summer-
ford. Revolving for 1-g conditions around a central hub are eight
habitations; in the conception invoked by this paper, each could house
5000 people, as in small towns on Earth today. Propulsion and other
systems are kept at some distance to the rear. Figure copyright ©Steve
Summerford 2013.
atmosphere of scarcity guided ideas; populations were
thought of as crews that would have to endure an
uncomfortable voyage for some centuries before arriving
at a destination. I feel this approach must be turned
upside-down; populations in these vessels will not be
military crews carrying out orders, but civilian commu-
nities living out normal human lives. Many will never see
Earth or the exoplanet destination of their descendants. To
make these habitats tolerable, over generations, I feel we
should lean towards large populations comparable to
those that have evolved in human biological cultural
evolution in the past 100,000 years of behavioral moder-
nity, rather than the bare minimum of what can be done
genetically. A founding population of 40,000, a safe num-
ber as shown in this paper for the 5-generation voyage
envisioned and the general mission of project Hyperion, is
large compared to what has been proposed before, but it is
much more genetically and demographically reasonable; a
spacecraft (or set of spacecraft) of such population is seen
in space architect Steve Summerford0 s recent engineering
study (Fig. 4). Others have proposed even larger popula-
tions [65] within the realm of reality. For the moment, I
think 40,000 as a founding population is worth discussion.
Acknowledgments
I thank Icarus Interstellar0 s Dr. Richard Obousy and Mr.
Andreas Hein for inviting me to take part in their research
project, Mr. William Gardner O0 Kearney for his fascinating
discussions and access to some of his MATLAB simulations
of multigenerational human population dynamics, and
space architect Steve Summerford for access to his visua-
lization of a multigenerational starship.
References
[1] I.A. Crawford, The astronomical, astrobiological and planetary
science case for interstellar spaceflight, J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc. 62
(2009) 415–521.
[2] D. Raup, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?, W.W. Norton, New
York, 1991.
28 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
[3] C.M. Smith, E.T. Davies, Emigrating Beyond Earth: Human Adapta-
tion and Space Colonization, Springer, New York, 2012.
[4] E.C. Friedberg, Mutation as a phenotype, in: L.H. Caproale (Ed.),
The Implicit Genome, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006,
pp. 39–56.
[5] M. Lynch, M. Rate, Molecular spectrum, and consequences of human
mutation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (3) (2010) 961–968.
[6] J.H. Relethford, Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins,
Wiley-Liss, New York, 2001.
[7] S. Matsamura, P. Forster, Generation time and effective population
size in polar eskimos, Proc. R. Soc. B 275 (2008) 1501–1508.
[8] L. Duret, Mutation patterns in the human genome: more variable
than expected, PLOS Biol. 7 (2) (2009) 217–219.
[9] E.M. Leffler, K. Bullaughey, D. Matute, W.K. Meyer, L. Segruel,
A. Venkat, P. Andolfatto, M. Przeworski, Revisting and old riddle:
what determines genetic diversity levels within species? PLOS Biol.
10 (9) (2012) 1–9.
[10] G. Horneck, C. Mileikowski, H.J. Melosh, J.W. Wilson, F.A. Cucinotta,
B. Gladman, Viable transfer of microorganisms in the solar system
and beyond, in: G. Hornbeck, C. Baumstarck-Khan (Eds.), Astrobiol-
ogy: The Quest for the Conditions of Life, Springer, New York, 2011,
pp. 57–76.
[11] E.M. Wijsman, L L Cavalti-Sforza, Migration and genetic population
structure with special reference to human, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15
(1984) 279–301.
[12] C. Gamble, Timewalkers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[13] J. Endler, Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1986.
[14] D.L. Hull, R. Langman, S. Glenn, A general account of selection:
biology, immunology and behavior, Behav. Brain Sci. 24 (2001)
(2001) 511–528.
[15] W. Durham, Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity, 1st
ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1993.
[16] C.M. Smith, Comment on ‘an evolutionary framework for cultural
change: selectionism versus communal exchange0 , Phys. Life Rev. 10
(2013) 156–167.
[17] J.B. Henderson, The importance of limited exposure to ultraviolet
radiation and dietary factors in the etiology of Asian rickets: a risk-
factor model, Q. J. Med. 63 (1987) 413–442.
[18] J.G. Dorea, C.M. Donangelo, Early (in uterus and infant) exposure to
mercury and lead, Clin. Nutr. 25 (2006) 369–376.
[19] J. Hawks, E.T. Wang, G.M. Cochran, H.C. Harpending, R.K. Moyzis,
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 104(52):20753–20758.
[20] J. Masel, Rethinking Hardy–Weinberg and genetic drift in under-
graduate biology, BioEssays 34 (2012) 701–710.
[21] M.S. Adams, J.V. Neel, Children of incest, Pediatrics 40 (1) (1967) 55–62.
[22] J. Jancar, S.J. Johnston, Incest and mental handicap, J. Intellectual Dis.
Res. 34 (6) (2008) 483–490.
[23] L.B. Jorde, J.C. Carey, M.J. Bamshad, R.L. White., Medical Genetics,
MosbySt. Louis, 1999.
[24] D. O0 Rourke, Genetic considerations in multi-generational space
travel, in: Y. Kondo, F. Bruhweiler, J. Moore, C. Sheffield (Eds.),
Interstellar Travel and Multi-Generational Space Ships, Apogee
Books, Wheaton, IL89–99.
[25] M.W. Strickberger, Genetics, Prentice Hall, New York, 1985.
[26] N.H. Barton, B. Charlesworth, Genetic revolutions, founder effects
and speciation, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15 (1994) 133–164.
[27] L.J. Harmon, S. Braude., Conservation of small populations: effective
population sizes, inbreeding, and the 50/500 rule, in: S. Braude, B.
S. Low (Eds.), An Introduction to Methods and Models in Ecology,
Evolution, and Conservation Biology, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 125–138.
[28] L. Scott Mills, P.E. Smouse, Demographic consequences of inbreeding
in remnant populations, Am. Nat. 144 (3) (1994) 412–431.
[29] M. Kimura, T. Ohta, The average number of generations until fixation
of a mutant gene in a finite population, Genetics 61 (1969) 763–771.
[30] R. Lande, Genetics and demography in biological conservation,
Science 241 (1988) 1455–1460.
[31] W.F. Fagan, E.E. Holmes, Quantifying the extinction vortex, Ecol. Lett.
9 (2006) 51–60.
[32] J. Hawks, K. HunleyS-H. leeM. Wolpoff, Population bottlenecks and
pleistocene human evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol. 17 (2000) 2–22.
[33] J.W. Wood, The genetic demography of the gainj of papua new
guinea: determinants of effective population size, Am. Nat. 129 (2)
(1987) 165–187.
[34] J.H. Gillespie, Is the population size of a species relevant to its
evolution? Evolution 55 (2001) 2161–2169.
[35] F.H. Flather, G.D. Hayward, S.R. Beissinger, P.A. Stephens, Minimum
viable populations: is there a ‘magic number0 for conservation
practicioners? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 (6) (2011) 307–316.
[36] A. Caballero, Development of the prediction of effective population
size, Heredity 73 (1994) 657–679.
[37] L.B. Jorde, W.S. Watkins, M.J. Bamshad, Population genomics: a
bridge from evolutionary history to genetic medicine, Hum. Mol.
Genet. 10 (20) (2001) 2199–2207.
[38] N. Ryman, L. Lairke, Effects of supportive breeding on the gene-
tically effective population size, Conserv. Biol. 5 (4) (1991) 325–329.
(1991).
[39] R. Frankham, Effective population size/adult population size ratios
in wildlife: a review, Genet. Res. 66 (1995) 95–107.
[40] S. Harpending, M.A. Batzer, M. Gurven, L.B. Jorde, A.R. Rogers,
S.T. Sherry, Genetic traces of ancient demography, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 1998 (1995) 1961–1967.
[41] B.F. Voight, A.M. Adams, L.A. Frisse, Y. Qian, R.R. Hudson, A. Di
Rienzo, Interrogating multiple aspects of variation in a full rese-
quencing data set to infer human population size changes, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (51) (2005) 18508–18513.
[42] D.H. Reed, E.H. Bryant, Experimental tests of minimum viable
population size, Anim. Conserv. 3 (2000) 7–14.
[43] M.L. Shaffer, Minimum population sizes for species conservation,
Bioscience 31 (1991) 131–134.
[44] D.H. Reed, J.J. O0 Grady, B.W. Brook, J.D. Ballou, R. Frankham, Estimates
of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors
influencing those estimates, Biol. Conserv. 113 (1) (2003) 23–34.
[45] M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for Conservation, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1987.
[46] J.N. Fenner, Cross-cultural estimation of the human generation
interval for use in genetics-based population divergence studies,
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 128 (2) (2005) 415–423.
[47] R. Lande, Mutation and conservation, Conserv. Biol. 9 (4) (1995)
782–791.
[48] U.K. Rai, Minimum sizes for viable population and conservation
biology, Our Nat. 1 (2003) 3–9.
[49] C.D. Thomas, What do real population dynamics tell us about mini-
mum viable population sizes? Conserv. Biol. 4 (3) (1990) 324–327.
[50] M. Lynch, R. Lande., The critical effective size for a genetically secure
population, Anim. Conserv. 1 (1) (1998) 70–72.
[51] J. Hey, On the number of new world founders: a population genetic
portrait of the peopling of the Americas, PLOS Biol. 3 (6) (2005)
0965–0975(New York, Springer (2002).
[52] C.M. Smith, J. Ruppell, What anthropologists should know about the
new evolutionary synthesis, Struct. Dyn. 5 (2) (2011) 1–13.
[53] B. Charlesworth, Effective population size and patterns of molecular
evolution and variation, Nat. Rev. Gen. 10 (2009) 195–205.
[54] H.M. Wobst, Boundary conditions for palaeolithic social systems: a
simulation approach, Am. Antiq. 39 (1973) 303–309.
[55] L.W. Traill, C.J.A. Bradshaw, B.W. Brook, Minimum viable population
size: a meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates, Biol.
Conserv. 139 (2007) 159–166.
[56] J.H. Moore, Kin-based crews for interstellar multi-generational space
travel, in: Y. Kondo, F. Bruhweiler, J. Moore, C. Sheffield (Eds.),
Interstellar Travel and Multi-Generational Space Ships, Apogee
Books, Wheaton, IL81–88.
[57] R.J. Kelly, The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer
Lifeways, Eliot Warner Reprints, New York, 2007.
[58] R.B. Eckhardt, Human Palaeobiology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000.
[59] C. Gamble, The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1999.
[60] B. Finney and E.M. Jones. Interstellar Migration and the Human
Experience, Berkeley University of California Press (1985).
[61] Y. Kondo, F. Bruhweiler, J. Moore, C. Sheffield (Eds.), Interstellar
Travel and Multi-Generational Space Ships, Apogee Books, Wheaton,
IL, 1991.
[62] A.P. Galvani, M. Slatkin, Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical
selective pressures for the CCR5-Delta32 HIV-resistance allele, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 (25) (2003) 15276–15279.
[63] N. Takahata, Allelic geneology and human evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol.
10 (1993) 2–22.
[64] S. Summerford, Colonized Interstellar Vessel: Conceptual Master
Planning. Internally-distributed paper available at 〈http://www.
icarusinterstellar.org/colonized-interstellar-vessel-conceptual-mas
ter-planning〉, 2012.
[65] A. Hein, M. Pak, D. Putz, C. Buhler, P. Reiss, World ships—architectures
and feasibility revisited, J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc. 65 (2012) 119–133.
 C.M. Smith / Acta Astronautica 97 (2014) 16–29
[66] J.R. Franklin, Evolutionary change in small populations, in: M.E. Soule,
B.A. Wilcox (Eds.), Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological
Perspective: 135–150, Sinauer, Massachussetts, 1980, pp. 135–150.
[67] S.T. Schultz, M. Lynch, Mutation and extinction: the role of variable
mutational effects, synergistic epistasis beneficial mutations, and
degree of outcrossing, Evolution 51 (1997) 1363–1371.
[68] M.C. Whitlock, Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small
populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection,
Evolution 54 (2000) 1855–1861.
[69] J.R. Franklin, R. Frankham, How large must populations be to retain
evolutionary potential? Anim. Conserv. 1 (1998) 69–70.
[70] N. Yu, M.I. Jensen-Seaman, L. Chemnick, O. Ryder, W-H. Li, Nucleo-
tide diversity in gorillas, Genetics 166 (2004) 1375–1383.
[71] S.T. Sherry, A.R. Rogers, H. Harpending, H. Soodyall, T. Jenkins,
M. Stoneking., Alu evolution in human populations: using the
coalescent to estimate effective population size, Genetics 147 (1994)
1977–1982.
[72] R.M. Harding, S.M. Fullerton, R.C. Griffiths, J. Bond, M.J. Cox,
J.A. Schneider, D.S. Moulin, J.B. Clegg, Archaic African and Asian
lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans, Am. J. Hum.
Genet. (1997)772–789.
[73] N. Takahata, Y. Satta, Footprints of intragenic recombination at HAL
locus, Immunogenetics 47 (1998) 430–441.
[74] J. Zhao, W.J. Li, M.M. Xiong., Population-based linkage disequilibrium
mapping of QTL: an application to simulated data in an isolated
population, Genet. Epidemiol. 21 (Suppl. 1) (2001) S655–S659.
[75] J.D. Wall, M. Przeworski, When did the human population size start
increasing? Genetics 155 (2000) 1865–1874.
[76] W.D. Newmark, A Land-Bridge Island, Perspective on mammalian
extinctions in Western North American parks, Nature 325 (1987)
430–432.
[77] M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for Conservation, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1987.
[78] M. Nei, D. Grauer, Extent of protein polymorphism and the neutral
mutation theory, Evol. Biol. 27 (1984) 73–118.
[79] D.G. Wang, J.-B. Fan, C.-J. Siao, P. Young, R. Sapolsky, G. Ghandour,
N. Perkins, E. Winchester, J. Spencer, L. Kruglyak, L. Stein, L. Hsie,
29
T. Topaloglou, E. Hubbell, E. Robinson, M. Mittmann, M.S. Morris,
N. Shen, D. Kilburn, J. Rioux, C. Nusbaum, S. Rozen, T.J. Hudson,
R. Lipshutz, M. Chee, E.S. Lander., Large-scale identification, map-
ping, and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the
human genome, Science 280 (5366) (1998) 1077–1082.
[80] R.L. Dorit, H. Akashi, W. Gilbert, Absence of polymorphism at the
AFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268 (1995)
1183–1185.
[81] M.F. Hammer, A recent common ancestry for human Y chromosome,
Nature 378 (1995) 376–378.
[82] H. Huang, Y.X. Fu, B.H. Chang, X. Gu, L.B. Jorde, W.H. Li, Sequence
variation in ZFX introns in human populations, Mol. Biol. Evol. 15 (2)
(1998) 138–142.
[83] H. Kaesmann, V. Weibe, S. Paabo, Extensive nuclear DNA sequence
diversity among chimpanzees, Science 286 (1999) 1159–1162.
[84] A. Tenesa, P. Navaro, B.J. Hayes, D.L. Duffy, G.M. Clarke, M.E. Goddard,
P.M. Cisscher., Recent human effective population size estimated
from linkage disequilibrium, Genome Res. 17 (2007) 520–526.
[85] F-G. Chen, W-H. Li., Genomic divergences between humans and
other hominoids and the effective population size of the common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68 (2)
(2001) 444–456.
[86] G.A. Watterson, On the number of segregating sites in genetical
models without recombination, Theor. Popul. Biol. 7 (1975) 256–276.
[87] F. Ayala, The myth of eve: molecular biology and human origins,
Science 270 (1995) 1930–1936.
[88] W.J.K. Bailey, K. Hayasaka, C.G. Skinner, S. Kehoe, L.C. Cieu,
J. Slightom, M. Goodman, Reexamination of the African hominoid
trichotomy with additional sequences from the primate beta-
globulin gene cluster, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1 (1992) 97–135.
[89] M.F. Kinnaird, T.G. O0 Brien, Viable populations for an endangered
forest primate, the Tana River crested mangabey (Cercocebus galer-
itus galeritus), Conserv. Biol. 5 (2) (1991) 203–213.
[90] A.H. Harcourt, Emprical estimates of minimum viable population
sizes for primates: tens to tens of thousands? Anim. Conserv. 5
(2002) 237–244.