Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Crew Ends 100 Day Mars Simulation in Arctic

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:35 PM
from the wtb-beer-burger-and-companionship dept.
Space Science
Paul server guy writes "According to Wired Science the seven person F-XI LDM crew that has been stationed at the Mars Society's FMARS station has completed their unprecedented 100 day simulation. (Actually 101 days, because for 37 they lived on 'Mars time' adding 39 minutes to each day) According to the mission's remote science principal investigator Chris McKay, of NASA Ames. 'Their pioneering simulation of crew operations on Mars time is by far the best work on this topic ever done. It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Crew ends 100 day long Mars simulation in Arctic by Paul server guy (1128251)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Crew Ends 100 Day Mars Simulation in Arctic 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • OK... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:38PM (#20320393) Journal

    So when do we send people to Mars?

    And do we send politicians first?

  • Well then (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:43PM (#20320453) Homepage Journal
    Get your ass to mars.

  • Its not a simulation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Viol8 (599362) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:45PM (#20320485)
    Its a bunch of space nerds wasting their time.

    Why?

    The gravity is wrong.
    The solar radiation is wrong.
    The atmospheric pressure is wrong.
    The soil chemistry is all wrong.

    So what have they proved other than they can sit in a phoney "space base" for 100 days and run around in mickey mouse home made space suits? Nothing.

    • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NatasRevol (731260) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:48PM (#20320539) Journal

      Think of it more as a psychology experiment than a real space experiment. Maybe you won't be so testy then.

      Of course, if it were a real psychology experiment, they should have at least lived on Mars time the whole time, and not just for a third of it. Makes you wonder why they stopped using Mars time...

      • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ookabooka (731013) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:06PM (#20320785)
        TFA said they used Mars time during the 24-hour sunlight, they simply covered their windows from 8am to 8pm. If they used Mars time continuously sunset/sunrise would slowly shift around and would probably really mess up their circadian rhythm.

        On a side not you are correct that it was more of a psychology experiment, though that wasn't the extent of their goals. They did things like try to figure out ways to minimize their water usage, etc. Basically anything they could simulate and figure out here on earth they did. Now when NASA says "Ok, how are we going to decrease water usage by 10%" they actually have a very well documented simulation to review through and see what works and what doesn't. Basically before this everything was open to conjecture, now we have tangible information to work with, though not 100% accurate to a real mars mission it is better than nothing.
        • TFA said they used Mars time during the 24-hour sunlight, they simply covered their windows from 8am to 8pm. If they used Mars time continuously sunset/sunrise would slowly shift around and would probably really mess up their circadian rhythm.

          So they could cover the windows to simulate nighttime, despite the sun shining, why couldn't they blast lights at the windows to simulate the day, even if it's dark outside. This seems like a rather trivial exercise to simulate the Mars day/night cycle. Am I missin
      • Well, if that's the case, when is this reality TV series going to air? What will be the title of the show? Survivor: Mars? The Mars Bachelors?
        • A reality TV show on a manned mission to Mars might be a profitable venture.
          • From "To catch a predator: Mars edition", to air sometime in the next 15 years:

            Chris Hansen:Who are you here to see?
            Astronaut:Um...Stephanie?
            Chris Hansen:And how old is Stephanie?
            Astronaut:She told me she was 18.
            Chris Hansen:I've got the chat transcripts; wanna try again?
            Astronaut:Oh, you do. She said she was 12.
            Chris Hansen:And how far did you come to meet "Stephanie" this evening?
            Astronaut:Somewhere between 36 million and 250 million miles.
            Chris Hansen:...

      • Makes you wonder why they stopped using Mars time...

        Probably because they were getting too far off of the circadian rhythm. After 37 days of adding an extra 39 minutes to the day you're a whole 24 hours behind. I imagine on Mars the human body would adjust to the extra 39 minutes because it will actually be bright outside, just like you adjust to a different time zone after a couple days.

      • If I think of it as a psychology experiment, I'd get even more testy. Long duration isolation experiments are old hat. Then there is real world experience like crews wintering over in the Antarctic. (Or head over to the US Sub Vets national convention - you'll find guys who have done 100 days submerged by the gross lot.) You have the 'closed loop enviroment/isolation' studies done a decade back by NASA, and you have Biosphere II as an example of how not to do it.
         
        Then there are stunts like 'living on Mars time' - which has already been done (by the Spirit and Opportunity control teams). Why would you do that? Why would you want to force your mission clock 'out of sync' with the local solar clock, except as a stunt?
         
        The simple fact is, the Devon Island station is nothing more than a PR stunt. Driven by Robert Zubrin's ego it has been a multiyear exercise in re-inventing the wheel. TFA is correct when it says 'Their pioneering simulation of crew operations on Mars time is by far the best work on this topic ever done. It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations.', but what it doesn't tell you is how abysmally *low* that standard is.

        • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:07PM (#20320801) Homepage Journal
          You're completely missing the point. It's not about whittling down a pile of celebrities or game show contestants, it's about making sure a group of intelligent people with a common goal of research can exist in the psychological environment they would need to on Mars. Once you've got that major factor nailed down as much as possible, then you can go to the trouble and expense of simulating the other physical variables.

    • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:03PM (#20320749)
      So what have they proved other than they can sit in a phoney "space base" for 100 days and run around in mickey mouse home made space suits? Nothing.

      The true test would be a closed system here on Earth, with only energy input (from the sun or from a nuclear reactor). See if it can function for two years or whatever the required duration of a mission to Mars is without running out of air, water, or nutrient. It doesn't have to be absolutely sealed like Biosphere 2 -- it could exhaust, just not take in, and it doesn't have to be in the same state at the beginning as the end; resources can be depleted. But THAT's the kind of experiment that we should be running.

      -b.

    • A simultation is doing something as close as possible. NASA went through very similar things about going to the moon, and IIRC, it was done in Texas. Even now, every mission to the ISS, is done in water to simulate low gravity. However, if they really WANTED to simulate, they would change a few parameters.
      1. It should last 1-3 years. No way will the first mission to mars be 100 days. It will be several years.
      2. They should be working with biosphere 2 folks to do it again, as a closed experiment. For several ye

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billosaur (927319) *

        Except that a preliminary Mars mission profile says that one possible mission is a short stay, 30 to 90 days [nasa.gov]. Now, you might ask why you'd go all that way and not stay longer, but realize that we'll be landing on a world we've never been to (not counting robotic probes) and while we are confident we understand the environment, we don't know how much conditions on Mars will differ from simulations. It will important for the first mission to be long enough to justify the expense while at the same time short e

        • NASA says that it will be short. But that has more to do with costs to go there. In particular, they are worried about losing a crew there (which politically could hurt NASA). More likely, whoever goes there first, will build a forward base using robots. I would expect that it would be several bigelow stations that were proved on the moon, as well as the beginning of a in-ground station. In addition, the base will be active for at least 1 year. Then and only then, will we send a crew for no less than 2 year
    • What space nerd would refuse to participate in an "F-XI LDM" crew at the "FMARS" station?

      Being cooped up as part of a large crew for an extended period seems important enough to not deserve your ridicule. The ISS crew is only three people. At least we have some data from the ISS about long term effects of (zero) gravity, (zero) atmosphere, and (plenty of) radiation, with Mars being somewhere between space and Earth in those respects.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RockyPersaud (937868)
      The value of the experiment is the fact that these seven scientists and engineers DID NOT just sit in a chamber for 100+ days. They conducted real exploration of Devon Island and the Haughton impact crater, under constraints similar to what a crew would have to do on Mars. The gravity is wrong. But they weren't doing physiology experiment on the effect of gravity. The solar radiation is wrong. But they weren't doing solar radiation experiments. The atmospheric pressure is wrong. But they weren't doing
    • It's not like they are supposed to get scientific results back the same as on Mars - part of what they are doing though is living in the same islotation, and working outside in realistic suits just as they would be on mars. They are seeing what works with transportation and tools that can be operated when you have to maintain a reasonable level of isolation from the environment around you. Working the Arctic helps because you are approximating the cold temperatures on Mars.

      As for gravity, it's not like th

  • Still very far away (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JakeD409 (740143) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:45PM (#20320497)
    "It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations." The fact that it says "for future Mars mission simulations" instead of just "for Mars missions" shows how far away we really are.

    • "It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations." The fact that it says "for future Mars mission simulations" instead of just "for Mars missions" shows how far away we really are.

      Which doesn't surprise anyone actually familiar with the technology and the process. Contrary to the beliefs of many in the space fanboy community we are far from ready - but the problem isn't the technology, but because while much of the research has been done, almost none of the development has. Or, as I've pointed o

  • And now that I've read TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 22 2007, @12:46PM (#20320509) Journal

    Melissa adds that the extra 39 minutes does make a difference, "[you] feel like [you're] getting more work done."

    Wasn't it that the optimal duration of a day for humans is somewhere around 25 or 26 hours?

    I always try to maximize my awake time; as Pitr would say, Sleep, she is for the weak.

    And now for one truly scary detail:

    "We've all become acutely aware of the importance of water conservation, minimizing our garbage output, and generally behaving in a way to minimize our environmental impact."

    Why is this scary? Well, consider this:

    The crew bakes bread, makes a batch of cheese or yogurt, waters the "crops" (spouts and lettuce they are growing), re-fuels the generator, washes a bit of laundry by hand and prepares home cooked meals to add some spice to the day and the meals.

    They're training Fremen!

  • Finally they can get back to mom's basement (Score:5, Funny)

    by netsavior (627338) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:04PM (#20320755) Homepage
    It must have been hard living in a pre-fab environment never seeing the sun and wearing the same clothes for days. Now they can go back to their mom's basement where the conditions will be at least slightly different from a mars mission.
  • The test probarly produced results known decades ago. The main problem - effects of long human exposure to microgravity are still barley known. It resembles some similiar tests that were conducted , that as it was revealed were fraudy and had little scientific results

    • The main problem - effects of long human exposure to microgravity are still barley known.
      On the other hand, the effects of barley (along with hops) on me are well known, and I like 'em.

  • Why 37 days? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer (723725) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:21PM (#20320957) Homepage Journal

    $ expr \( 37 \* 39 \) / 60
    24
    That's how long it took to lose a day. So when do they get that day back?

    Ha.

  • Why all the disappointment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Natros (985857) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:50PM (#20321283) Homepage
    I can't believe how many people seem to think this was a pointless waste of time. Sure, it's a very limited simulation, but it's a very good proof-of-concept study, and hopefully provided additional data on the psychological stresses that would be placed on a team of astronauts trying to establish an extraterrestrial base. By all means, they should incorporate more variables (true self-sufficiency, extended duration, etc) in future studies, but let's applaud an effort to study the human factors involved in space exploration.

  • Not much point if you can't get there -- (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2007, @01:50PM (#20321287)
    No one knows how to land anything big enough on Mars anyway [universetoday.com]

  • Sadly, its going to be a long long time before it happens for real. Zubrins "Mars Direct" plan http://www.cbqc.net/mars/docs/md_reno.txt [cbqc.net] is the best one using current tech - but it has so many possible ways it can fail that it will not be picked up by todays ultra risk-adverse space admins. The biggest mistake NASA ever made was to ditch the Saturn 5 and 1b systems that took Apollo to the moon - the Skylabs sent up with the later Apollos already did most of the usedful research being being replicated by the

  • 1903 version of Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TED Vinson (576153) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @02:23PM (#20321683)
    Bunch of Slashdotters scoffing at the Wright Brothers' so-called 'manned flight' experiments.

    "Their [sic] waisting [sic] there [sic] time!"

    "Amusing, but you'll never be able to get across the Atlantic using wings. Airships are the future!"

    "We should be putting this effort into improving the proven technology of steam locomotives."

    "Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those!"

    "I for one welcome welcome our new internal combustion powered, heavier than air overlords!"

  • 1000 days - Mars Ocean Odyssey (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slashmojo (818930) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @03:28PM (#20322347)
    There is a couple currently on a somewhat related venture.. they plan to spend 1000 days at sea in a yacht, completely self sufficient and never touching dry land for the duration.

    So far they are on day 121 and have had some 'fun' already - a collision with a freighter for example caused some significant damage which had to be repaired at sea.

    The idea obviously is to (kind of) simulate a very long space journey where the crew have only themselves and what they can carry to depend on.

    There are a few notable differences though such as the lack of fish to catch in space. ;)

    You can follow their journey here..

    http://1000days.net/home/ [1000days.net]

    Looks like a great adventure anyway.. wish I could take 1000 days off work!

  • Why on Earth... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eno2001 (527078) on Wednesday August 22 2007, @03:30PM (#20322373) Homepage Journal
    ...would they choose to simulate Mars in someone's attic. Most simulations of this kind are much better performed in the basement of one's parent's house.
    • I would think this experience would lend itself more towards group initiative and synergy to get by than "self-reliant". I mean come on, they are probably told when to eat, sleep and fart by a NASA computer.

      Actually, absolute control from Earth would be impossible on a real Mars mission -- there's a lag time of about 3 min (one way) for radio communications, because of the speed of light. It's not going to be like one of the low earth orbit Shuttle missions.

      -b.

      • 3 minutes when Mars and Earth are at their closest point. 20 minutes or so when they are further apart :)
    • You aren't questioning the computer are you?

      Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.