NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew

Posted by timothy on Monday October 20, 2014 @08:25AM from the couple-of-jockeys-too dept.

globaljustin writes "Alan Drysdale, a systems analyst in advanced life support and a contractor with NASA concluded, "Small women haven't been demonstrated to be appreciably dumber than big women or big men, so there's no reason to choose larger people for a flight crew when it's brain power you want," says Drysdale. "The logical thing to do is to fly small women." Kate Greene, who wrote the linked article, took part in the first HI-SEAS experiment in Martian-style living, and has some compelling reasons for an all-women crew, energy efficiency chief among them: Week in and week out, the three female crew members expended less than half the calories of the three male crew members. Less than half! We were all exercising roughly the same amount—at least 45 minutes a day for five consecutive days a week—but our metabolic furnaces were calibrated in radically different ways. During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day. It was rare for a woman on crew to burn 2,000 calories in a day and common for male crew members to exceed 3,000. ... The calorie requirements of an astronaut matter significantly when planning a mission. The more food a person needs to maintain her weight on a long space journey, the more food should launch with her. The more food launched, the heavier the payload. The heavier the payload, the more fuel required to blast it into orbit and beyond. The more fuel required, the heavier the rocket becomes, which it in turn requires more fuel to launch.

24 of 399 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Compelling, but a mix still better... by SuperKendall · 2014-10-20 08:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is a pretty compelling reason to have most of the crew women.
However I'd argue in a truly remote environment where no external help is to be had, that the raw strength a few very fit males could provide could be useful in an emergency.
Some women can also be very strong, but then would there be any metabolism benefit?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-10-20 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Nah, just send one guy. He can do all the heavy lifting; plus he'll be the happiest guy in the solar system.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-20 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  However I'd argue in a truly remote environment where no external help is to be had, that the raw strength a few very fit males could provide could be useful in an emergency.
  Power tools. Everything from screwdrivers to come-alongs to chain blocks to robotic arms.
  And of course the added benefit of not having crews making babies at the worst possible time. On a one-way mission (say to Mars) there's no reason the all-female crew couldn't just bring along frozen sperm and produce the first generation of Martians.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-20 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Send amputees missing their legs. Legs are dead weight in space. You can maneuver in zero G with just your arms.
4. Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... by Rei · 2014-10-20 09:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Despite how radical that statement sounds, it's actually perfectly reasonable for a zero-G environment. They're not only dead weight, they're also in the way and make you require larger accomodations.
  Even in Mars's gravity field a legless person would deal quite well, at least inside the facility (picture how easily you could get around without your legs if you suddenly were given 2.5x the arm strength, didn't have your legs weighing you down, and on top of that add in how most double amputees already have good arm strength to begin with). They should be able to "hop" with their arms all the way to a 2 1/2 meter ceiling without trouble, and the full arc would take a good two seconds to come back down. On the moon it'd be even easier. Of course, if they're legless, why would they even need such tall ceilings to begin with?
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
5. Re:Compelling, but a mix still better... by lgw · 2014-10-20 10:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or, put differently, a diversity of skills and abilities is what you want to deal with the unknown. NASA knows this, of course. But it's not just a variety of PhDs that you want, it's a variety of physical capacities and problem-solving approaches.
  Historically, NASA has expected any improvisation to happen on the ground, where teams could experiment and relay the best, tested idea back to the guy in space. That becomes less practical the further you get form Earth. Diversity beyond "diversity of PhDs" will be valuable.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Food is not the limiting factor by gurps_npc · 2014-10-20 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative

The real problems for long distance space travel is not food, air or mass.
Instead it is: Radiation and muscle loss
Long term travel exposes humans large amounts of radiation, in particular from cosmic rays, and from
In addition, living in a low gravity environment destroys your bones.
These two issues are far more problematic than food, air, and water.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:Food is not the limiting factor by Rei · 2014-10-20 10:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That is, of course, for a given radiation dose, which is independent of body cross section - which is relevant in real-world scenarios. If we assume an isotropic radiation exposure profile, an average male height of 174cm, an average female height of 161 cm, and asssume an equivalent profile, then a man presents a 17% higher profile to radiation exposurediation exposure, so if a woman has a 50% higher (150%) cancer risk, then it's only 29% higher for a fixed radiation flux per square meter.
  However, let's look further at this. Given the smaller size of members of a female crew, you can shrink the spacecraft occupant space by 8% on each axis, or a volumetric decrease of 26%. Mass changes are more difficult to reckon. Life support, food, water, etc is dependent on metabolism, which the article shows is dramatically lower for women in space. Fuel needs are proportional to all other mass issues. Only a few things (such as computers and scientific equipment) don't trace back to crew member size and mass. Regardless, for a given launch weight, it's clear that you can afford the mass of a significantly increased amount of radiation shielding for a female crew due to the weight savings elsewhere, probably easily more than offsetting the cancer risk.
  Beyond this, the average US astronaut age is 34, an age well after when most women are done having children (assuming that they even want to have children). Given that the article states the risk is from breast, ovarian, and utirine cancer, I wouldn't be surprised if many would consider full hysterectomy for the ability to travel to Mars.
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
That's great and all but... by HeckRuler · 2014-10-20 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.
Re:oh man by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 08:33 · Score: 5, Funny

My mother was killed in a flame-war, you insensitive clod!
So? by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-10-20 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day.
And this comparison is useful to point out because.... ?
Re:oh man by Sepodati · 2014-10-20 08:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why not an all midget crew?
Re:Exercising "roughly the same amount" by Kielistic · 2014-10-20 08:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Men's bodies burn more calories than women's. Larger, heavier, more dense muscle amongst other things. Because of this a man running will burn more calories than a woman (on average). A man sitting still will also burn more calories than a woman.
Re:Dear Liza! by CaptainDork · 2014-10-20 08:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm indifferential to them.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So Larry Buchanan was right? by Venotar · 2014-10-20 08:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Mars does need women.
And what about Venus? by oldmac31310 · 2014-10-20 08:53 · Score: 4, Funny

I suppose we'll have to send the men there and that will turn the whole thing on it's head.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
That's how the adage goes... by blueshift_1 · 2014-10-20 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I guess it's time to update the adage of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" to "Women go to Mars, Men chill out and drink beer on Earth"
There's a throwback 1950's movie idea by UncleWilly · 2014-10-20 09:11 · Score: 5, Funny

First spaceship to Mars; one male captain and a crew of women!
it ain't just the food by sribe · 2014-10-20 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative

They suck down less oxygen too. Divers know this firsthand ;-)
Razor Edge by Baby+Duck · 2014-10-20 09:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

If your Mars mission is cutting it so close that the calorie requirement between men and women is a major factor ... maybe that's a sign no one should go using your plan.

--
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
1. Re:Razor Edge by epyT-R · 2014-10-20 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Of course, that's just the false pragamatism. In the old just post jim crow days, they did this with race, too. This article reeks of pro-feminist propaganda. What if they said that the crew should be all white because they scored higher on some test, or better yet, separate-but-equal missions, but the non white mission received half the funds? Seriously, in any other configuration, the statements made by this article would be considered bigoted, but since it's pro woman who cares, right? For great social justice?
  The only people deserving of hate here are the hypocrites who come up with this bullshit and try to pass it off as moral.
Seriously, Nobody? by mythosaz · 2014-10-20 09:34 · Score: 4, Funny

...just don't put any mission critical supplies in pickle jars.
Re:Diversity is best by Rei · 2014-10-20 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I love the fact that Mars is the only planet known to man that is solely inhabited by robots

--
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
Re:Women prefer male bosses by bughunter · 2014-10-20 10:27 · Score: 5, Funny

the correct answer to space travel is obvious, its dwarfs
Obviously. Because dwarfs with high constitutions get saving throw bonuses, and they all get to hit bonuses vs. space orcs and galactic goblinoids.

--
I can see the fnords!