Slashdot Mirror


Russian Mock Mars Mission

sdriver writes "CNN reports that Russia is attempting a 500-day mock Mars mission. The article goes on to say, "six volunteers will depend on a preset limit of supplies, including about 5 tons of food and oxygen and 3 tons of water." Also, "Experiment participation is not solely reserved for Russian volunteers, institute officials added."

36 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mars comes to cosmonauts!

    (Sorry, I had to.)

  2. Heh by bigjocker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if the US mocked the moon landing, I suppose it's time for the russians for their share of airtime!!!

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When they are done mocking Mars, they can move on to the other minor gods, then move up to Jupiter and Saturn!

      Doesn't seem like a great idea, but at least they have a plan.

  3. Given enough bandwidth... by GrAfFiT · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...it's ok for me !

    1. Re:Given enough bandwidth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can have all the bandwidth you can eat, but, the simulated latency, it's gonna suck, dude.

    2. Re:Given enough bandwidth... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yes, but for realism your reading of /. will have a 2-week latency...

      So while we're all reading dupes, he'll still be just getting the originals.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
  4. ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    six volunteers will depend on a preset limit of supplies, including about 5 tons of food and oxygen and 3 tons of water





    But how is that any different from regular russia?

    1. Re:ummm... by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      The bottled air is cleaner I hear.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:ummm... by DanteBlack · · Score: 4, Funny

      More food and water

      --
      I am invisble, and you can't see me.
  5. New on MTV Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the true story of six volunteers, picked to live inside a capsule and have their lives taped to find out what happens when people stop being polite, and start being real. The Real Mars.

    1. Re:New on MTV Russia by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Funny
      And following the tradition of MTV 'Real World', the six choosen would be the following:
      1. A Chechnian Rebel
      2. A Hard Line Communist
      3. A 'liberal' reformer
      4. A Finn
      5. A Lithuanian
      6. A red army Soldier
  6. Welcome to BioDome buuuuudy by netsavior · · Score: 4, Funny

    oops I mean, no I didn't see that, nobody saw that movie

  7. Good idea by s4m7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    better to find out now the likelihood of cosmonauts going nuts and killing each other when crammed in a tin for 500 days, than in the black depths of space.

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  8. Human survival by usefool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will this be a true test of human survial though?

    Since volunteers is allowed to quit the experiment if they develop a severe ailment or psychological stress, most likely they won't try hard enough to survive the journey.

    However in real life-and-death situation, people tend to do amazing things just to stay alive.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    1. Re:Human survival by phreakmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Since volunteers is allowed to quit the experiment if they develop a severe ailment or psychological stress, most likely they won't try hard enough to survive the journey.

      I agree. Furthermore- the knowledge that you are "safe" if anything goes wrong will grossly affect your behavior. For instance, walk on a three inch wide beam that's resting on the ground. Most people can do it without even flinching. Now do the same thing suspended 20 feet above concrete.

      Since a lot of this experiement is to see how well the people cope with being in this environment with each other, I question some of the validity. I'm sure there is data that can be gathered, but I would imagine that most of that isn't long-term stuff. I'm betting that the further into the 500 day mission we get the less accurate the reflection of human behavior in that environment is going to be.

      Of course, if the whole idea is just to see how well the food, water, O2, &etc rationing works, then I stand corrected- but it seems that an extrapolation model based on a, oh, 150 day mission would be a little more reasonable. {shrug}

      -PM

    2. Re:Human survival by metlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The funny thing is that the latest National Geographic's Adventure contained a question from a hiker who had asked if he could train himself to have less water. The question was answered by a seasoned Everest explorer who also happened to be a doctor.

      Apparently, it does not make any difference because your body releases certain chemicals under those stressful situations that helps you adapt, and there is no way you can artificially force your body to release those. He also mentioned that while you may try living on a colder condition to prepare for an Arctic exploration or try living in hot weather to prepare yourself for a desert situation, your body's physical needs (water, food, etc) cannot really be altered that much.

      Those are largely dependent on food habits you were raised on, your body mass and a lot of other things. Can't seem to find the article online, though.

    3. Re:Human survival by KitFox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That is very accurate. The end results won't be accurate. When you KNOW that you have an out, your psyche isn't affected nearly the same.

      It can also happen the opposite of what you indicate. You say that they may not try hard enough to survive, and thus will succumb to the stress more easily. It may also REDUCE the stress, knowing that if you ever decide that you want out, you can get out, so you take things more with a grain of salt. No panic of knowing that if something goes wrong, you're utterly doomed.

      The downside is that doing a true test would involve putting peoples' lives in danger. Or at the VERY least, having a single blind test, in which the people going into it are absolutely convinced that reality says that if something goes wrong, nobody can save them. (You can still go in and save them, but they must have NO way of knowing that you can or will.)

      --

      @Whee

    4. Re:Human survival by usefool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      having a single blind test, in which the people going into it are absolutely convinced that reality says that if something goes wrong, nobody can save them.

      Ahhh.. that's actually possible, just send those volunteers in for a couple of days, then violently shake the facility, maybe some sparks and whatno, and inform them that the entrance's jammed tight, and "we are working on it" for the next 500 days :)

      --
      Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    5. Re:Human survival by Boronx · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about a double blind test where we don't know we can help them, either? That way there won'te be any subliminal, inadvertant tipoffs from researcher to subject.

  9. Heh ... by Poietes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read this as "Russian mocks Mars mission" and pictured Alexander Putin dancing around a table making fun a NASA scientist.

    "Oh yes, we land on Mars, yes, aren't we clever? I'm so clever with my MIT degree, I'm a clever little scientist. Those Americans think they're so smart with their advanced rocketry. It makes me so mad. Get me a vodka, Yuri."

  10. I recall hearing about something like this by magefile · · Score: 4, Funny

    That happened maybe five years ago. Don't know what the duration was, though. I'm pretty sure it was only a few months.

    They could probably fund this by doing a reality TV show, heh. And if you RTFA, they say that no women will be allowed to volunteer - so it'll probably be just like a /.'ers every day life: no women, stuck in a tiny room in front of a computer screen, food in granola bar form (Oblig. Simpsons: "if you put food in bar form, you unleash it's awesome power"), no social contact, etc.

  11. Other deprivations? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In addition to the limited supplies of food, air, and water, I would think the experiment would want to mimic the other deprivations the crew might experience on the way to and from Mars. Most notably, I'd think, they'd want to emulate the lengthening communications lag between Mission Control and the "ship". Start with the sort of glitch experienced in orbit, and drag it out to the full 6-10 minutes.

    Also, you'd want to make the communication link have a realistic bandwidth. Whatever is the state of the art at "launch" is what they're stuck with for the duration of the trip.

    Now, if this were an episode of "Survivor: Mars", you'd throw in a monkey wrench... maybe a Galileo-style communications system error, where their phat pipe gets cut down to 300 baud, and the men fight over which supermodel pr0n picture to download each week.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  12. Hmmmm by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    make it 3 tons of Vodka and I'll go.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  13. Why is it men only? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recall reading sometime ago that US Navy studies for crewing submarines showed women coped much better will prolonged living in confined quarters than men do and an all female submarine crew would probably have higher moral than an all male crew.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Why is it men only? by ctime · · Score: 5, Funny

      In related news, an all female crew with the sole addition of one male counter part resulted in the highest rated moral ever encountered by the Armed Forces. I, for one, welcome our all female crew ovarylords.

    2. Re:Why is it men only? by Ablar · · Score: 5, Funny
      In related news, an all female crew with the sole addition of one male counter part resulted in the highest rated moral ever encountered by the Armed Forces. I, for one, welcome our all female crew ovarylords.

      Just wait until the womens' cycles synch up, they all have PMS at once, and the poor guy has nowhere to run...

    3. Re:Why is it men only? by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      This was a popular research result (so much that Crichton borrowed it in Sphere). The problem: much of the evidence was ancedotal. The teams were asked their opinions. The men were blunt about their situation, the women put up a unified front. When later tests were done on performance it turned out that the men, though overt in their bickering, worked just as well as women.

      There is a parallel in Rosalind Wiseman's Queen Bees and Wannabes (the basis of much of Tina Fey's Mean Girls): most of the research into [junior]+ high school bullying dealt with boys. Because the boys were open about it, more willing to make an issue of it. The girls, both victims and victimizers, concealed their activities, often in passive-aggressive ways (causing many sociologists to assume it wasn't there). Girls would bond into groups that, when asked, would uniformly reply with "best friends forever" to researchers. Observation noted that this was not the case. There were obvious social heirarchies (even among "friends") where the lower girls were humiliated, and nettled endlessly.

      Of course this all just showed that the sexes approaches to group dynamics were different, not better. Both have members who demonstrate all the sort of behaviors you don't want in a closed space (depression, group disruptive behavior, passive-aggressiveness, etc).

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
  14. Memories... by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ah man, this story brings back good memories for me.
    When I was about, oooh 14 years old or so, I went to a "Space and Science Camp" one summer. We did all sorts of crazy stuff related to space. My favorite was trying to design "crash modules" to protect an egg from a two story drop (that was hella fun).

    Anyways, one of the special activities we did was a mock Moon base mission. Basically we spent one day cutting black garbage bags open and duct taping them together into a series of domes and tunnels for our "base". It had two openings: one was a sealable flap (our "airlock") and the other was an open hole that they put a big fan in to inflate the entire structure (worked really well too). Oh and some small ventillation holes in each room. Anyways, the next day we went on our "mission", which was basically a dozen or more of us stuck inside this inflated garbage bag, in the middle of a gymnasium with the lights turned off. We were divided up into teams and everyone given certain tasks. I was a communications officer, which basically ment I got to sit there and communicate with "earth" (our supervisors) on an old macintosh. We were also responsible for general coordination of the base. Another team was our Medical branch. They had some generic tests/experiments to try while we were 'on the moon', in addition to being responsible for the health of the entire staff. Theirs was actually the only 'serious' mission, because they had to test everyone regularly for signs of CO2 poisioning while we were effectively trapped inside a plastic bag for six hours straight. We also had an exploration team that got to do "moonwalks", which was basically tying a rope around one guy, blindfolding him, and shoving him out into the gymnasium to see what he could find. They came in very important (more later). The only other team I remember was our "Engineering" team, who was responsible for maintaining the base's structure, armed with nothing but some spare garbage bags, some knives, and enough duct tape to wrap an army. They even got around to making a couple of small additions to the base. Those guys had lots of fun.

    The cool thing about our "mission" was, in addition to trying to complete the tasks given to us by Earth base, our supervisors fucked with us at every possible opportunity. They did shit like "solar activity disrupting communications" (disconnected our Mac from the LAN) so we were on our own for an hour. They walked around with knives and poked holes in the bags to keep the engineering team busy... VERY busy. When we were done, our base looked like someone had taken a piece of swiss cheese and put tape over all the holes. They were cruel. About 20 minutes after our engineering team completed a tunnel connecting medical to communications, I hear this slicing sound and feel air rushing past my face. I turn around, and the bastards had cut a three foot gap in the new tunnel! Engineering runs over and starts trying to tape it up, but its not gonna be airtight... so the creative bastards rip off their paper medical jumpsuits (we even had mission stickers, names, rank, etc on them) and use them to seal off the tunnel. Heh that was cool. Even cooler though, was when the "alien" got into our base through the same gap. One of the engineering guys opened up the tunnel to see about further repairs, and he finds the supervisors have slashed it (AGAIN!) and dumped a plastic turtle in the gap as an "alien". The whole base erupts in panic. Engineering shows up in force as they're the only ones with knives. Medical runs in and tries to start bossing people around because "this is a biological matter". It was hillarious. We eventually figured out (with Earth's help) that the alien was dead, and medical got the goahead to start an autopsy on it. Very cool.

    By far the most exciting event in the mission was our "catastrophic power failure". Everyone's working allong happilly... computers chirping, people talking, fans humming... and then no humming. People kind of looked around at eachother real slowly like "Uhh, wa

    1. Re:Memories... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I remember doing that too, way back in the mid 80s, but my experience was a little more intense.

      We actually got to go into the real shuttle to sit in the cockpit during an engine test. During the test, there was some "computer error" or something (I'm a little fuzzy on the details), which made it appear there was a malfunction, and the people at mission control had to actually launch us into space.

      I don't remember much about it, since I was a little kid and I've had a lot to drink since 1986, but there was something about a gay robot and having to tell this annoying kid to "use the force" in order to save everyone's life.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  15. Re:Methods for doing this; Russia good as any plac by randomiam · · Score: 3, Informative
    Food, other consumables, oxygen, water, yes, these are valid simulations. I'd also like to see what the options are for running a hydroponics lab to oxygenate the air and cleanse sewer waste, though not to eat necessarily since this would involve a fair amount of work.

    NASA ran a demonstration project called "Breadboard" starting back in '86. It's still active, I think. The goal of the project were to:

    1.) Develop a sealed environment plant growth capability (which is much harder than simple hydroponic farming).

    2.) Develop the systems needed to control atmospheric contaminants, b) collect and regenerate condensate water, and c) recycle solid wastes.

    3.) Integrate all of the systems in point 2 with the growth in point 1.

    Here's a link to a page that gives a decent 'least you need to know' overview of the project.

    http://www.permanent.com/s-ce-nas.htm

    Of course, NASA hasn't made it to including humans yet, but since as per /. protocol I haven't RTFA, I don't know if the russians are 'cheating' on all of these mundane details.

  16. Gives purpose, maybe pride by ralphcringely · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "living your life is like riding a bicycle. its easier to keep your balance if you're going somewhere". I forget who said that. Voltaire? Erving Goffman? Fritz Perls? Anyway, it's true for countries too. I applaud Senor Putin. Set a goal. Get everyone to push for it.

    Is'nt that what Senor Kennedy did for us with the moon? I mean, why did we go there except to have a goal?

    --
    Tell me again, who knew Mary was a virgin, and how did they know?
  17. this is somewhat close... by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to what long duration voyage submariners go through. 500 days is a long time though, I don't think any totally submerged and all sealed up submarine voyage has lasted that long, I think something like 6 weeks is more normal.(could be wrong on that, any knowledgeable folks please correct me) I am sure there are tons of scientific studies already about the physiological and psychological impacts of long term close quarters living, where you can't just "get out" and all your existence is self contained, more or less. The subs though can make their own fresh water and O2, so that makes it easier in many ways. Also no weightlessness to contend with. But....similar.

    Hmm, sorta like jail, too, in a way.

  18. FAT ASTRONAUTS!! by spineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One way to more effieciently store food for the journey is to have fat astronauts. A pound of fat contains about 3500 kcals of energy - roughly a day and a half energy supply for an average weight male. So a 75 pound overweight astronaut would have roughly 120 days of stored, packed on food - or 25% of the trips food requirements (About 2 tons!!!). It is a MUCH, more efficient way to store "food" weight for the journey.

    Yes this does appear to sound quite funny, but I think that this is very doable, without much of a health risk at all to the astronauts.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:FAT ASTRONAUTS!! by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      is to have fat astronauts.

      Better, really, to have small astronauts. No one more than 4 feet tall. They'll need less food to stay alive, a smaller habitat, and less air to heat.

      Could pick em short + fat, I guess...

    2. Re:FAT ASTRONAUTS!! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only problem with this plan really, is that fat astronauts would have all sorts of health problems that would prevent them from being able to even set foot in the launching craft. You see, besides the fact that the food is such a small amount of the mass required (water + oxygen are the big ones, and being fat increases your dependency on these), you take say someone who's 75 pounds overweight, right? They launch under what, 5Gs or so? Say they're ideal weight is 150, so they weigh 225. During launch they'll weigh 1125 pounds until they hit orbit, at which time they'll be in free fall.

      Do you know any fat guy whose heart can take that sort of change? Furthermore, do you know of any fat guy who, after going through the training program so that they can take the normal amount of weight during launch, will still be fat?

      Or is this some sort of CowboyNeal joke? You know, send HIM to mars so we don't have to deal with his silly polls anymore?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  19. Air, Water, and Food. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Food, other consumables, oxygen, water, yes, these are valid simulations. I'd also like to see what the options are for running a hydroponics lab to oxygenate the air and cleanse sewer waste, though not to eat necessarily since this would involve a fair amount of work.

    I'd thought about the air and water recycling problem when running a different thought experiment (was planning what amounted to a single-person spacecraft with a 1-2 week nominal mission duration capacity).

    It turns out that if you're only going out for a couple of weeks, or if you have a significant mass budget, recycling isn't important at all. The mass of food consumed is surprisingly low, and we have plenty of experience keeping it light and compact (think "MRE"s; the military has a vested interest in food that keeps and is easy to transport). Oxygen consumed will at most be enough to burn that food - the part of that food that's not already oxidized (water-based). Water consumption is relatively low - a couple of litres per day for a comfortable allocation. So you have a few pounds of supplies used per day, and can easily store a year or more's supplies without the supplies outweighing the rest of your expedition's equipment.

    For recycling, air and water are the most important. Water because you go through a significant amount of it, but it's still fairly easy to recycle, and air because you go through a _lot_ of it (2-3 times the dry weight of your food). Both of these turn out to be easy to do if you have _power_. Brute force chemical processes and (for water) techniques like distillation come to the rescue. While 100% recycling of water is hard to do, even 80-90% would have a huge impact on your supply mass, and air recycling is very nearly perfect.

    A biologically based recycler has the advantage of being able to turn solid waste into food, but that's about its only advantage. System efficiency vs. energy in (light) is actually pretty poor, and it takes a lot of space and a lot of mass, even if you use something like algae that's near the bottom of the food chain and has low infrastructure requirements.

    Biological recyclers are useful when you can afford a large facility mass, and when you have a lot of people to feed. These are true on a large space station (think "colony") or planetary base (again think "colony"), but not for most spacecraft.

    Still very interesting to think through the options for.