FloatsomNJetsom writes "Popular Mechanics has up an interesting story, discussing what the long-term implications of the Lisa Nowak incident could mean for Mars Mission crew decisions: With a 30-month roundtrip, that isn't the sort of thing you'd want to happen in space. Scientists have been warning about the problems of sex on long-term spaceflight, and experts are divided as to whether you want a crew of older married couples, or asexual unitard-wearing eunuchs. The point the article makes specifically is that NASA's current archetype of highly-driven, task-oriented people might be precisely the wrong type for a Mars expedition. In addition scientists may use genomics or even functional MRI in screening astronauts, in addition to facial-recognition computers to monitor mental health during the mission." Maybe observers could just deploy the brain scanner to keep track of them?
Based on the article ('socially adept introverts' and 'high toleration for lack of achievement'), I'd think Slashdot is an excellent screening tool for finding people suitable for a Mars mission.
This has all of the makings of several classic sci-fi movies
Just because you monitor them does not give you the capability to fix things if things go bad on Mars.
Of course, you can send groups of people on long journeys. Just take a look at the classic journeys of exploration, where people were at sea, out of site of land, often for many months at a time.
But they had a solution to certain problems that you can't have in a space ship. You can't put discontents on an island in the fashion of Robinson Cruscoe, or set them adrift in a boat like Captain Bligh was.
You need to have a practical body of techniques as a solution to resolving human issues that does not require much in terms of medications. You can run out of medications. You need to be able to debug the mind.
>...they had a solution to certain problems that you can't have in a space ship. You can't put discontents on an island in the fashion of Robinson Cruscoe, or set them adrift in a boat like Captain Bligh was.
You are correct. Screening didn't stop Nowak, and we don't know of how many others are borderline. The fact is that someone willing to sit on top of what is practically a controlled bomb for a ride hundreds of miles into space is going to have a certain amount of loony in them. Now take into account how many astronauts are willing to take the next leap into being someone who will be trapped in a can for months with two other roommates and CANNOT be voted off the island no matter how berserk they get, and no contact with other humans for months. You're going to have some fringe candidates, no matter what.
I say that whoever is going to go on this mission needs to be a complete introvert who does not need constant human interaction and can while away their time on experiments and reading. A bunch of people with mild Asperger's might fit the mold.
Is that then the future of humanity as we head for the stars? People who aren't the mainstream definition of human who can tolerate the extreme rigors will be the ones on worlds that survive this world. It was true back in the days of wagon pioneers and will be true in the days of space caravans.
Very true. But I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who's cry sexism from here to Jupiter if NASA suggested an all-male crew for that stated reason.
I have, and I'm wondering what hat you and the parent are pulling that "research" from. Here's what I've found [theage.com.au].
During the 1977 International Biomedical Expedition to Antarctica, a 12-man adventure lasting 72 days, bickering became such a problem that psychologists accompanying the expedition had to intervene. Antarctic literature is full of stories about teammates who stopped talking to one another or even fought - one concerns a cook with a meat cleaver facing off against an engineer brandishing a fire axe.
So psychologists will have to find new ways to select crews that will not crack in close confinement. Evidence suggests that the best crew may be female: we may be celebrating the first woman on Mars in a few decades.
They tend to be smaller than men, saving on fuel, food, water and oxygen. Most important of all, they tend to be more tolerant of their companions. Annexstad has noted the positive effects of women on long Antarctic missions. In crews with women, he notes, there seems to be less competition, and the crews seem to get along a little better. So women in space crews serve a socialising purpose, as well as their mission function.
But anyways, back to Slashdot's regularly scheduled mysogyny about women needing a man with a "stern hand" to keep them in line, and general sexual fantasies, upon hearing the word "woman".
Did you even read the article you linked. It stated there have been some female higher officers, ie they get private quarters. But no females among the rank and file.
They probably spend at the absolute most a month outside of human contact at sea.
Not in the U. S. Navy's submarine service. The operating cycle of an Ohio-class ballistic missile sub appears to be 112 days, of which 74 are at sea and 38 days are in-port refit (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/1999/newssbn.htm [globalsecurity.org]). On that 2 1/2 month deterrent patrol, a Trident boomer won't surface, let alone put into port.
So at least in the boomer service, submarine crews spend a looong time away from anyone but each other.
On a more serious note, submariners do not spend the entirety of the time submerged away from civilisation. They probably spend at the absolute most a month outside of human contact at sea.
Well that's nice speculation.... but wrong. This should have been modded interesting, not informative.
The nuclear missile submarines do 3 months straight submerged -- every single patrol (my personal longest was 87 days) -- and many submarines have done extended tours, though admittedly usually for PR reasons, like the early Nautilus cruises.
In any case, the original suggestion took the words right our of my mouth. We submariners are the closest to representing people with an appropriate personality type for an extended mission in cramped quarters. NASA should definitely do extended observations and psych evaluations of sub crews on patrols and such.
In any case, the original suggestion took the words right our of my mouth. We submariners are the closest to representing people with an appropriate personality type for an extended mission in cramped quarters. NASA should definitely do extended observations and psych evaluations of sub crews on patrols and such.
Yea. right. Prussian Blue on the growler earpiece. Contests to see who can tighten the vice the most on their thumbs. Long multi-watch arguments over anything, the more obscure the better. Ta
The nuclear missile submarines do 3 months straight submerged -- every single patrol (my personal longest was 87 days) -- and many submarines have done extended tours, though admittedly usually for PR reasons, like the early Nautilus cruises.
My personal record was 59 days at sea on a SSN, surfacing twice to evacuate personnel for medical reasons. Had we not had these reasons, we would have been under for the whole 59 days.
Now, what you mean by "outside of human contact" changes the answer completely. Did the SSBNs still get regular radio dispatches (or maybe yo can't say:) ) We still had regular radio contact with the outside world so technically we weren't outside of human contact, even though we didn't touch land for two months.
First is the most obvious difference between a sub crew and a mars space mission crew. Size. Even small subs have several dozen crew members. This makes for totally different group dynamics then a group of half a dozen people.
Then there is the size of the vessel itself. Subs are HUGE by comparison. I am sure how you could possibly call a boomer cramped. Yes space is at a premium BUT you could go for a run. A short one but it is possible. Space is far more cramped.
Then there is intelligence. While I only know people in the surface navy I can honestly say that they do not strike me as rocket scientists. On the other hand I presume that NASA would prefer to put people on mars with an IQ above room temperature. Lets face it, there is a big difference between the needs of a mars explorer and even the most demanding position on a submarine. This is again due to size. A submarine could carry a doctor with almost no other duties. In space, your would need a doctor who can be a pilot and an engineer all at once. And would have to be a pilot of extra-ordinary capability landing a bleeding edge ship on an unknown planet and an engineer working with cutting edge equipment. A bit different then maintaining a navy sub.
Distance. While subs MAY submerge for months they do not have to. How long does it take a sub to surface from its greatest depth? A sub that stays submerged for 3 months is NOT away from civilations for that amount of time. The distance from the rest of humanity is ONLY the time it takes to surface. The only thing that gets close are those missions were the sub sails under the ice sheets and the ice is too thick to break through.
Simply put, if a crew member gets injured or goes berserk he can be taken of the sub at a moments notice. In space, 3 months would just be the start of the journey. If someone breaks then you cannot even return yet until you arrived at mars and go through the procedure for the return trip.
It is not that submarine crews are bad, but just as the article mentioned, that current space space shuttle crews are perhaps not best suited for long duration exploration.
I recall a story of one astronaut in the days of the moon race who broke something just before he was supposed to be launched playing football. Yeah, very manly and studly. But do you think such a person who does something as stupid as that is suited to sitting cooped up for two years? if he had broken something in space being stupid he would have been a few days away from rescue but more importantly, only a few days worth of effort would have been lost if the mission had failed because of it.
If something goes wrong at the end of the first year of a mars mission that is an entire year down the drain.
Back to your submarine crew, be honest here, how many of them have gotten themselves sick/injured demanding that someone else replace them, they had to be taken off or could not go on a tour?
A lot of good points which deserve a much more thoughtful answer than I'm gonna give, since I don't have the time right now. But I'll address a couple of them vaguely:
* Away from human contact: sure you have some points that the situation is very different, but we were talking about the psychology. It doesn't matter how close civilization technically is; an inch is as good as a mile if you can't see, hear, or smell it. Being there, you knew you weren't going to be seeing any of that stuff soon -- barring very unusual circumstances. Thinking "well, if I flip out they can evac me" doesn't exactly soften that psychologically.
* Intelligence and training: Again, I was addressing the psychology aspect, but submariners definitely have a higher intelligence requirement. There is definitely *NO* comparison to 'skimmer' (surface navy;-) crews. Even the cooks have to get test scores that will get you technical ratings elsewhere in the Navy since... (to address the "duties" point above) everyone on a submarine has several jobs. Everyone learns at least a little about the other jobs. Everyone with the silver dolphins knows: * where every see-pressure valve is, what it's for, and how to isolate it * where every major electrical system is, what it does, and where to isolate it. * The location and type of every single fire extinguisher, hose, air mask, etc. (we demonstrate this by taking a blind-folded walk of the sub with the sub-qualification examiners) * How all major systems work: electrical, hydraulic, pressurized air...... and lots more.
Same basic idea as a space mission, though of course not to the degree necessary for an actual Mars mission, but I'm assuming NASA can be a bit more choosy about the handful picked for that.
My point was only that few if any non-space jobs come as close to the basic parameters of such a mission as that of being the crew of a nuclear submarine. Not that NASA can just grab a few sub crew members and go; rather, I meant that they could get some good data from such crews and the environments.
No, what we want is pansexual swingers in a nonstop orgy. People who will have sex without conflating it with love, possession, jealousy, status or other issues. To prevent inferiority conflicts with mission rank, sexual performance should be evaluated along with other mission skills.
All of it on camera, especially the long seasons spent in zero-g. The syndication rights could fund the entire mission, and the subsequent colonization.
Where you're going, along with NASA, apparently, is a crew of grandmas past menopause. But we might not have the tech to maintain cabin environment integrity with all those cats.
And the video licensing revenue is substantially smaller.
Recruit the astronauts from among the slashdot readers. They won't have a problem going a couple of years without sex. You can't miss what you don't know!
Recruit the astronauts from among the slashdot readers. They won't have a problem going a couple of years without sex. You can't miss what you don't know!
This is an interesting one. In centuries past when boat crews of men would find themself at sea for many months without female company many strange behaviours emerged. Homosexual acts between otherwise "heterosexual" red-bloodeed Jack Tars became quite normal.
Can even science effectively moderate and control the human sexual urge? The Royal Navy of days gone by turned a blind eye to most of it, so I gather from unreliable sources I may have read. I believe the words in my subject here are attributed to the answer Winston Churchill gave when asked what made the Royal Navy of old so strong.
Jeez, I can't imagine finding many of my colleagues alluring even after spending 6 months trapped in a submarine with them!
Read N A M Roper, the leading historian of the Royal Navy. Rum, sodomy and the lash basically arrived when the Navy ceased to be run by professionals and was taken over by the aristocracy (who saw the opportunities for prize money for younger sons.) The aristocracy tried to run the Navy like the Army. The old all-professional Navy wasn't particularly averse to women on board, but disliked homosexuality because it might complicate working relationships, which had to stay good for people to stay alive. Given the relatively short voyages of those days, the opportunities for nookie were many. Even when blockading towns - perhaps especially when blockading towns - there were plenty of ladies of negotiable affection (or even laundrywomen) who were prepared to risk themselves in small boats for pecuniary advantage.
"NASA's current archetype of highly-driven, task-oriented people might be precisely the wrong type for a Mars expedition"
OK, the opposite of this would be laid-back herb-toking free-love hippies. While it's true that such folk will be disinclined to kill each other in a jealous rage, but they are also not likely to be inclined to get into a tin can with no weed for three years and walk around on Mars collecting rocks they won't even get to keep or sell on EBay.
Just pile some PC's onboard preloaded with WOW. This will 100% ensure that no sex will take place. Other side effects include 0 mission objectives accomplished though. They would land at their destination and never get out of the ship. =)
NASA has one incident like this in its nearly 50 years of history and they think they need to change their screening policy? I'd say they had a great run, and that this incident was a fluke.
Also, it seems that this particular astronaut had lots of stress related to being a single parent. I can't help but feel that NASA would not send parents (single or otherwise) of small children on very long missions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it I'd think that this is just begging for psychological issues to bubble up over time.
The point the article makes specifically is that NASA's current archetype of highly-driven, task-oriented people might be precisely the wrong type for a Mars expedition.
So what's the polar opposite of highly-driven, task-oriented people? Weed-driven, snack-oriented hippies.
We obviously need to make Mars into a hippie commune.
I find the difference in treatment by the media and the executive of this incident (vs. others I can think of) very perculiar: not that they're not all over her, but because she's an astronaut, papers respectfully note that the family has asked us to 'withhold judgement'. NASA keeps her 'in seclusion'. The judge granted bail. If driving 1000 miles with equipment to kidnap and kill had happened to any other person in any other profession, they would have locked her up and throw away the key - but not here. She's part of a sacred league after all.
NASA's problem is that they're stuck in the old model of "we want to find the VERY BEST candidate" and a "process of elimination." Many corporations long ago realized that you look for good people you can refine to be the best and you keep them. NASA's like an employer that shows a brilliant stock trader the door after an interview because he's a horrendous dresser, instead of hiring him and his supervisor taking him to a tailor some evening.
Guess what? We're all full of faults, and even after decades of refining their screening technique, they didn't detect that this woman could have serious mental issues.
Would You Seek Help If It Meant You'd Never Fly On the Shuttle [sciam.com] covers the matter better than I could, but basically: NASA's reaction to this is more intense screening, when it should be to recognize the commitment made on both sides and help them resolve their personal problems.
My employer has an entire department dedicated to helping employees with "life" problems. It's anonymous; your supervisor or coworkers never find out you even talked to them. Why? Because it's better to have someone for you to talk to and try and help you with little problems, before they become problems that interfere with your work. Had NASA had a similar program, chances are the astronaut in question would have received the mental help/counselling she needed.
Instead, NASA lost a great astronaut and her life has been destroyed.
Instead, NASA lost a great astronaut and her life has been destroyed.
Her life has been destroyed and several families. The court system isn't fun for anyone....the victim, the criminal, their families. I feel for the kids. It is going to be rough for them with so many changes all at once.
I lost both of my parents. My mother is guilty (murder of her cheating boy friend) and I believe my dad to be innocent since there is no physical evidence & no witnesses (molestation of a 3 year old).
Needless to say discussing my family is not something I usually do and Nowak's kids are going to have a hard time...I mean they are in school right now...imagine being a teenager with your mother on the news for attempted murder nightly! I can't even imagine discussing adult diapers with teenagers!
"NASA's current archetype of highly-driven, task-oriented people might be precisely the wrong type for a Mars expedition"
NASA's current astronaut office is viewed by many as wrong for just about every mission.
First off their are way to many astronauts. There are over 100, they spend their lives in pursuit of this one goal, and even if they get in to the office they may never fly, or if they do, most fly once. The approaching end of life of the Shuttle is further aggravating a bad situation. Unless you are already scheduled for one of the remaining missions chances are your space faring career is over, unless you are young enough to last the decade until the Moon ramps up if it ever does.
Today's astronauts come across as a politically correct bunch of over achievers with some screws loose in general. These people have to be somewhat nuts to jump through all the hoops they have to jump through, to spend the prime of their lives chasing a one week flight on the Shuttle, and spend years trapped in the horrible NASA bureaucracy as the price they pay.
The best solution we could get is to make space flight really routine, and relagate the current astronaut corp to pilots where they belong. Everyone else should be specialists and experts in the fields you need to colonize the Moon or Mars, with a heavy emphasis on handymen who can repair stuff when it breaks with limited resources, green thumbs who can keep people fed, geologists who can find and tap raw materials, etc.
It would be nice if people could routinely travel in space without being a fracking Astronaut/Cosmonaut in the first place.
As for dealing with the sex issue.... good luck. Its nearly impossible to prevent people losing it one way or another over sex. It is one of those areas where our primal instincts still exist, and are nearly impossible to completely suppress or control.
The diaper-wearing long-haul killer was unbelievably selfish and self-centered...to the point of being infantile. Someone with that kind of psychopathic personality should have never made it into the NASA manned spaceflight program, where people have to depend on each other. Someone who would drive 900 miles in diapers to kill someone to satisfy some selfish itch is not going to make any sacrifices for the good of the mission or her fellow space travelers.
Someone with that kind of psychopathic personality should have never made it into the NASA manned spaceflight program, where people have to depend on each other. Someone who would drive 900 miles in diapers to kill someone to satisfy some selfish itch is not going to make any sacrifices for the good of the mission or her fellow space travelers.
You seem to be under the impression that NASA screens for team players. Whatever gave you that idea?
I'll grant there are a number of other minor aspects, but primarilly NASA knows that the people they send up have to be excellent at planning, adaptation, and execution. This woman had a problem, she saw a solution, and she acted on it. It isn't right, certainly, but it isn't shocking either. I'll bet her service record would show she was good at thinking outside the box.
There's a great science fiction series about the colonization of Mars - Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars.
In it, the author talks about this very problem. The way in which it's solved is very practical. They isolate the group of mission candidates on Antarctica for long periods of time, and thus weed out/break those who can't hack it. (This is after all the other screening, of course).
Something like that would no doubt work well, but in the book it depended on a long list of people who were qualified and eager to go to Mars and make those sacrifices, as well as a public that was willing to fund and support such a venture.
1 in 136 is the percentage of people who are in jail at any one time. It's about ten times that for a lifetime average - ie, about 10% of the population will spend time in jail or prison in their life.
Movie deal (Score:4, Funny)
I think scenario has much better movie possibilities.
Re:Movie deal (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Robert Heinlein? (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this how "Stranger in a Strange Land" started out? A trip to mars with infidelity and murder?
Parent
*Chuckle* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*Chuckle* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
You mis-spelled "inept" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Monitoring them will not work (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because you monitor them does not give you the capability to fix things if things go bad on Mars.
Of course, you can send groups of people on long journeys. Just take a look at the classic journeys of exploration, where people were at sea, out of site of land, often for many months at a time.
But they had a solution to certain problems that you can't have in a space ship. You can't put discontents on an island in the fashion of Robinson Cruscoe, or set them adrift in a boat like Captain Bligh was.
You need to have a practical body of techniques as a solution to resolving human issues that does not require much in terms of medications. You can run out of medications. You need to be able to debug the mind.
Parent
Re:Monitoring them will not work (Score:4, Funny)
They have a solution...
They call it an 'Air Lock'.
Parent
Re:Monitoring them will not work (Score:5, Insightful)
I say that whoever is going to go on this mission needs to be a complete introvert who does not need constant human interaction and can while away their time on experiments and reading. A bunch of people with mild Asperger's might fit the mold.
Is that then the future of humanity as we head for the stars? People who aren't the mainstream definition of human who can tolerate the extreme rigors will be the ones on worlds that survive this world. It was true back in the days of wagon pioneers and will be true in the days of space caravans.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
It's this sort of bigotry that caused NASA to reject my "Female Anime Robot Sex-slave" solution out-of-hand.
Re:*Chuckle* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Submariners (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Submariners (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Informative)
During the 1977 International Biomedical Expedition to Antarctica, a 12-man adventure lasting 72 days, bickering became such a problem that psychologists accompanying the expedition had to intervene. Antarctic literature is full of stories about teammates who stopped talking to one another or even fought - one concerns a cook with a meat cleaver facing off against an engineer brandishing a fire axe.
So psychologists will have to find new ways to select crews that will not crack in close confinement. Evidence suggests that the best crew may be female: we may be celebrating the first woman on Mars in a few decades.
They tend to be smaller than men, saving on fuel, food, water and oxygen. Most important of all, they tend to be more tolerant of their companions. Annexstad has noted the positive effects of women on long Antarctic missions. In crews with women, he notes, there seems to be less competition, and the crews seem to get along a little better. So women in space crews serve a socialising purpose, as well as their mission function.
But anyways, back to Slashdot's regularly scheduled mysogyny about women needing a man with a "stern hand" to keep them in line, and general sexual fantasies, upon hearing the word "woman".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Submariners (Score:4, Informative)
They probably spend at the absolute most a month outside of human contact at sea.
Not in the U. S. Navy's submarine service. The operating cycle of an Ohio-class ballistic missile sub appears to be 112 days, of which 74 are at sea and 38 days are in-port refit (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/1999/newssbn.htm [globalsecurity.org]). On that 2 1/2 month deterrent patrol, a Trident boomer won't surface, let alone put into port.
So at least in the boomer service, submarine crews spend a looong time away from anyone but each other.
Parent
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's nice speculation.... but wrong. This should have been modded interesting, not informative.
The nuclear missile submarines do 3 months straight submerged -- every single patrol (my personal longest was 87 days) -- and many submarines have done extended tours, though admittedly usually for PR reasons, like the early Nautilus cruises.
In any case, the original suggestion took the words right our of my mouth. We submariners are the closest to representing people with an appropriate personality type for an extended mission in cramped quarters. NASA should definitely do extended observations and psych evaluations of sub crews on patrols and such.
-chris
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea. right. Prussian Blue on the growler earpiece. Contests to see who can tighten the vice the most on their thumbs. Long multi-watch arguments over anything, the more obscure the better. Ta
Re:Submariners (Score:5, Interesting)
My personal record was 59 days at sea on a SSN, surfacing twice to evacuate personnel for medical reasons. Had we not had these reasons, we would have been under for the whole 59 days.
Now, what you mean by "outside of human contact" changes the answer completely. Did the SSBNs still get regular radio dispatches (or maybe yo can't say
Parent
Sorry, but no, your crew would suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
First is the most obvious difference between a sub crew and a mars space mission crew. Size. Even small subs have several dozen crew members. This makes for totally different group dynamics then a group of half a dozen people.
Then there is the size of the vessel itself. Subs are HUGE by comparison. I am sure how you could possibly call a boomer cramped. Yes space is at a premium BUT you could go for a run. A short one but it is possible. Space is far more cramped.
Then there is intelligence. While I only know people in the surface navy I can honestly say that they do not strike me as rocket scientists. On the other hand I presume that NASA would prefer to put people on mars with an IQ above room temperature. Lets face it, there is a big difference between the needs of a mars explorer and even the most demanding position on a submarine. This is again due to size. A submarine could carry a doctor with almost no other duties. In space, your would need a doctor who can be a pilot and an engineer all at once. And would have to be a pilot of extra-ordinary capability landing a bleeding edge ship on an unknown planet and an engineer working with cutting edge equipment. A bit different then maintaining a navy sub.
Distance. While subs MAY submerge for months they do not have to. How long does it take a sub to surface from its greatest depth? A sub that stays submerged for 3 months is NOT away from civilations for that amount of time. The distance from the rest of humanity is ONLY the time it takes to surface. The only thing that gets close are those missions were the sub sails under the ice sheets and the ice is too thick to break through.
Simply put, if a crew member gets injured or goes berserk he can be taken of the sub at a moments notice. In space, 3 months would just be the start of the journey. If someone breaks then you cannot even return yet until you arrived at mars and go through the procedure for the return trip.
It is not that submarine crews are bad, but just as the article mentioned, that current space space shuttle crews are perhaps not best suited for long duration exploration.
I recall a story of one astronaut in the days of the moon race who broke something just before he was supposed to be launched playing football. Yeah, very manly and studly. But do you think such a person who does something as stupid as that is suited to sitting cooped up for two years? if he had broken something in space being stupid he would have been a few days away from rescue but more importantly, only a few days worth of effort would have been lost if the mission had failed because of it.
If something goes wrong at the end of the first year of a mars mission that is an entire year down the drain.
Back to your submarine crew, be honest here, how many of them have gotten themselves sick/injured demanding that someone else replace them, they had to be taken off or could not go on a tour?
In space, there is no med-evac.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but no, your crew would suck. (Score:4, Insightful)
* Away from human contact: sure you have some points that the situation is very different, but we were talking about the psychology. It doesn't matter how close civilization technically is; an inch is as good as a mile if you can't see, hear, or smell it. Being there, you knew you weren't going to be seeing any of that stuff soon -- barring very unusual circumstances. Thinking "well, if I flip out they can evac me" doesn't exactly soften that psychologically.
* Intelligence and training: Again, I was addressing the psychology aspect, but submariners definitely have a higher intelligence requirement. There is definitely *NO* comparison to 'skimmer' (surface navy
* where every see-pressure valve is, what it's for, and how to isolate it
* where every major electrical system is, what it does, and where to isolate it.
* The location and type of every single fire extinguisher, hose, air mask, etc. (we demonstrate this by taking a blind-folded walk of the sub with the sub-qualification examiners)
* How all major systems work: electrical, hydraulic, pressurized air...
Same basic idea as a space mission, though of course not to the degree necessary for an actual Mars mission, but I'm assuming NASA can be a bit more choosy about the handful picked for that.
My point was only that few if any non-space jobs come as close to the basic parameters of such a mission as that of being the crew of a nuclear submarine. Not that NASA can just grab a few sub crew members and go; rather, I meant that they could get some good data from such crews and the environments.
-chris
Parent
Spaceballs (Score:5, Insightful)
All of it on camera, especially the long seasons spent in zero-g. The syndication rights could fund the entire mission, and the subsequent colonization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And the video licensing revenue is substantially smaller.
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A couple? I'm working on a full decade!
Older married couples can be a problem as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because your crew makeup is all married couples doesn't mean you won't have jealousy and love triangles, possibly fatal ones.
Source: "Stranger in a Strange Land"
There are sexy missionaries on Mars? (Score:5, Funny)
"Rum, sodomy, and the lash" (Score:5, Insightful)
Can even science effectively moderate and control the human sexual urge? The Royal Navy of days gone by turned a blind eye to most of it, so I gather from unreliable sources I may have read. I believe the words in my subject here are attributed to the answer Winston Churchill gave when asked what made the Royal Navy of old so strong.
Jeez, I can't imagine finding many of my colleagues alluring even after spending 6 months trapped in a submarine with them!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your sources are unreliable (Score:5, Informative)
If Churchill ever said that, he was joking.
Parent
polar opposite (Score:5, Funny)
Ensuring 30 months with no sex? (Score:5, Funny)
One incident in 50 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it seems that this particular astronaut had lots of stress related to being a single parent. I can't help but feel that NASA would not send parents (single or otherwise) of small children on very long missions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it I'd think that this is just begging for psychological issues to bubble up over time.
Hippies!! (Score:3, Funny)
So what's the polar opposite of highly-driven, task-oriented people?
Weed-driven, snack-oriented hippies.
We obviously need to make Mars into a hippie commune.
Strange difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Help, not screen (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's problem is that they're stuck in the old model of "we want to find the VERY BEST candidate" and a "process of elimination." Many corporations long ago realized that you look for good people you can refine to be the best and you keep them. NASA's like an employer that shows a brilliant stock trader the door after an interview because he's a horrendous dresser, instead of hiring him and his supervisor taking him to a tailor some evening.
Guess what? We're all full of faults, and even after decades of refining their screening technique, they didn't detect that this woman could have serious mental issues.
Would You Seek Help If It Meant You'd Never Fly On the Shuttle [sciam.com] covers the matter better than I could, but basically: NASA's reaction to this is more intense screening, when it should be to recognize the commitment made on both sides and help them resolve their personal problems.
My employer has an entire department dedicated to helping employees with "life" problems. It's anonymous; your supervisor or coworkers never find out you even talked to them. Why? Because it's better to have someone for you to talk to and try and help you with little problems, before they become problems that interfere with your work. Had NASA had a similar program, chances are the astronaut in question would have received the mental help/counselling she needed.
Instead, NASA lost a great astronaut and her life has been destroyed.
Re:Help, not screen (Score:5, Interesting)
Her life has been destroyed and several families. The court system isn't fun for anyone....the victim, the criminal, their families. I feel for the kids. It is going to be rough for them with so many changes all at once.
I lost both of my parents. My mother is guilty (murder of her cheating boy friend) and I believe my dad to be innocent since there is no physical evidence & no witnesses (molestation of a 3 year old).
Needless to say discussing my family is not something I usually do and Nowak's kids are going to have a hard time...I mean they are in school right now...imagine being a teenager with your mother on the news for attempted murder nightly! I can't even imagine discussing adult diapers with teenagers!
Parent
The solution is obvious... (Score:3, Funny)
Who needs "Astonauts"? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's current astronaut office is viewed by many as wrong for just about every mission.
First off their are way to many astronauts. There are over 100, they spend their lives in pursuit of this one goal, and even if they get in to the office they may never fly, or if they do, most fly once. The approaching end of life of the Shuttle is further aggravating a bad situation. Unless you are already scheduled for one of the remaining missions chances are your space faring career is over, unless you are young enough to last the decade until the Moon ramps up if it ever does.
Today's astronauts come across as a politically correct bunch of over achievers with some screws loose in general. These people have to be somewhat nuts to jump through all the hoops they have to jump through, to spend the prime of their lives chasing a one week flight on the Shuttle, and spend years trapped in the horrible NASA bureaucracy as the price they pay.
The best solution we could get is to make space flight really routine, and relagate the current astronaut corp to pilots where they belong. Everyone else should be specialists and experts in the fields you need to colonize the Moon or Mars, with a heavy emphasis on handymen who can repair stuff when it breaks with limited resources, green thumbs who can keep people fed, geologists who can find and tap raw materials, etc.
It would be nice if people could routinely travel in space without being a fracking Astronaut/Cosmonaut in the first place.
As for dealing with the sex issue.... good luck. Its nearly impossible to prevent people losing it one way or another over sex. It is one of those areas where our primal instincts still exist, and are nearly impossible to completely suppress or control.
The diaper lady was not about sex... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The diaper lady was not about sex... (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be under the impression that NASA screens for team players. Whatever gave you that idea?
I'll grant there are a number of other minor aspects, but primarilly NASA knows that the people they send up have to be excellent at planning, adaptation, and execution. This woman had a problem, she saw a solution, and she acted on it. It isn't right, certainly, but it isn't shocking either. I'll bet her service record would show she was good at thinking outside the box.
Parent
Kim Stanley Robinson (Score:4, Interesting)
In it, the author talks about this very problem. The way in which it's solved is very practical. They isolate the group of mission candidates on Antarctica for long periods of time, and thus weed out/break those who can't hack it. (This is after all the other screening, of course).
Something like that would no doubt work well, but in the book it depended on a long list of people who were qualified and eager to go to Mars and make those sacrifices, as well as a public that was willing to fund and support such a venture.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you just solved NASA's chronic funding shortages! Brilllliant!
Parent
Re:Way too much is being made of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent