Slashdot Mirror
Simulated Mars Mission 'Returns' After 520 Days
On June 3, 2010, a team of six volunteers began the Mars500 experiment: they were locked into a cluster of hermetically sealed habitat modules for the duration of a simulated mission to Mars lasting 520 days. "During the ‘flight,' the crew performed more than 100 experiments, all linked to the problems of long-duration missions in deep space. To add to their isolation, communications with mission control were artificially delayed to mimic the natural delays over the great distances on a real Mars flight." The simulated mission has now come to an end. The crew managed to stay healthy and sane, and they've emerged from isolation to be reunited with their families. The ESA's Mars500 page has further details on the experiment, and they've posted a video summarizing the 'trip.'
I'm assuming the study was more about human behaviour rather than things like that, and to answer your question, obviously they didn't simulate it.
...but this is an important experiment to perform. Obviously they can't easily simulate the zero-g, radiation exposure, etc. of a long space mission, but the psychological question of "can you lock 5 people in a single-wide trailer for 2 years and expect them to not go completely bat shit insane?" is a valid one.
520 days is definitely enough to complete a round-trip Mars mission. This experiment suggests that you can successfully go "there and back again" without making your astronauts lose their mind.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
Weightless on 1 April
Yeah, might wanna think about that date a little :)
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
They so should have greeted the emerging "astronauts" wearing gorilla, chimp, and orangutan masks.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That's beyond the scope of this experiment.
Between Mir and ISS, we already have some pretty good data about the physiological impact of medium-term weightlessness.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
>> they were locked into a cluster of hermetically sealed habitat modules... ...lined with newspaper, and full of wood shavings and exercise wheels.
Not sure I would completely agree with the effectiveness of this study from a psychological perspective. It's interesting, no doubt, but the problem is that the people in the capsule still know they're on earth, safe, etc. They have a known end date for the study, etc. Assuming all that's taken into account here of course, but I wouldn't rely on the results in assuming that a human could maintain santiy for this period of time while actually in flight.
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Unfortunately there's one big flaw in this experiment. The crew consisted of "three Russians, one Chinese and two [other] Europeans", which only demonstrates that Eurasians are capable of living together in that limited space for that period of time. We still don't know if an American could get along with them for that long. :)
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
You have to start somewhere, this is still a valuable data point. Integrated "test" is hard to do without actually doing the real thing so... Just my $0.05
How did they simulate zero gravity and its adverse effects on the human body??
Mir and ISS have done that. This seems to be a psychological test regarding isolation. However without the extreme risk of actual interplanetary spaceflight the psychological data might be limited. The stress of such a risk has to have an effect.
Which make me wonder if candidates for a Mars mission should be "old school" astronauts, those with experience as test pilots and who probably flew combat missions as well, or who did night carrier landing (*), etc.
(*) Maybe its a myth but I once heard that during the Vietnam war the US Navy wired up some pilots to record vital signs related to stress. Pilots were more stressed during night carrier landings than on combat missions near/over Hanoi (a very hazardous area for these pilots).
Titov and Manarov spent 365 days in space in a single mission in 1987..1988. Then Manarov logged another 175 days on Mir, couple of years later. So, I guess, he was in pretty good health after his first mission ;-)
It's Ascension Sunday.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
In Soviet Russia, damn-dirty-apes control YOU!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
In that I mean that the participants still know that they are on earth, so why do I need to wait 6 minutes (guessing at a time delta here...) to get a response from 'earth' when I know that it shouldn't take that long.
Because it's part of the experiment, and they know it. Usually, factors like that are minimized in studies, but there isn't much you can do in this case.
Still, I agree that this isn't a very good test. One of the biggest factors on our sanity wasn't part of this test: fear. Even in low orbit, you know that a relatively thin layer of metal is all that protects you from death. If you have a major health issue, there are no ambulances to take you to the ER. Death literally surrounds you every moment you're out there, and living with that for nearly two years would likely take its toll.
In this study, you know you're monitored. If you lose containment, you're safe. If you have a heart attack, they will open the door and come get you. If your wife has a stroke, they'll let you out. Etc. I'd imagine that without knocking a random passerby on the head and waking them up on a fake spacecraft, it is extremely difficult to recreate the feeling of being out there.
No, this really is how you "begin to measure the mental strain". First you test to see whether it's possible for them to survive a simulation of just the isolation and confinement, but without the weightlessness and danger. If-and-only-if that test goes well, you proceed to the next step (whatever that might be).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Yeah, I don't get that either. When I was single I would've signed up for a one-way trip to Mars, or a year-long stay in Antartica, or whatever in a heartbeat. Now, I wouldn't even take a job with lots of travel unless she is okay with it. Why create strong emotional bonds with someone only to turn around and not see them for years?
But in a similarly thousands of military men keep popping out kids during "war time" knowing they will likely be redeployed shortly and won't see them for years, if ever. Why would you do that? Why would you put that kind of burden on your wife? Why intentionally create children if you aren't going be there to support them and enjoy them. I just don't get it.
if you aren't going be there to support them and enjoy them
You don't have kids, do you?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'd imagine that without knocking a random passerby on the head and waking them up on a fake spacecraft, it is extremely difficult to recreate the feeling of being out there.
FUN
Already noted:
" Space veteran Sergei Krikalyov, who has spent a record 803 days in orbit, told Reuters: "It's useful but, sitting here on Earth, it won't solve real problems of long human exposure in space." "
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-russia-mars-isolation-idUSTRE7A22YD20111103
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While slightly anecdotal, I was a submariner. If we ever were to have severe flooding, we would be going down to never return in all likelihood. Fortunately there are varying degrees of flooding, However I recognize space is not as forgiving. Now this certainly is a small case of comparing apples to oranges, there are still some similarities. You're locked in a tube and there is no way out, and if you do find a way out, you are probably hosed anyway. People always ask me how did I coped with being on a sub, and didn't it make you claustrophobic . I answer honestly and say that I didn't think about it and that it didn't bother me. It was actually kind of enjoyable and cool. I imagine that there are other people like me who would have a similar attitude about being in a space vessel.
Sure, but it is the first step towards more effective studies. You don't just start with sending people in to space for two years. Imagine if the opposite outcome of this study had occurred, i.e. they all went batshit crazy. Well then we could say, "locking people up for two years in these relatively benign conditions made them crazy, it's just going to be a whole lot worse when we add in the stress of space. Maybe we should rethink our plans." But that didn't happen, so the results of this experiment tell us that two years in relatively benign conditions are ok, now we can up the ante and try something a little more stressful.
With proper variable isolation a lot of useful psychological data can be obtained from such experiment, do not discard it just because it's not 100 percent like a real thing.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I think this is all a hoax. I think they really went to Mars.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
That is quite presumptious of you- he could be a Kiwi. I think $0.05 (NZD) is approximately $0.02 (USD).
This is an international community.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I was thinking just drop them in the Ocean at a deep depth to add to the simulation. There's no-one coming for you in an emergency in that case, and there's a very real possibility of system failure.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
* Reason for Science:
There are some thing a robot cannot do. Humans are more adaptable and can travel more than a few feet a day.
* Reason for money:
Being the nation(s) with a manned presence would probably help any claims to any potential resources found- more so than a robot- and a manned expedition would be more dynamic- no slow communications between so resources would be found easier.
* Reason for status:
Big national status symbol (which does help national pride and presitge with other nations).
* Reason for humanity:
Humans will one day need to leave earth if we are to extend the life-span of our species. This is the first step.
* Reason for defense:
Anyone who has ever played any space civilization game will know that the species that spreads their population to the most planets early in the game is most likely to win.
/ the last reason is the best.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
And the Stanford prison experiment was nothing like actual prison, but somehow people were still psychologically effected in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Through history, there were a LOT of voyages where the potential not to make it back was strong. We already know humans can handle that kind of thing.
What has not been done as much before is a very small group of people confined to a small space for a long time. Even on old sailing ships you could look at the sea. Submarines are not out at sea that long.
I personally would jump at a chance to go even if the chance of making it back was 0%. I'm sure there are many others like this...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course it's a simulation and thus there are differences to the real thing.
However, things like this tend to look differently from the inside than they do from the outside. The emotions of being trapped in a confined space for an extended time are not entirely rational, and if you are inside something for months you can lose track of where exactly you are, even if some part of your brain still "knows" that you are all safe.
It's as close as you can get with all the various other conditions (like the constant monitoring you couldn't do on a sub, the nearest real-life comparison) that needed to be met.
It's a valid experiment. Taking the things into consideration that would be different in a real mars mission is, of course, the job of the people doing the analysis.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why do you think that? Do you yourself panic when you might be out of range of an ambulance in case you have a heart attack? I personally have spent 30 days crossing an ocean alone in a small boat, separated from the sea by 3mm of steel. If I had had a major medical emergency I would have likely died but I was not afraid during that time, and I would not be afraid to do it again..
My memory is a little hazy on the specifics, but I will share this too. Every now and then, the boat would send some people over to the flooding trainer. they covered the basics on how to apply various flood stoppage techniques. If I recall correctly, they certainly didn't recommend putting your hand/body into any fluid streams. I think the primary concern was so much that you would have a liquid laser in the case of a fine stream, similar to what happens when you put your thumb over a hose, but more that if you had anything in your hand that would then get knocked out and then become a fast moving projectile.
This was particularly true for one technique that was used to stop a rupture from a pipe. If the hole/gash in pipe as the right size, then they had these curved metal pieces with rubber on one side that would match the contour of the pipe. The idea is then to put this piece of metal across the pipe, apply pressure , which then would be sealed by the rubber. It was amazing at how effective it was in stopping the leaks in the simulator. The problem being, if you did this wrong, this would be a lethal projectile. The idea was to then pre-secure this metal patch a few inches away from the pipe with some metal banding and then inch it down the pipe until it covered the hole. Then the final compression was applied to the metal banding. When everything was done, you would hardly know there was a leak there.
All in all, I thought this was the best, funnest, and most practical training that I think I have ever had. Granted, if this was happening while I was on the boat in a real situation I would probably not find it so fun, but I wouldn't be useless either on what to do if needed.