Four Month Mars Food Study Wraps Up

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four Month Mars Food Study Wraps Up

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @03:00AM from the huy-fong-plans-martian-factory dept.

After four months in a mock space habitat in Hawaii, participants in a study to determine how best to feed astronauts (HI-SEAS) on a mission to Mars emerged yesterday. A few days ago, the mission commander was interviewed in Astrobiology Magazine, noting the most successful foods: "There's also been a lot of really good cooked dishes. Some of our crew members are accomplished cooks, and every week there are different surprises. Some success meals were Russian borscht, Moroccan tagine, enchilasagna, seafood chowder, and fabada asturiana. Wraps work really well: we combine tortillas, different vegetables, Velveeta cheese, and sausage or canned fish into ever-changing combinations. This is actually in line with the success of tortillas at the ISS. In general, the dehydrated and freeze-dried vegetables are a real success. They're used on a daily basis in almost every meal." The crew kept weblogs, and did other things than just sit around and eat: some studied robotics and they went on a few simulated EVAs.

142 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Did they try this? by bluegutang · 2013-08-14 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(chocolate_bar)
1. Re:Did they try this? by oodaloop · 2013-08-14 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They're just called chocolate bars there.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:Did they try this? by RivenAleem · 2013-08-14 03:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I lived with a Frenchman for a while and I was making French toast for breakfast once and I asked him what they call it in France. He told me he'd never heard or seen this food before. I asked him why it was called French toast then, and with dead seriousness he replied, "Probably to make it sound better."
3. Re:Did they try this? by Hoi+Polloi · 2013-08-14 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  This was my first thought when I saw the headline. The marketing works!
  
  --
  It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
4. Re:Did they try this? by Chris+Mattern · 2013-08-14 03:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, in France they call it [i]pain perdu[/i] "lost bread", possibly because it's a good use for bread that's gone stale.
5. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:47 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  It's called "Pain perdu" which translates to "Lost bread". They call it that because you would traditionally use stale bread.
6. Re:Did they try this? by Firethorn · 2013-08-14 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  dead seriousness he replied, "Probably to make it sound better."
  *Snerk*. Same deal with 'french fries' I guess. I've never known French people to be big on deep frying.
  *Most* 'Foreign' cuisine in the USA has been modified from it's native version to a sufficient extent to really be considered a different dish. Some of this is due to availability of ingredients, especially for Chinese dishes, but a lot of it is to make it more palatable to american taste buds.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
7. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  exactly, it was a recipe to use old bread that had become hard ... I discovered French toasts in Japan, but I had never tasted "pain perdu" in France Lol
8. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, Japanese people believe that the cold potato soup called "Vichyssoise" is French and are surprised we do not know about it!
  It was invented by a French cook from the "Vichy" French town while he was working in the States but it is unknown in France Lol
9. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  dead seriousness he replied, "Probably to make it sound better."
  *Snerk*. Same deal with 'french fries' I guess. I've never known French people to be big on deep frying.
  *Most* 'Foreign' cuisine in the USA has been modified from it's native version to a sufficient extent to really be considered a different dish. Some of this is due to availability of ingredients, especially for Chinese dishes, but a lot of it is to make it more palatable to american taste buds.
  Nope "french" (really, it's "frenched") is the style of the cut of the potato. Thin cut. Has nothing to do with France which makes Freedom Fries even sillier.
10. Re:Did they try this? by dunnomattic · 2013-08-14 04:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I grew up in New Orleans where "French Bread" is a staple. I recall many years ago asking my mother why they call the meal French toast. She relayed what her grandmother told her years before -- that the French dish "lost bread" uses dipped, stale bread to salvage what would otherwise be wasted food. A fresh loaf of common bread will fall apart when you pull it out of the milk and eggs. However, New Orleans "French Bread" as a firm crust yet porous, sponge-like interior to both soak up the mix while hold together.
  
  --
  ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
11. Re:Did they try this? by Megane · 2013-08-14 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they were called Back Bars.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
12. Re:Did they try this? by AttillaTheNun · 2013-08-14 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  In Canada, they actually try to pass it off as an "Energy Bar". Those words are actually in small print under the logo.
13. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Most possessive pronouns in the USA have been modified from their normal version to include an apostrophe.
14. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds in line with what it is called in germany: Armer Ritter (Poor Knight). It's what you eat if you are a poor knight how only has some old bread in his saddlebags...
15. Re:Did they try this? by polar+red · 2013-08-14 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  and in the dutch part of belgium, it's called either "verloren brood" (lost bread) or "gewonnen brood" (won bread: because it is not lost ...)
  
  --
  Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
16. Re:Did they try this? by polar+red · 2013-08-14 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  and in dutch-speaking belgium(and holland too probably) 'Frans brood' (literally 'French bread') is used for baguettes ...
  
  --
  Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
17. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  So basically in that crazy land up north, their snickers bars are our mars bars? :)
  Good to know, good to know :)
18. Re:Did they try this? by ArcadeMan · 2013-08-14 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're a bit confused, it's a new energy bar that totally looks like a Mars bar.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
19. Re:Did they try this? by fritsd · 2013-08-14 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas in the Netherlands the old bread with eggs and milk is called "flipping bitches" (wentelteefjes). No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.
  
  And in Swedish it's called "fattig riddare" which means "poor knight" like in German as I learned today: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4089849&cid=44566217. At least that word is a bit more understandable..
  
  --
  To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
20. Re:Did they try this? by fritsd · 2013-08-14 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Must... resist... substituting word in Electric Six song...
  
  --
  To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
21. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  At a restaurant in rural France I ordered what they called an "American Sandwich". It was carpaccio. In all my travels to the US, I never got the impression that raw beef was a staple of American cuisine. I'm also perplexed by your "English muffins"
22. Re:Did they try this? by jafiwam · 2013-08-14 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I lived with a Frenchman for a while and I was making French toast for breakfast once and I asked him what they call it in France. He told me he'd never heard or seen this food before. I asked him why it was called French toast then, and with dead seriousness he replied, "Probably to make it sound better."
  Interestingly enough, to go along with the article mentioning tortillas, "French Tortillas" cooked the same way as French Bread are quite good too. Four tortillas are a bit better than corn when used this way. I was quite pleased to discover it worked well.
  Bread is not used fast enough in my household so flour tortillas are often a substitute. Tortillas last much longer than a loaf of bread does when stored on a kitchen counter.
23. Re:Did they try this? by nitehawk214 · 2013-08-14 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... However, New Orleans "French Bread" as a firm crust yet porous, sponge-like interior to both soak up the mix while hold together.
  Using slightly stale bread, such as sliced and left out on the countertop overnight, is a good way to achieve the firm outside and soft inside.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
24. Re:Did they try this? by nitehawk214 · 2013-08-14 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  ... However, New Orleans "French Bread" as a firm crust yet porous, sponge-like interior to both soak up the mix while hold together.
  Using slightly stale bread, such as sliced and left out on the countertop overnight, is a good way to achieve the firm outside and soft inside.
  Oops I confused french bread and french toast. Presumably there is more than one type of bread in France.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
25. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  But aren't "french" fries from belgium?
26. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  My step-father used to cook what he termed "french toast" for us, years ago. In reality, it was a piece of bread that he dropped into cooking fat, after he'd cooked his steak, chips, eggs, and sausages in it.
  On a not-entirely unrelated note, he had two heart attacks between 1994 and 1997, then he had several strokes at once in 2003, and died from another in 2010.
27. Re:Did they try this? by GNious · 2013-08-14 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Observation: Nothing I've found in Belgium really classifies as "bread", except for a few imported options :)
28. Re:Did they try this? by cthulhu11 · 2013-08-15 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Someone I used to work with lives in Germany, and when he makes waffles his kids' friends wonder WTF they are.
29. Re:Did they try this? by painandgreed · 2013-08-15 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I lived with a Frenchman for a while and I was making French toast for breakfast once and I asked him what they call it in France. He told me he'd never heard or seen this food before. I asked him why it was called French toast then, and with dead seriousness he replied, "Probably to make it sound better."
  This is a French recipe as I've been told by a French friend, used to reclaim old bread. However, typically, when American cuisine has "French" in the title (such as "french fires") it is because it is cooked in the "French style" which is to say fried in fat. At least, that is what I found out after a session of doing web searches as to wondering why "French fires" are called that instead of "Belgian Fries" as I see in Europe.
30. Re:Did they try this? by mattack2 · 2013-08-15 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  You can put both tortillas and bread in the refrigerator to make them last even longer. I think many people even freeze bread, and IIRC, you can still toast the frozen bread into proper toast.
31. Re:Did they try this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-16 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  the mars bar in the u.s. "was once again discontinued at the end of 2011".
Yup... by Type44Q · 2013-08-14 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Velveeta cheese
That should quickly solve the overpopulation issue inherent to the one-way nature of the trip but will complicate logistics by requiring far greater amounts of toilet paper...
1. Re:Yup... by Type44Q · 2013-08-14 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, I jest; the combination of whey, food-grade engine oil and potassium sorbate are an ancient Chinese formula for a miraculous, life-extending elixir...
Quite a food lineup by P-niiice · 2013-08-14 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Really, they're thinking about Velveeta? For Burritos? On Mars? In an Airtight bubble?
1. Re:Quite a food lineup by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Really, they're thinking about Velveeta? For Burritos? On Mars? In an Airtight bubble?
  Overall, it probably doesn't matter much. Given the dry air, lack of showers, etc. the smell must be something to be get used to anyway. Adding a little more, no big difference.
2. Re:Quite a food lineup by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  It reduces the amount of methane that has to brought on board.
  The previously tried to bring a cow on Fobos-Grunt but it never made it. The flatulent fuckers are less than wieldy when in a confined space.
Banned alternative - surstromming by G3ckoG33k · 2013-08-14 03:05 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Banned alternative - surstromming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu6_Pi_a1lI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgV2imaOCao
Or should that be canned alternative?
Fabada in a spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:06 · Score: 0

While it may taste great, fabada asturiana is very famous for its farting production capacity (as most meals that contain beans). Now imagine that in a spaceship... yep, recipe for disaster!
1. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Sockatume · 2013-08-14 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know if this is a regional thing or what but I absolutely devour beans, cheese and the like and don't seem to encounter the sort of apocalyptic digestive consequences that I see cited on where whenever someone brings up sturdy food.
  What causes some people to have such weaponised digestive tracts?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-08-14 03:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There are pretty substantial variations in intestinal normal flora between individuals (non-human cells in your body outnumber the human ones about 10-1, and many of them live in the gut), so that would be my guess. I'm not nearly enough microbiologist to suggest which organisms or strains are involved; but gut bacteria are a significant variable (since they vary based on where you were first innoculated with them, internal competition between organisms, antibiotics you've taken, etc.) that changes markedly faster than any human genetic or epigenetic component does.
3. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by RaceProUK · 2013-08-14 03:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  While it may taste great, fabada asturiana is very famous for its farting production capacity (as most meals that contain beans). Now imagine that in a spaceship... yep, recipe for disaster!
  Or a nifty way to top up the fuel tank :)
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
4. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Gut Flora.
  In the case of cheese only ~50% of the adult human population can properly handle lactose as that is a relatively recent evolution. It is basically the same reason for beans, but oligosaccharide rather than lactose. When the gut flora breaks down the sugars gas is produced.
  The amount of gas produced is very much controlled by bacterial in the gut, and that is fairly unique to each person. How the beans are cooked can also significantly change their effect on people.
5. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by GrumpySteen · 2013-08-14 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Gut flora.
  Basically the gas from beans is produced by bacteria breaking down oligosaccharides that your digestive system can't break down as easily. You may have different bacteria or a smaller amount of the same bacteria than someone who is more gassy.
6. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  From what I undestand, there's a (water soluble?) carbonhydrate in beans that some people can't digest properly, so bacteria end up doing it instead, anaerobically. Dairy have a similar problem with lactose.
  Basically some people lack the right enzymes, bacteria culture and whatnot.
7. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by gstoddart · 2013-08-14 03:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What causes some people to have such weaponised digestive tracts?
  Lack of exposure, mostly.
  If you don't eat something like that regularly, your body has a hell of a time trying to deal with it. If you haven't built up the right stuff to digest it, some of those starches cause some pretty unpleasant side effects. As a long-ish term vegetarian, I've definitely found I have to go through a periodic adjustment period to something new. And it can definitely be a little toxic.
  It's like spicy food ... if you eat it all the time, your body can probably deal with it. If you don't, well, you might need some aloe the next day. ;-)
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
8. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Lumpy · 2013-08-14 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  If you want to see something fun, Have someone eat RAW kidney beans or kidney beans not boiled but slowly soaked and cooked under very low heat.
  They will turn into a Puke and poo sprinkler as it violently comes out pretty much every hole all at once. Most beans require cooking above a certain temperature and time to make them safe to eat.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by X0563511 · 2013-08-14 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  As well as a failure to appropriately soak/process the beans.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
10. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by retchdog · 2013-08-14 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Just for the record, that's due to a protein rather than a carbohydrate, and the problem is not indigestibility but rather that the protein is actively toxic.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
11. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  As well as a failure to appropriately soak/process the beans.
  This. I thought I had figured out an easy way for a busy person to cook dried beans: stick them in a (small) slow cooker for 24 hours on low. Simple, easy, and, as it turns out, a good way to get intestinal distress.
  Turns out there's a compound in many beans which will cause severe intestinal discomfort. You have to deactivate it first, which requires a certain time at a high temperature. Using commercially canned beans or dried beans that have been cooked by boiling is typically fine, as by the time the beans have been softened by boiling (or are ready to be put in the can), enough time has elapsed for the compound to be inactivated. Dried beans that haven't been cooked properly, or have only been cooked at sub-boiling temperatures will cause you big problems. (I'm not sure what people at high altitudes do regarding dried beans - use a pressure cooker, I guess. Which, as it turns out, is a good way to cook beans even if you're at sea level.)
  That said, this wouldn't be a problem for the Marstronauts, as the beans are likely to be well cooked prior to being dehydrated. (Unless they start growing their own.)
12. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by X0563511 · 2013-08-14 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can slowcook them just fine, but when you do an overnight soak and rinse prior to cooking is mandatory or you will have a fun time.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
13. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by filthpickle · 2013-08-14 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  I pretty much lived on beans for a solid 10 years. I still eat a lot of them, but not twice a day every day. For a while, I had the most atrocious gas you can imagine. In both quality and quantity. Roommate at the time told me he was moving out if I didn't go see a doctor. Needed a roommate, so I did.
  
  Me: "What can I do about having really bad gas all the time?"
  Doctor: "Fart more. It won't hurt you."
  
  I walk in the door, let one rip and state "Doctor's orders!"
  
  Also, along with gut flora I think it has something to do with some people being weird about where they shit. There are a lot of people that just won't drop a deuce anywhere but a few "safe" locations, and they end up walking around holding it in. I stopped being so particular and went wherever I was when I needed to...unless it was the trainspotting bathroom or something....and I never have gas anymore. :*(
14. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by mattington · 2013-08-15 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is why people in China eat tofu, since the beans are fermented first, they are easier to digest.
15. Re:Fabada in a spaceship... by Jmc23 · 2013-08-16 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  antibiotics.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by PvtVoid · 2013-08-14 03:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

All they learned was what anybody who does a lot of camping already knows: tortillas keep well, freeze-dried vegetables are a good way to add variety to a dreary and repetitive menu of preserved meat.

NASA for the fail. Again.
1. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Sockatume · 2013-08-14 03:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You normally go camping for four months at a time, and do all your shopping before you leave, smartass?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Lumpy · 2013-08-14 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  Yes I do... we also consider the two donkeys carrying all the supplies when we start out as a part of the meal plan so we dont waste space.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by tlhIngan · 2013-08-14 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  All they learned was what anybody who does a lot of camping already knows: tortillas keep well, freeze-dried vegetables are a good way to add variety to a dreary and repetitive menu of preserved meat.
  
  Tortillas aren't used because they keep well. They're used because they don't generate crumbs. That's why they don't use bread - the crumbs would fly everywhere and get into everything, which is not only an irritant (a crumb could fly into an eye), but also dangerous if it plugged a sensor onboard.
  Living in space has unique dietary requirements because of various biological effects and restrictions. Food can't become easily airborne for starters. It also much keep relatively well because you have limited cooking options (no stove), and the long term effects of recycled air has to be taken into account (imagine the stench of food hanging around for days at a time and even worse, propagating throughout the habitat).
  In addition, one's sense of smell and taste is severely compromised in space, so food tastes blander.
  And it's also important to figure out what foods can be grown in space and what are impractical to produce (e.g., cheese) and thus must be brought up. But if you're bringing food up because it's impractical to grow, you need to know if it'll still be "good" up there (taste, texture, etc), and how much one should bring to be satisfied (due to limited weight).
  Yes, it's a giant camping trip. Except it's done with 4 other people in a space barely larger than an elevator. No "wide open nature" to help dissipate smells and other things.
4. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by PvtVoid · 2013-08-14 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  we also consider the two donkeys carrying all the supplies when we start out as a part of the meal plan so we dont waste space.
  You could do that with half the astronauts! Hell, there's no shortage of volunteers for a one-way trip.
5. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  They're gonna be on Mars. Not in outer space. Open the window, DUH.
6. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Gothmolly · 2013-08-14 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Appalachian Trail hikers often do. People pre-buy all their food and have it shipped to them. And it takes a minimum of 4 months for the trip.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
7. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by mjr167 · 2013-08-14 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted them to eat soup in a vacuum...
8. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  And it was still less of a waste than your entire education.
9. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by You're+All+Wrong · 2013-08-14 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  And Hawaii? WTF? You learn nothing about food on Mars from going to Hawaii.
  They should have gone to the poles, as that's a much more similar environment.
  
  --
  Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
10. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Sockatume · 2013-08-14 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Now I feel like a smartass. Anyway, my point is that it's not necessarily obvious what you'd want to take to have a nutritious yet varied diet while minimising load.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
11. Re:Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  You normally go camping for four months at a time, and do all your shopping before you leave, smartass?
  My grandmother spends every winter in an old log cabin in the mountains. She stocks up on food in the fall because it's not reachable except by snowshoe for about 4 or 5 months, and she can't walk that far even in good weather.
  But the situations are a bit different- she doesn't have a weight limit and has access to as much water and air as she needs. She's not locked in a hermetically sealed unit, and doesn't have to worry about what to do with the trash or bodily waste either.
  I think the biggest thing to take away from this NASA study is that after only 4 months, the participants were all going stir-crazy and all mentioned they were having some trouble re-adjusting to being around large groups of people. Best-case scenario for a Mars shot is about 3 years, and the chances of having enough living space and entertainment and variety in life to keep people from going batshit crazy are not good at all.
12. Re: Fucking Great. How much did this cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  man, nasa should hire you! they've got all these really smart people who have thought these sorts of experiments through with careful planning, but obviously you know way more than they do. ... OR you're just another slashdot armchair commenter who thinks he knows better than everyone else.
Recipe contest winners by Sockatume · 2013-08-14 03:15 · Score: 1

The second place winner in main dishes deserves praise, I think.
http://hi-seas.org/?p=2204

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Borscht? by ebno-10db · 2013-08-14 03:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Some success meals were Russian borscht ...
Even Russian robots don't eat borscht. They do better on electricity from solar cells. The engines may require a different diet.
Hold it, you were thinking of sending ugly bags of mostly water? Why? What is this, the Rube Goldberg Mars Exploration contest?
Never send a man to do a robot's job.
1. Re:Borscht? by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-08-14 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We've already sent robots. If we're now in a position to send men, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can. Good for science and engineering. And humans may be fragile but they are also versatile. Won't a manned mission be able to do more than a robotic one?
  
  As for expenses: we have the money and the resources. If we spend only a fraction of what we waste on useless crap, our space program should be flush with cash.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  How are humans tucked in a space suit more versatile than robots, especially compared to the sheer number of robotics we could send over for the gigantic weight a human trip would require?
3. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Agree. The solution isn't to spend a hundred billion dollars to put a man in a suit on Mars. It's to spend a hundred billion dollars on better robotics. Why? Because better robotics have a fuckload more uses, both in planetary exploration and here on Earth.
  The other hilarity about the hubris of manned planetary exploration is that after Mars, there's not a lot of places where it's remotely practical to put a human, no matter how good the suit. Venus and Mercury will never be home to man (terraforming isn't remotely a realistic option) and beyond Mars, it gets real cold and lonely, real quick. I'd much rather we had far more advanced robots roaming the moons of the gas giants than trying to get a human comfortable while wandering about on a surface that never gets above -150 C and gives more than a lethal (500+ rems) dose of radiation every single day.
4. Re:Borscht? by tchuladdiass · 2013-08-14 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  The ability to make instant decisions and execute them on the spot is a good start. The robots have to be pre-programmed and try to function semi-autonomously due to the time lag. Even if we put humans just in orbit around Mars so they can remotely control ground-based robotic vehicles, much more would get done much faster.
5. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  light speed is a bitch. A human with a shovel and a lab kit could do more science in an hour then curiosity can do in a month.
6. Re:Borscht? by ebno-10db · 2013-08-14 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  First, except to keep the robot from falling off a cliff, there is no need for anything or anyone to make instant decisions, and those sorts of instant decisions are already largely made by the robots (a person in orbit probably wouldn't help much).
  Second, for a fraction of the price of figuring out how to send wetware to Mars (I suppose a mission requirement will be that it arrive alive) we could vastly improve our robotics. That would also be useful for exploring the outer solar system.
  I don't like being such a wet blanket about manned space exploration. I'm old enough to remember the Gemini and Apollo programs, and watching Armstrong take the first steps on the moon (on live TV no less). Even as a kid I realized what an historic moment it was, and I was lucky to be alive at a time when I could see it. Nevertheless amongst the things we learned is that it's very expensive to send humans into space, and you can do much more science for a fraction of the price without them.
7. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Second, for a fraction of the price of figuring out how to send wetware to Mars (I suppose a mission requirement will be that it arrive alive) we could vastly improve our robotics. That would also be useful for exploring the outer solar system.
  But why? It's even cheaper to not send a robot and improve our telescopes instead.
  Unless the goal is to send humans to Mars. But in that case you might not think that the project is worthwhile at all, pretty much like I don't find your idea of a space program worthwhile.
8. Re:Borscht? by ebno-10db · 2013-08-14 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Telescopes are pretty bad at analyzing soil samples and a whole bunch of other things. The purpose of exploring Mars is scientific discovery, which robots can do cheaper.
9. Re:Borscht? by ebno-10db · 2013-08-14 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  So? Send a whole fleet of rovers and have them work in parallel. Design new and improved rovers. It'll still be a lot cheaper than sending people.
10. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, mostly. Neil Armstrong had the right idea about colonising the moon, he even thought it would be relatively feasible in his interview with Patrick Moore. Add to that if the Apollo program hadn't been cancelled or a reasonable successor produced, frequent lunar excursions would be the norm and not something us nerds look upon with the attitude of 'those were the days'.
  Mars is a monumental leap over lunar travel and as you so rightly pointed out, where to from there? An asteroid? Jupiter? Hardly.
  To be fair tho, the six lunar landings did a ton of useful science and the astronauts were far more versatile in their roles than even Curiosity so I do believe humans have a place in space exploration,l albeit a more appropriately specified role.
11. Re:Borscht? by KeensMustard · 2013-08-14 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  We've already sent robots.
  Yep. And to be frank, it's a small, round dry ball with pretty much nothing on it. The next step would be to send a robot to somewhere interesting and have a look at that.
  
  If we're now in a position to send men, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can. Good for science and engineering.
  "Because it's hard" is not a reason, because you can use it as an excuse to justify anything. Witness:
  If we're now in a position to send mules, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
  If we're now in a position to do chemistry, then let's cook crystal meth on Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
  
  And humans may be fragile but they are also versatile. Won't a manned mission be able to do more than a robotic one?
  No. The thing with Mars is: there isn't a lot there. It's more notable for it's absence of things - no air, no potable water, no predators, no game to catch. None of the things that humans are attuned to look for are there. "Life" on Mars (if we extend this to robots) is a series of routine, mundane tasks. Doing routine, mundane tasks is what we invent machines to do on our behalf. Machines are our genius. Were it not for machines, we would still be occupied with the tasks that occupy the time of other high order predators - running down prey, watching for yet larger predators, looking for water, looking for a place to sleep. Don't hate on machines bro.
  Life on Mars consists of the following: Move from place to place, map the terrain and look for interesting things on the ground. Machines are better at moving around, as we know from earth experience, where virtually everything is moved with machines rather than donkeys or on the backs of women. Machines are better at mapping terrain, since humans need a machine (e.g. theodolite or similiar) to do that. Machines are better at looking for stuff, since humans on Mars can use exactly one of our senses, and machines can be built with numerous, very funky and specialised senses. Machines are just better at this - just as they are better at digging, better at killing, better for moving around. No need for us to get in a tizz about it. After all we invent machines to cater to our own limitations.
12. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  "Because it's hard" is not a reason, because you can use it as an excuse to justify anything. Witness:
  If we're now in a position to send mules, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
  If we're now in a position to do chemistry, then let's cook crystal meth on Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
  Aaah yes. If you disagree with something, apply reducto ad absurdium. That's never been proved to be a fallacy!
13. Re:Borscht? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  Never send a man to do a robot's job.
  Only works if you know what job you need to do in advance. A single-purpose (or limited purpose) robot will be lighter, cheaper and easier to send than a human. But as soon as it finds a problem that one of it's tools can't solve, you're SOL. Imagine if the MSL found something incredible (maybe something that appeared to be a hardy lichen analog) that required it to lift a small rock to access for sampling. Except the MSL doesn't have a manipulator that can do that, so we need to wait several years to design and send another robot.
  A human can lift the rock. Of if it's a really big rock, use a stick and a fulcrum to lift the rock. All the effort you spend in getting people into space and keeping them alive is in order solve problems on-site, rather than having to send another damn robot to solve a problem you never knew existed until you sent the first robot. After 3-4 robots, you may as well have invested in the multi-purpose meat popsicles. This becomes dramatically more efficient as travel times increase; we can iterate Moon robots within weeks if we're willing to foot the launch bill, Mars robot take years, but if you want to explore the outer solar systems you have to wait decades between "that's an interesting ice stain on Europa' to 'Yep, it's something alright, but it's sub surface so our surface rover can't get close enough to identify' to 'our ice boring robot has a slight design flaw that prevents it drilling at an angle through this type of water/methane ice phase we've just discovered' to 'oh, the stain was an unusual iron oxide deposit, but not a sheet of algae'. Contrast to 'Our drill bit isn't working, scrap it and fab a new one to bolt onto the end of the shaft'.
  Yes, you could make a massive multipurpose fab-and-re-make-itself robot with enough on-board processing to do so without having to wait on a multi-hour round-trip time to get each step done, but at that point you're not competing as effectively mass-wise and efficiency-wise with your meat-popsicle payload.
14. Re:Borscht? by werepants · 2013-08-15 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Consider - for all the incredible science done by all the rovers over the many, many years they've been there, NASA acknowledges that the same could've been done in a few weeks by a human. Not to mention the fact that spaceflight isn't and hasn't ever been primarily about science. It has been about exploration, inspiration, and pushing human (and technological) capabilities. You also neglect the fact that robotics are already expanding pretty darn fast, and that the conservative nature of space engineering (use the best hardware available that is really, really well proven) means that the kind of supercomputing and sensing that is driving robotics forward now may take decades to become portable and reliable enough to fit space
  
  Better robots would be great, but the truth is they take forever to get the job done, and the best robots in the world don't change the fact that eventually the human race will go extinct unless it can become spacefaring. And, robots don't create stories people can connect with - if we want more space exploration funded, we need humans to be the ones going.
Bear Grylls by invid · 2013-08-14 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Why are they wasting time with all these studies? Just send Bear Grylls, he'll find some way to survive.

--
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
1. Re:Bear Grylls by gstoddart · 2013-08-14 03:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why are they wasting time with all these studies? Just send Bear Grylls, he'll find some way to survive.
  Or make for really awesome ratings when he doesn't.
  Fox would be all over that.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:Bear Grylls by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  There aren't any hotels on Mars.
3. Re:Bear Grylls by DougOtto · 2013-08-14 03:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When the going gets tough, the tough check into hotels.
  
  --
  Solving Unix problems since 1989...
4. Re:Bear Grylls by gstoddart · 2013-08-14 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  When the going gets tough, the tough check into hotels.
  LOL, that's what my wife calls roughing it too ... but we're not saying we're survival experts.
  And, really, they *do* need to keep him alive during filming, so I'm not exactly surprised that what is shown on screen doesn't 100% reflect what actually happened or that some of it is carefully staged. The little I've seen of that, he's doing some really dangerous things, and the insurance companies aren't going to let you kill off your principal.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:Bear Grylls by Lumpy · 2013-08-14 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  He cant survive on Earth without a support team. Ask the real survivalist that does "survivorman" what he thinks of good ol; Bear.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:Bear Grylls by Nidi62 · 2013-08-14 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  I thought his shows were always intended to just show how people survive in these types of situations, not of someone actually surviving them. I distinctly remember that there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that some of the scenes were staged, or maybe had animals introduced(such as snakes) to demonstrate what to do should you run across them.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
7. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  There aren't any hotels on Mars.
  Sure there are.
8. Re:Bear Grylls by Kinthelt · 2013-08-14 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Les Stroud is my hero.
  
  --
  "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
9. Re:Bear Grylls by bdwebb · 2013-08-14 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes - as long as his camera crew is there to give him shelter and food after he finishes peeing in his own mouth and picking through his feces for "the good bits", he will survive. Les Stroud on the other hand would be hiking his body weight in cameras around and sucking water from Martian rocks while his support crew remains in orbit...just in case.
  
  Les Stroud fo' liife!
10. Re:Bear Grylls by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-08-14 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately for Bear, in space he won't have any 5 star hotels to hide out in between video coms back to NASA.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
11. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  I would have phrased this differently, "Why are they wasting time with all these studies? Then Democrats will spend all the money twice over so we'll never get off the ground."
  Please excuse my political pessimism, but think back to Apollo 18 (not the movie), 19, and 20; the Shuttle replacement which ain't; ad infinitum ad nauseum.
12. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I thought his shows were always intended to just show how people survive in these types of situations, not of someone actually surviving them. I distinctly remember that there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that some of the scenes were staged, or maybe had animals introduced(such as snakes) to demonstrate what to do should you run across them.
  A surprising portion of people think that everythinging they see in a "documentary" really happened exactly as shown and was filmed live.
  The truth is that basicly everything you see on TV was staged, even if it's part of a documentary and "based on true events".
13. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  A surprising portion of people think that everythinging they see in a "documentary" really happened exactly as shown and was filmed live.
  And a surprising amount of people still believe the History Channel is showing fact-based shows ... when in fact they have a huge amount of conspiracy and paranormal crap.
14. Re:Bear Grylls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  From your link
  
  To viewers of his TV series, Bear Grylls is the daredevil adventurer who catapults himself into world's worst 'hellholes' and then survives on his wits alone.
  
  Yeah, only a fucking idiot would believe that in the first place.
15. Re:Bear Grylls by mrchaotica · 2013-08-14 19:45 · Score: 2
  
  Bear Grylls's shows are staged. Les Stroud's shows are not.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Take me by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 03:21 · Score: 1

I have no problem eating the same thing for every meal. Just get me a three year supply of Mountain House freeze dried Pasta Primavera and I'd be set.
1. Re:Take me by filthpickle · 2013-08-14 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have a pretty impressive string of only veggie patties going. If I can lay off the sauce there seems to be no end in sight, I never get sick of them. (I get drunk and order pizza...aka the curse of the modern fat man).
Dominos Pizza by PPH · 2013-08-14 03:22 · Score: 2, Funny

20 minute delivery or its free.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Dominos Pizza by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Except they're so cheap with their toppings you may as well just order bread sticks dipped in tomato sauce.
To Serve Man by invid · 2013-08-14 03:25 · Score: 4, Funny

They should send up a copy of the book, "To Serve Man", just in case.

--
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Do you know.. by jimmydigital · 2013-08-14 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Jules: Do you know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese on Mars?
Brett: No.
Jules: It's still called a quarter pounder with cheese because Mars was colonized by America and you know we had to have that shit our way.
Vincent: Also, a quarter pound burger is as big as your head but just don't ask where the meat comes from.

--
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
1. Re:Do you know.. by Lumpy · 2013-08-14 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, Buggalo is very tasty when cooked and processed properly.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:Do you know.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  read that as Juggalo is very tasty.
  tastes like BO, cigarrettes, and faygo.
3. Re:Do you know.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, wouldn't a quarter pounder on earth be a 19/200 pounder on Mars?
Actual Mars Menu by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-08-14 03:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Day 1. Algae slurry.
Day 2. Algae slurry.

...
Day N. Algae slurry.

...
Day N+1 Algae slurry.
1. Re:Actual Mars Menu by Sockatume · 2013-08-14 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Day N^2. Redshirts.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Well, it's a nice thought by wjcofkc · 2013-08-14 03:34 · Score: 1

It's nice that people come along and try to drum up interest in space with these pseudo-experiments, but this is not really very practical. If we were to send people to Mars it would be for a very, very, very long stay. Think years, if not forever. While the first humans on Mars would surely bring with them a few months of food to get started, they would have to consider themselves on their own past that. In terms of weight, it would only be practical to send as little as possible with them. Re-supply missions would be so costly, they would likely be far and few between and would concentrate on water and replacement equipment - things do break down. Also, what if something went wrong and a food re-supply mission that said Martians would be depending on did not make it? At least water can (and would), be recycled and stretched out. It's well established that a long-term manned Mars mission would have to be largely self-sustainable - in other words: luxuries such as cheese and fish would be out of the question. A more practical experiment would involve establishing how and what foods future Martians would be able to cultivate on their own, as boring a diet as it might be, as well as pushing water recycling to new levels of efficiency.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
1. Re:Well, it's a nice thought by Em+Adespoton · 2013-08-14 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's nice that people come along and try to drum up interest in space with these pseudo-experiments, but this is not really very practical. If we were to send people to Mars it would be for a very, very, very long stay. Think years, if not forever. While the first humans on Mars would surely bring with them a few months of food to get started, they would have to consider themselves on their own past that. In terms of weight, it would only be practical to send as little as possible with them. Re-supply missions would be so costly, they would likely be far and few between and would concentrate on water and replacement equipment - things do break down. Also, what if something went wrong and a food re-supply mission that said Martians would be depending on did not make it? At least water can (and would), be recycled and stretched out. It's well established that a long-term manned Mars mission would have to be largely self-sustainable - in other words: luxuries such as cheese and fish would be out of the question. A more practical experiment would involve establishing how and what foods future Martians would be able to cultivate on their own, as boring a diet as it might be, as well as pushing water recycling to new levels of efficiency.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
  I don't think they'd be taking much water with them; Mars doesn't have as much water as Earth, but it's still got more than enough (all over the planet) to support a sizable population. A bonus is that it's all in solid form, so it's easy to transport. It's also likely already sterile, and might even be pure for the most part. They'd do better to concentrate on using the available resources (what minerals are available at ground level?) and only bring the things that aren't available on-planet. It would really suck, for example, if there was no selenium on Mars.
2. Re:Well, it's a nice thought by Whorhay · 2013-08-14 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious as to why you don't think fish would be viable. Awhile back I was very interested in Aquaponics, a combination of Hydroponics and Aquaculture, and it strikes me as a very good method for growing food both vegetable and meat. The systems I looked at took up relatively little space and were pretty self contained, the only real inputs being fish food. And you could grow duckweed for the fish food.
3. Re:Well, it's a nice thought by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Let's face it. If you send people to Mars and their equipment breaks, they die. Send along a pack of cyanide pills so they don't have to starve to death or die of dehydration.
4. Re:Well, it's a nice thought by wjcofkc · 2013-08-14 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  While it would be interesting to see how fish would operate under 38% Earth gravity long-term, I have doubts that such a system would be indefinitely sustainable without quite a bit of work for people who would already be stretched to their own operational limits. You make it sound simple, but one thing goes wrong and a large and important part of your food source could be gone with no hope of recovery. For a non-plant source of protein, I think it would make more sense to breed an insect such as grasshoppers, or something more efficient. You could breed them in an environment with a plant source that would not cut into human crops, and there are such plants that require very little water. There would be a balance, but I am suspicious it would be a lot simpler than maintaining a Martian fishery. Being among the first settlers living on Mars would be a life without luxury, everything would have to be as simplified as possible.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
5. Re:Well, it's a nice thought by Whorhay · 2013-08-15 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the risks of relying on your own grown food is significant should it all fail. That is something we could test in LEO first though, and I would suggest testing all such methods that way whether it is fish or insects or just plain plants. All of those methods share a lot of the same risks.
  The reason I like fish though is that they form a more symbiotic relationship with the plants in a hydraponic situation. You feed the fish vegetable matter that you don't want to eat, the fish grow into meat and crap out fertilizer for the plants. The plants use the fertilizer that would otherwise toxify the water for the fish. So long as you have them balanced you shouldn't ever have to purge the system. In Hydraponics alone the water often becomes toxic and requires purging which cuts down on the efficiency of the whole thing. In an Aquaponic situation the only water losses should be through evaporation and harvested vegetables and fish.
  I suppose all of that isn't as important if they want to grow stuff directly in dirt. But that seems a little silly since water will be a scarce resource, even if it's not entirely rare it will require a lot more work, energy and machinery to gather. So wasting water by farming in regular soil seems wasteful to me.
Why is it that these experiments remind me of. by Virtucon · 2013-08-14 03:38 · Score: 1

Biodome? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EWikCCfHJw

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
And not really useful.... by Lumpy · 2013-08-14 03:42 · Score: 1

Honestly the cost of every ounce of weight to get it to mars and they had meat? Why? Protien powders and mash are a far better idea. The fact that Sausage, even when heavily cured does NOT have a very good shelf life is suspect. 4 month mission to mars, the FOOD needs to be packaged and ready 3 months before launch. so ALL The food in order to meat mission specification really need to be able to withstand a 12-18 month shelf life in case of a launch delay.
This "study" is bogus as hell if they had frozen veggies and meat. Wasting precious weight for food refrigeration is insane. Mars mission will have advanced MRE's that require nothing but hot water that have a wider range of flavors and significantly boosted nutrition. I can not believe that NASA had anything at all to do with this PR stunt.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:And not really useful.... by kevkingofthesea · 2013-08-14 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  The veggies were freeze-dried, not frozen. That significantly reduces their weight.
  Dunno about the meat.
2. Re:And not really useful.... by Nidi62 · 2013-08-14 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Mars mission will have advanced MRE's.....that have a wider range of flavors
  I think there is a reason why hot sauce is pretty much as a standard included in every MRE. And if you are leaving Earth for what is pretty much a one-way trip, psychologically it makes sense to include meat with the meals, for a morale boost if nothing else. When you are going somewhere to die, do you really want your last meal to be protein powder?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:And not really useful.... by X0563511 · 2013-08-14 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  The food in order to meat mission specificatio
  I see what you did there.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
4. Re:And not really useful.... by Whorhay · 2013-08-14 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Refrigeration probably isn't all that expensive weight wise, hell they just need to insulate the container from the internal environment and keep it out of the sun.
  For most MRE's hot water isn't even necessary, it's just a nicety because people like hot meals for whatever reason.
Re:Stick some astronauts in the inner city by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:55 · Score: 1

It would probably start with putting the more than generous food stamps (Bridge card, whatever, don't know if that's only a Michigan thing) these people get to better use than Papa Murphy's pizza.
The thing that would really cook would be making contraception available to these people and giving out food stamps/Bridge cards/whatever to people who DON'T have children, so there's no survival incentive to make babies they can't afford in the first place to get government assistance so they can afford to live.
Quite the conundrum there. Can't afford to live? Make a baby you can't afford either. Now the government will help you afford to live. Wonderful shit.
The problem is solvable. The political problems surrounding the solution are intractable, however.
No Mars Bars on Mars?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:04 · Score: 0

That's it - I'm out. Turn this ship around!
Am I the only one by robot256 · 2013-08-14 04:05 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who read this and thought, "What, is their food replicator broken?"
Reduced Gravity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:06 · Score: 1

Anyone know how reduced gravity affects quantity of food eaten? They can't simulate that here but wondering how much less food you would need if you weren't working as hard against gravity.
1. Re:Reduced Gravity by robot256 · 2013-08-14 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Astronauts spend a lot of time exercising, and the thinner atmosphere probably does something too. Probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Flatulance by Sooner+Boomer · 2013-08-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Seems that if you're going to be in an enclosed space with other people for an extended time, you want foods that produce little/no "natural gas", because, of course *your* farts don't stink, but that other guy's....

--
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
First problem-- by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:55 · Score: 0

All the recipes seem to come from Hawaii. Spam, Spam and eggs, Spam and rice, and heavy sugar cakes (also processed cheese).
1. Re:First problem-- by Americano · 2013-08-14 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  heavy sugar cakes (also processed cheese).
  That's not got much spam in it.
Zero G kills sense of taste by Jeff1946 · 2013-08-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Astronauts have told me that foods have much less taste in space due to fluids increasing in your head. Therefore they like to put lots of hot sauce on things. One worry of course was that a drop of hot sauce would float away and get inhaled. They do particularly like sweets. Thus taste testing on Earth is not too relevant to space.
1. Re:Zero G kills sense of taste by Whorhay · 2013-08-14 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I was pretty sure it had something to do with the reduced air pressure also. It's the same issue that they have on airplanes with inflight meals always tasting bland. The lower air pressure reduces the effectiveness of taste buds somehow. And the low humidity affects your sense of smell, which is where a lot of perceived flavor actually comes from.
2. Re:Zero G kills sense of taste by mattack2 · 2013-08-15 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not just air pressure, I wonder if the lack of 'hot air rising' has something to do with it too. You won't have the hot air with food aroma rising into your nose.
Parts of the US tried that. by jphamlore · 2013-08-14 05:37 · Score: 2

Parts of the United States tried similar ideas to reduce the future numbers of poor people. These attempts are now considered to be an atrocity.
Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:37 · Score: 0

Why bother sending human to Mars, the long duration, radiation, dangers are all unnecessary. Remote control robot/UAV is still best, and lower cost.
Re:Stick some astronauts in the inner city by turgid · 2013-08-14 09:01 · Score: 1

The thing that would really cook would be making contraception available to these people
A very significant proportion of the world's population - and a significant proportion of that in poor/developing countries - willingly (apparently) submits to religious beliefs that prohibit contraception.
Reliable contraception is cheap and could be ubiquitous. Human nature/politics/religion are not easy to change. Those are the real problems.

--
Stick Men
Ignorant Fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 12:29 · Score: 0

NASA does science.
People who do science, aren't interested in what everybody knows, because what everybody knows just might be fucking wrong. And most people are completely fucking wrong about reality.
Sure what you know, may work in your tiny little frame of reference; but that doesn't mean shit until its tested.
Re:you had me at ENCHILASAGNA ! by ImprovOmega · 2013-08-15 08:28 · Score: 1

My wife made what could be called an enchilasagna this week (though the recipe calls it the far more mild "enchilada casserole"), and I can tell you that it is absolutely the food of the gods themselves. If we show up to Mars and there turns out to be an advanced civilization living under the surface, enchilasagna could be our only hope of convincing them not to destroy us.
Sounds familiar... by Linktoreality · 2013-08-15 11:49 · Score: 1

"Wraps work really well: we combine tortillas, different vegetables, Velveeta cheese, and sausage or canned fish into ever-changing combination." So... Taco Bell?