Slashdot Mirror
Volunteer to Simulate a Mars Mission for the ESA
number6x writes "The European Space Agency (ESA) is looking for volunteers for a simulated trip to Mars. The simulation will put a crew of six in isolation for 17 months. The crew will be made up of 4 Russians and 2 Europeans. In all the ESA will need 12 volunteers for back up purposes. Seventeen months was chosen to simulate the time needed for the journey to Mars and back, as well as a 30 day period spent doing experiments on the red planet."
Simple question. Will they be allowed to have sex?
17 months still won't simulate their worst obstacles. Radiation and extreme conditions are still factors that are keeping them from going there at the moment. I doubt that controlling the spacecraft and living conditions will vary much from current space station accomodations.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Since they would put the 6 people in isolation, they could sell that as a reality show and fund the mission.
The hard part will be getting there and back; they need to know the levels of cabin fever that are going to occur and they need to be able to test that in a simulated environment.
Locking people in a tank for 17 months and watching how they deal with each other is a valuable experiment. Spending 2 years running around the desert in a spacesuit to simulate martian experiments...Now that would be worthless.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
A 30 day trip to mars after 8 months of travel would be like a family driving the kids to Disneyland, riding on one ride, and then everybody back in the car for the ride home!
I understand that this experiment is probably limited by funds, not a realistic simulation, etc.... but really, 30 days?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Interestingly, I read about a bunch of tiny worms on their way back from space. They've been up there long enough to produce 25 generations and scientists are going to examine their DNA to see if it's changed along the way due to aforementioned radiation.
Links at Google News.
The space station has quasi-ecological isolation. Although they get re-supplied almost every month and have the option of immediate escape.
Ecological isolation didnt quite work in Biosphere II (soon to become condos). It was hard to keep the atmosphere in balance and grow enough food. Most participants lost 1/4 to 1/3 of weight.
Seriously ! I spent a year with 12 other people in the middle of Antarctica in 2005 and we were being followed by shrinks of the ESA. There's a big difference between a winterover and the proposed experiment: the first has a purpose while the second has not. I mean the only purpose here is to stay in a can. At least when you go to Mars or to Antarctica you have a job to perform and important things to do (science and ensuring your survival because there's no way out). Here you'll have people crack down after a few weeks from a sense of uselessness. I would sign up for another winterover or a Mars mission no questions asked. I wouldn't get canned like this for a heap of gold and an all you can download porn access.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/
We're not falling for it twice!
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
Motivated people throughout history have endured considerably more privation than being confined to 92 m2/person for 17 months. We know that from a psychological standpoint, people can and will make a trip of this nature. The key word here is motivation.
But if the participants know that the whole thing is a simulation, it robs the experiment of any useful insight into many aspects of psychological stress because this motivational factor is missing; the difference between a simulated airlock and a real one will not be lost on participants. The project would thus seem to be a way to validate the astronaut selection process itself, and not just a study on long-term isolation - in other words, "we know people can handle it, but we still don't have a reliable way of knowing which ones". The recent diapers-and-knives episode amply illustrates that astronaut selection is something of an inexact science.
Of course, this still leaves lots of room for interesting experiments on group dynamics, but we already know quite a lot on this subject: for example, years of experimentation with Skylab, Mir etc. suggested that if there was some tension in the group, ground control would usually create an obviously impossible schedule of work for the team, creating a them-versus-us mentality which tended to bring the team closer; tensions within the group were eased by colluding to grumble about ground control.
This sort of thing has been studied exhaustively by many military and civilian organisations for a long time, so what are the objectives here?