# Humans return from Mars



## J-Sun (Nov 4, 2011)

Okay, not so much Mars, but the simulated Mars mission. 

One of many things I find interesting about the study - do people think we will send a mixed-gender crew when we really do this? Either way, wouldn't it have been interesting (if expensive) to run two experiments in parallel with both types (or three - all female crew? Don't think that's something that would happen in the foreseeable future, but in the name of science...)?

I'd also be interested in the long-term after-effects as much as the short term. I'd like more detail from the article on what we learned so far, though.

From my own experiences in an ordinary house on good ol' Terra Cotta (as Laurel has it), I would not have suggested a team of six with three Russians and three non-Russians. Sounds like a perfect recipe for a faction of Us polarizing against a faction of Them but these are well-balanced professionals and not a bunch of random loons.


----------



## alchemist (Nov 4, 2011)

If science fiction films have taught us anything, it's that space can turn any well-balanced professional into a random loon.

Of what I saw on the news, these guys did look surprisingly sane. They also seemed to have a lot of room (to play their Wii). I presume they'd have a lot less space on a real mission.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 4, 2011)

They actually had to run a special experiment for this? Researchers disappear into Antarctica for about as long as "one leg" of this virtual journey. Now couple this psyche test with the freefall deterioration that will happen on a real trip.


----------



## J-Sun (Nov 4, 2011)

alchemist said:


> If science fiction films have taught us anything, it's that space can turn any well-balanced professional into a random loon.



Good point. 



alchemist said:


> Of what I saw on the news, these guys did look surprisingly sane. They also seemed to have a lot of room (to play their Wii). I presume they'd have a lot less space on a real mission.



Yeah, it did look reasonably spacious - not extravagant, but nice enough. I'd hope, for a mission like that, that they wouldn't be penny wise and pound foolish and would provide reasonable accommodations.



Metryq said:


> They actually had to run a special experiment for this? Researchers disappear into Antarctica for about as long as "one leg" of this virtual journey. Now couple this psyche test with the freefall deterioration that will happen on a real trip.



That's one of the things that seemed most important: the lack of microgravity simulation. But such a mission might have a rotating torus design for pseudogravity. Though it's possible I'm not up on the technology - it seems like no one talks about it any more, so maybe there's something wrong with it.

The other thing most wrong is the existential nature of it. You are on earth and will not suffer fatal decompression and we _can_ "hear you scream". In space, they can't. And that's on the downside. On the upside, you would truly be on a great adventure for a purpose and every thing you did would matter. I just don't think you can simulate the true hopes and fears in a situation like this. In that sense, your Antarctic researchers would be more valid comparisons. I don't know how long they actually go out for but I think they're probably connected to the world in real-time and may have other differences - such as being able to go outside, no matter how cold or for however brief a time. I think our pseudonauts isolation was mimicked more fully. But, either way, the test should still yield interesting data and insights.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 5, 2011)

I think the reason no one talks about a centrifugally accelerated habit is because it is very expensive. The design becomes more complicated if the habitat must be rotating during thrust. While there are solutions for this, designing a spinning habitat before deciding on the engines to be used is putting the cart before the horse. For example, if the engines will be chemical, then the spinning habitat is mandatory. I read something recently to the effect that astronauts would degenerate too much from a long duration flight to be of any value at the destination.

There are various nuclear engines that could transit a mission so fast there'd be no need for a spinning habitat—along with associated savings in consumables and a greatly reduced chance of exposure to Solar storms. 

Before any deep space missions are undertaken, spinning habitats, electromagnetic force fields (against Solar storms), and fancy engines should be tested in orbit, or as part of an Earth-Moon project. Jumping straight to Mars without developing the necessary skills, say on the Moon, would be nothing more than a stunt with potentially catastrophic results. _Getting to Mars_ is not the important thing, it's doing something worthwhile along the way and on Mars that's important.

(Just as an example, staticky Lunar regolith was a nuisance to the Apollo astronauts, but anyone staying long term—or indefinitely, as with a base—will have to develop ways of coping with the problem. Mars is a totally different environment, but surely the Moon can teach us various things about living on a space frontier far from assistance.)

I see the wisdom in doing things in small steps, like this head-shrinker compatibility/tolerance test thing. Whatever. Again, I question the need for _this_ particular test. I've already mentioned Antarctic research stations. We also have nuclear subs that can stay submerged as long as their non-recyclable consumables last. The point isn't just locking a bunch of people up in a trailer with computer controlled delays in their messaging. There's no stress in that. But disappearing into the wilds of Antarctica, or crawling along the dark depths of the sea floor where people _can't_ help you (or not right away) is another matter. Surely there are other sources of the information needed without this Mars Marathon Endurance test?


----------



## J-Sun (Nov 5, 2011)

Metryq said:


> I think the reason no one talks about a centrifugally accelerated habit is because it is very expensive. The design becomes more complicated if the habitat must be rotating during thrust. While there are solutions for this, designing a spinning habitat before deciding on the engines to be used is putting the cart before the horse. For example, if the engines will be chemical, then the spinning habitat is mandatory. I read something recently to the effect that astronauts would degenerate too much from a long duration flight to be of any value at the destination.
> 
> There are various nuclear engines that could transit a mission so fast there'd be no need for a spinning habitat—along with associated savings in consumables and a greatly reduced chance of exposure to Solar storms.



Interesting information - thanks.



Metryq said:


> Before any deep space missions are undertaken, spinning habitats, electromagnetic force fields (against Solar storms), and fancy engines should be tested in orbit, or as part of an Earth-Moon project. Jumping straight to Mars without developing the necessary skills, say on the Moon, would be nothing more than a stunt with potentially catastrophic results. _Getting to Mars_ is not the important thing, it's doing something worthwhile along the way and on Mars that's important.



Completely agreed - if a reasonable scenario for some sort of straight jump could be made, I'd be all for it, but one doesn't spring to mind and I'm definitely not interested in stunts.



Metryq said:


> Again, I question the need for _this_ particular test.



You may well be right and it is, itself, a sort of stunt. Perhaps even that would at least raise public awareness about the prospects, but I still hope some good scientific results come of it. I'll have to find more in-depth information than that article, though.


----------



## jojajihisc (Nov 5, 2011)

J-Sun said:


> a team of six with three Russians and three non-Russians.



"What are you doing comrade Dave?"


----------



## Starbeast (Nov 5, 2011)

Unfortunately the Mars trip won't happen for decades. I've been hoping to see it in my lifetime. I guess the push for the Moon project fell through so now Mars is the big interest (however long that will last).

I wonder if the drink called Tang is still on the market?



"Dave's not here man. He was abducted by aliens."


----------



## J-Sun (Nov 6, 2011)

Starbeast said:


> Unfortunately the Mars trip won't happen for decades. I've been hoping to see it in my lifetime. I guess the push for the Moon project fell through so now Mars is the big interest (however long that will last).


 
That's the way I feel - we have pocket communicators and whatnot but I can't believe so little has been done - all the things I thought I'd see that I never will. But it's only the US's Moon project that's fallen through - the Chinese appear to be going at it hammer and tongs. And I'm not sure even Mars is the big interest - it's the least under-promoted project, I guess.



Starbeast said:


> I wonder if the drink called Tang is still on the market?



I haven't seen any in years but I looked it up and it apparently still is.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 6, 2011)

One interesting aspect that was simulated was the communications lag. The time it took for the scientists to respond to requests from the 'crewmen' was in direct proportion to their supposed distance from Earth.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 6, 2011)

J-Sun said:


> we have pocket communicators and whatnot but I can't believe so little has been done



The small electronics have nothing to do with spaceflight—at least not directly. The computers used on Apollo were so incredibly primitive that the astronauts were practically barnstorming. The Moon program did, however, push the development of a revolution that changed the world.



> But it's only the US's Moon project that's fallen through



The Apollo program was, as Arthur C. Clarke once put it, "a series of brief reconnaissance raids." Despite "intelligence" during World War II, Allied technical experts did not believe rockets of the capacity reported were remotely possible. Even after the war, further development was sluggish and poorly supported until Sputnik. Then spaceflight became a political matter, which means gross inefficiency. 

Futurists had an entirely different program in mind, but it was all swept aside in favor of being the first to plant a flag. Thus, everything was done "backwards." The original dream was to build a reusable shuttle to loft the parts for a space station, which would serve as a space "drydock" for building mission ships to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

_After_ reaching the Moon, the US and the USSR launched small space stations, _then_ made shuttles. The space shuttle was a boondoggle—every mission could have been done far more efficiently with disposable cargo and personnel boosters. Then ISS was compromised for political reasons: it was originally intended to have an equatorial orbit, which is ideal for the "drydock" mission. But the orbit was steeply inclined to make launches from Russia easier, even though the US launched the lion's share of tonnage. Barely finished, we now see news reports that ISS will be deorbited in another decade, or so.

So everything up to now has been stunts; there never was a US "Moon project."

Private industries, like SpaceX, will fill in for the retired shuttle. Perhaps China will be the next to reach the Moon, but it is only a matter of time before all the private industries surpass the tepid government efforts. (At which time, such private industries will probably be nationalized.)

If someone can limp to the Moon on chemical engines and get a semi-independent base set up, _maybe_ an exotic engine can be tested and then implemented far away from all the naysayers, scaredy-cats, and other obstructionists.

_But the payoff will be incalculable._


----------



## Metryq (Nov 6, 2011)

mosaix said:


> One interesting aspect that was simulated was the communications lag. The time it took for the scientists to respond to requests from the 'crewmen' was in direct proportion to their supposed distance from Earth.



Yeah, that's like roughing it with DVDs from Netflix, rather than the instant gratification of download. What an endurance test.


----------



## J-Sun (Nov 6, 2011)

Metryq said:


> The small electronics have nothing to do with spaceflight—at least not directly.



That was just a Star Trek joke along the lines of "Dude, where's my flying car?" - I was just saying that we have communicators, but no warp drives to strange new worlds.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 6, 2011)

J-Sun said:


> That was just a Star Trek joke along the lines of "Dude, where's my flying car?"



I understood your meaning. It's just that imagining the technology and society of a future time will often fall short. Even the past can surprise us. I was stunned when I first read that the German rocket engineers may have touched the edge of space with an unmanned shuttle-like vehicle in January 1945.

I lived through the "microchip revolution" and saw it happening all around me, but never realized how incredible it was until I read a history of it. Kids growing up with multiple computers in one house (along with mobile devices), the Internet, and cell phones may find it hard to imagine a time—not all that long ago—when people were routinely out of touch when stepping out of the house away from _the_ phone. Now people have to Twit every single move they make so the world will know. 

In the _Star Trek_ episode "The Menagerie" we learn that Capt. Pike has been disabled in a space accident and confined to a wheelchair that responds to his brainwaves. No doubt that seemed fantastic in 1966—when computers had displays of binary lights on them—but people would scoff at it today. Thought control interfaces are on the threshold of going mainstream and "bionics" like those seen in _The Six Million Dollar Man_ aren't far away. Yet _Star Trek_ is set over 200 years in the future and Mankind is hopping between stars in a matter of days.

I almost laugh when I see computers with a CRT in a movie. (Seems like it was a long time ago, doesn't it?) While watching _Enter The Dragon_ recently I noted the gigantic stereo headphones one of the characters was wearing, and I had to remind myself, "Oh right, no rare earth magnets in headphones back in the '70s."

Would a ship with an Orion engine have been built by now if not for the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963? By now we might be zipping all over the Solar system on routine flights with far more advanced engines. But by the time that actually happens, will it be the "biggest" thing of the age, and what will the people be like with such technology?


----------



## J Riff (Nov 7, 2011)

1962, wake me when you get there. )


----------



## Metryq (Nov 7, 2011)

> *J Riff wrote:* 1962, wake me when you get there. )



*Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963*



> In an eloquent defense, [Freeman] Dyson held four groups, each with its narrow interests, were responsible for [Project Orion's] demise: Pentagon civilians, who prevented the Air Force from embarking on technically interesting projects; NASA leaders, who, concerned with the agency's image, feared a nuclear-propelled spaceship would damage its public image; the arms-control lobby, who felt it might conflict with the Limited Test Ban Treaty; and the scientific community, who refused to become involved in the technical aspects of propulsion. Some truth existed in all, but Orion really foundered because of its open-end cost of development.
> 
> *To The End of The Solar System* by James Dewar, Appendix C, p. 274-275



I'd always read about Orion as an exploratory vessel, but closer research shows that the Air Force proposed using Orion as an orbital battleship—able to observe Earth from a high orbit, launch nuclear missiles if necessary, maneuver quickly if any missiles were fired its way, and even survive the blast of a one-megaton weapon only 500 feet away [probably by using the "pusher plate" as a shield].


----------



## LadyLara (Nov 7, 2011)

J-Sun said:


> That was just a Star Trek joke along the lines of "Dude, where's my flying car?" - I was just saying that we have communicators, but no warp drives to strange new worlds.


 
I don't remember Scotty ever having to set up a global network or masts and dishes in order for the communicators to actually work though.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 7, 2011)

LadyLara said:


> I don't remember Scotty ever having to set up a global network or masts and dishes in order for the communicators to actually work though.



I was going to point that out, as many tech writers compare "flip-phones" to the _Trek_ communicator, but I figured everyone on a sci-fi forum would know the difference between a cellular net and a stand-alone "walkie-talkie" with an apparent range of hundreds of kilometers. (From episodes like "A Private Little War" we know the approximate range.) The likeness is only cosmetic. 

It's a toss-up as to whether or not the _Trek_ communicators are radio as we understand it, or something else. An episode like "The Doomsday Machine" suggests that the communicators are not "subspace," like the system used to communicate over interstellar distances. There were many times during "The Doomsday Machine" when subspace to Star Fleet was said to be out, yet communicators still worked.

The only other clue is from "A Piece of the Action" when McCoy confesses to Kirk that he left his communicator in Bella's office...


----------

