Encapsulating Astronauts


by Integral
Tags: astronauts, encapsulating
Integral
Integral is offline
#1
Feb7-07, 05:59 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
The case of the crazy astronaut as got me thinking, again, about the proposed mission to Mars. Do you suppose that we can really design a space craft capable of housing x many astronauts for a multi year mission to Mars and not have a case of mass murder suicide half way there?

US Submariners typically spend 3months at a time under water, not sure how many ex submariners you know, but I know several. Those that I knew before and after their time underwater, enclosed in a steel tube with somthing like a dozen dozen other men, came back different.

Can you imagine spending yrs trapped in a small steel capsule ?

Can you imagine spending years trapped in a small steel capsule with Lisa crazy women Howak? Previously I have been told that the selection process and milatary disipline would prevent such an occurance, can we still make that claim?

Perhaps, sooner then later, we should select a crew and lock them up in a mock up of the Mars capsule just to see how long it takes for someone to go over the edge.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers
Bright points in Sun's atmosphere mark patterns deep in its interior
D H
D H is offline
#2
Feb7-07, 06:27 AM
Mentor
P: 14,435
I think this is one of the key impediments to sending people to Mars using today's technology. Ignoring costs, today's technology can overcome the problems of radiation and weightlessness and safely send a crew of four to Mars and back -- but only if the crew members don't kill each other or go insane.

Older submarines had much smaller crew sizes, sometimes as few as eight or so. Those small crew sizes led to significant psychological problems. A typical submarine today has a crew of over 100 people. The psychological problems still occur, but to a lesser extent.

NASA's current astronaut selection criteria will need a drastic overhaul to keep an small-sized crew sent to Mars sane and alive. They need to look for monks with no sex drive rather than oversexed flyboys and flygirls.
Integral
Integral is offline
#3
Feb7-07, 07:02 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
IMOH, we do not have the propulsion technology to make a big enough capsule for a multi year manned mission. Fortunately, until such a time that we can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light we should restrict ourselves to robotic missions. Why waste time and money on a manned mission when the ONLY ability which separates the men/woman on such a mission from a robot, is that the humans can die.

Mean while we can continue to explore the solar system with robots and remote sensing.

Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#4
Feb7-07, 07:29 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,628

Encapsulating Astronauts


Quote Quote by D H View Post
NASA's current astronaut selection criteria will need a drastic overhaul to keep an small-sized crew sent to Mars sane and alive. They need to look for monks with no sex drive rather than oversexed flyboys and flygirls.
Certainly NASA will have to re-evaluate the selection process of astronauts for deep space missions.


IMHO, we do not have the propulsion technology to make a big enough capsule for a multi year manned mission. Fortunately, until such a time that we can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light we should restrict ourselves to robotic missions. Why waste time and money on a manned mission when the ONLY ability which separates the men/woman on such a mission from a robot, is that the humans can die.
Back in the mid-80's I was part of team which looked at nuclear propulsion technology for missions to Mars. IMO, we could have been there (in 2000) and back - all within two years. However, the nation had and has other priorities.

One idea is to send a Mars orbital station (something like Skylab) ahead of the astronauts. The astronauts would then follow in a much faster orbital transfer vehicle. That is the likely scenario in the future.
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#5
Feb7-07, 07:52 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by Integral View Post
The case of the crazy astronaut as got me thinking, again, about the proposed mission to Mars. Do you suppose that we can really design a space craft capable of housing x many astronauts for a multi year mission to Mars and not have a case of mass murder suicide half way there?

US Submariners typically spend 3months at a time under water, not sure how many ex submariners you know, but I know several. Those that I knew before and after their time underwater, enclosed in a steel tube with somthing like a dozen dozen other men, came back different.

Can you imagine spending yrs trapped in a small steel capsule ?

Can you imagine spending years trapped in a small steel capsule with Lisa crazy women Howak? Previously I have been told that the selection process and milatary disipline would prevent such an occurance, can we still make that claim?

Perhaps, sooner then later, we should select a crew and lock them up in a mock up of the Mars capsule just to see how long it takes for someone to go over the edge.
Even without such extreme restriction of movement, and a large number of people, the scientists who have over-wintered in Antarctica also report a high incidence of "cabin fever." They have a relatively large complex of buildings to move around in (compared to a submarine), but are also exposed to artifical light as their only daylight, still see the same people for months on end, and can't just take a walk outside to get away for a bit if the people they are around are driving them nuts.

This is why I was surprised to learn there aren't ongoing pscyhological exams for people returning from spaceflight. It's hard to predict how someone will respond to such an extreme environment and limited social interactions, and even more limited escape from those social interactions when they start getting on your nerves.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#6
Feb7-07, 08:24 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,628
Quote Quote by Moonbear View Post
Even without such extreme restriction of movement, and a large number of people, the scientists who have over-wintered in Antarctica also report a high incidence of "cabin fever." They have a relatively large complex of buildings to move around in (compared to a submarine), but are also exposed to artifical light as their only daylight, still see the same people for months on end, and can't just take a walk outside to get away for a bit if the people they are around are driving them nuts.
They could log-on to PF.
verty
verty is offline
#7
Feb7-07, 01:35 PM
HW Helper
P: 1,373
and even more limited escape from those social interactions when they start getting on your nerves.
I would think there should be a strict policy about what behaviour is acceptable and what not. Certainly any type of boisterous or offensive behaviour could be very annoying.
danscope
danscope is offline
#8
Feb7-07, 02:30 PM
P: 19
Dear Sirs: Consider the events unfolding in yesterdays concerning an
"Astronaut" and some hair brained triangle of sorts.
"And they want to go into space for.................................................................... ....
.........................how long?????................Hmmmmm.....
Best regards, Dan USN ....Subs
verty
verty is offline
#9
Feb7-07, 02:38 PM
HW Helper
P: 1,373
Danscope, doesn't follow. She's the first, as far as I know.
Integral
Integral is offline
#10
Feb7-07, 02:44 PM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
Quote Quote by verty View Post
I would think there should be a strict policy about what behaviour is acceptable and what not. Certainly any type of boisterous or offensive behaviour could be very annoying.
Actually a certain amount of "of boisterous or offensive behaviour" is healthy and necessary in such conditions. What drives people crazy is the small unconscious habits we all have.

"If you clear your throat once more I am going..."

"can't you eat the carrots first just once!"

It's the little repetitive quirks that really get on your nerves.

Just like marriage, only with no relief or separation.
dontdisturbmycircles
dontdisturbmycircles is offline
#11
Feb8-07, 05:35 AM
dontdisturbmycircles's Avatar
P: 560
I agree that I don't think I could cope being trapped with the same people for 3 years without a chance to go out and do something on my own. Perhaps they could go out and take a "space walk"? I think I would grit my teeth and learn to live with anyone though, for the opportunity to land on mars!

I have faith that NASA can gauge a person's mental health and hopefully this Nowak case is just an anomaly.

Quote Quote by Integral View Post
Perhaps, sooner then later, we should select a crew and lock them up in a mock up of the Mars capsule just to see how long it takes for someone to go over the edge.
I don't think anyone would be willing to spend a year in a capsule with no goal other than to prove that they can do it. lol
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#12
Feb8-07, 06:05 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by Integral View Post
IMOH, we do not have the propulsion technology to make a big enough capsule for a multi year manned mission. Fortunately, until such a time that we can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light we should restrict ourselves to robotic missions. Why waste time and money on a manned mission when the ONLY ability which separates the men/woman on such a mission from a robot, is that the humans can die.

Mean while we can continue to explore the solar system with robots and remote sensing.
Why not go for an intermediate solution ? We could send up dead bodies to Mars and back. For the little work they'd actually do over there, we could incorporate also a few robotic systems, that do the gathering of stones, the planting of vegetables and other stuff. At least, we d' know that the dead bodies won't cause havoc during the flight (and they consume less oxygen and food too)
D H
D H is offline
#13
Feb8-07, 06:18 AM
Mentor
P: 14,435
Quote Quote by Integral View Post
Why waste time and money on a manned mission when the ONLY ability which separates the men/woman on such a mission from a robot, is that the humans can die.
I should have known from the title you gave this thread that you would have a strong anti-human spaceflight bias. The last time I checked, no robot has passed the Turing test. We send people into space because robots are stupid and because doing so has been a prime mandate for NASA since its inception.

I, for one, think NASA has taken a long needed shift in direction with the Exploration Initiative. Sending people into space is risky. There needs to be a significant value to the missions to make that risk worthwhile. Sending people into low-Earth orbit does not cut it. Sending people back to the Moon is a first good start.

We don't need a multi-year vehicle to send people to the Moon.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#14
Feb8-07, 06:41 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,628
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
Why not go for an intermediate solution ? We could send up dead bodies to Mars and back. For the little work they'd actually do over there, we could incorporate also a few robotic systems, that do the gathering of stones, the planting of vegetables and other stuff. At least, we d' know that the dead bodies won't cause havoc during the flight (and they consume less oxygen and food too)
And there just might be some volunteers. I am sure there are some who would jump at the chance to go Mars - posthumously.

The robots could even bury the bodies while gathering stones and planting vegetables.
Integral
Integral is offline
#15
Feb8-07, 11:42 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
Quote Quote by D H View Post
I should have known from the title you gave this thread that you would have a strong anti-human spaceflight bias. The last time I checked, no robot has passed the Turing test. We send people into space because robots are stupid and because doing so has been a prime mandate for NASA since its inception.

I, for one, think NASA has taken a long needed shift in direction with the Exploration Initiative. Sending people into space is risky. There needs to be a significant value to the missions to make that risk worthwhile. Sending people into low-Earth orbit does not cut it. Sending people back to the Moon is a first good start.

We don't need a multi-year vehicle to send people to the Moon.
Why would a robot have to pass the touring test? The human behind the controls can certianly pass it. Further the humans controling the robot go home to their wife every night. If you want to go to Mars fine, find a commercial reason to do it, pay for it yourself. I do not think that NASA should waste our limited resourses sending toursts on glory missions into space.

I must admit however that the current generation of kids may well be able to spend years locked in a small room without a 2nd thought... just provide a high speed network connection and plenty of pop.
D H
D H is offline
#16
Feb8-07, 09:17 PM
Mentor
P: 14,435
Do you really think that if the Executive and Legislative branches cancel the human space program that all of that money would flow to unmanned space programs? Get real. None of that money would go to unmanned space. They would cut space science as well. This is exactly what happened after Apollo. Moreover, it is happening right now. Congress just whacked $500 million off of NASA's FY2007 budget, including a $100 million cut in space science.
Integral
Integral is offline
#17
Feb9-07, 12:33 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
Quote Quote by D H View Post
Do you really think that if the Executive and Legislative branches cancel the human space program that all of that money would flow to unmanned space programs? Get real. None of that money would go to unmanned space. They would cut space science as well. This is exactly what happened after Apollo. Moreover, it is happening right now. Congress just whacked $500 million off of NASA's FY2007 budget, including a $100 million cut in space science.
I just went back over my posts... No where could I find any mention of such matters as you bring into this???

Are we reading the same thread?
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#18
Feb9-07, 12:54 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Yes, the folks who participated in the Biosphere project came out as bitter enemies. One later sabotaged the facility. Part of what caused this were the tensions that resulted from system failures.

I see no reason to send people to Mars... well, except for a select few ex-customers of mine.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Possible to Shield Astronauts from Cosmic Radiation? Astrophysics 7
Awestruck Astronauts General Astronomy 6
Hypersleep in astronauts? General Discussion 9
Asteroids named for Columbia astronauts General Discussion 0