In Hawaii, a 6-Person Crew Begins a Year-Long Mars Isolation Experiment 81
The BBC reports that six volunteers have begun a planned year-long stint "without fresh air, fresh food or privacy" in a NASA simulation of what life might be like for a group of Mars colonists. The volunteers are to spend the next 12 months in the dome (11 meters in diameter, 6 meters high), except for space-suited out-of-dome excursions, where they will eat space-style meals, sleep on tiny cots, and keep up a science schedule. The current mission is the fourth (and longest yet) from the Hawai'i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation; you can read more about this mission's crew here.
Re: (Score:1)
There will be no junk to fondle, it will be taken care of before the 'experiment' begins.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be better just to put the crew into a medically induced coma for a year or so instead? Lower metabolisms, less calories and air required and no mental problems to deal with.
No. That would be great training for extended space travel.
This experiment is designed to examine close quartered living arrangements on a foreign planet.
What can we do to keep people from killing each other in Space?
Because this will be unlike Biosphere 2 how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because this will be unlike Biosphere 2 how?
http://wunc.org/post/what-less... [wunc.org]
They should have done it under water, if they insisted on Hawaii instead of Antarctica, which would have been a better choice (or at altitude on K2 or Everest, as long as it was a non-permanent installation). There's too much temptation to cheat, there's no real danger, and we already know that curing concrete will eat all your CO2 if you are stupid and don't seal it.
The only good choice fora Hawaii location other than "under water" would be "Inside a large SO2 cloud near a volcano, so that breathing the external atmosphere would get you dead".
Re:Because this will be unlike Biosphere 2 how? (Score:5, Informative)
To answer your question, smaller habitat, no experiment at maintaining atmospheric composition, outside excursions in "space suits" etc. Its not very much like Biosphere II.
As for why not under the sea or Antarctica I can give at least three reasons. (1) cost of building, transporting and maintaining the habitat; (2) all the support and research personnel live in Hawaii, above water; (3) the research objectives don't require putting the experiment in a dangerous or inaccessible place.
Now someday when we have an actual habitat design along with all the actual support systems we plan to send to Mars, a trial on top of a super high mountain would make sense as a kind of Mars analog. But we don't have such stuff to test so we don't need the Mars analog with all the expense and complication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Biosphere II was located in the desert, north of Phoenix, where land is cheap."
You're thinking of Arcosanti. Biosphere II is near Tucson.
Re: (Score:2)
One (vain) hope was sustainable food production. That proved itself too difficult
It's kind of crucial for a long-term trip on Mars, though.
At least we can be well assured the the folks who go in to this large mammal Skinner Box will come out just as committed to their mission of escaping the reality of an overpopulated failing Biosphere I as their 1980's predecessors.
rotfl
Re:Because this will be unlike Biosphere 2 how? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have done it under water
No, that is a terrible idea, because it would make it even more obvious that they aren't doing anything new, and are just repeating what crews on nuclear submarines do on a routine basis.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure they had shore leaves, and had to be replenished with food, and that even when on patrol the boat surfaced occasionally for the crew to get some sun.
Still, US (not sure about British) ballistic missiles *do* go out for as much as 90 days at a time (without, as I understand it, shore leave), so your point is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they had shore leaves
The link says 7 of the crew didn't. Otherwise, probably not a closed environment as you say.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys went around the world submerged in 60 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And it's likely that other US subs have spent as much or more time submerged since then, though it may not be publicly advertised, or even acknowledged.
Subs are much larger than the mars dome thing, but may have less area per person. WWII era subs were pretty small for the number of people aboard and could do ~60 day patrols without getting off the boat, though they would surface (mostly at night) and people could get a
Re: (Score:2)
They had to surface in order to recharge their batteries using the diesel engines, which required air. That's what made nuclear submarines a game changer in sub warfare.
Just look at the stats of prison inmates? (Score:2)
Re:Just look at the stats of prison inmates? (Score:5, Interesting)
You might make an argument that a significant difference exists between inmates in a prison and highly tested, analyzed and trained astronauts with regard to their psychological makeup not to mention willingness and motivation to be confined.
I do think that long term encapsulation is probably psychologically burdensome at best and perhaps damaging to even the best possible astronauts.
Which makes me wonder how much NASA has thought about the psychopharmacology of space travel. There might be some benefit to some kind of sedating anti-depressant for stages of a long voyage that required just routine status checks and basic routine maintenance duties.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And then, two-hundred years later, when tourists starts to go to mars, they'll greet us with a "G'day mate"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why don't they just look at the stats of prison inmates?"
Not a good analogue, because being involuntarily cornholed by huge gangbangers carries a raft of unique psychological problems that will not be relevant to those faced by "Martians."
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps not, however it does remind me of my first six months in the college dorm.
Compared to the International Space Station (Score:2)
What can they hope to learn from this that they haven't/can't learn from the ISS? Scott Kelly is currently spending a year in space on the ISS, and many astronauts spend months together up there. So what's being tested in the ground experiment? Internet deprivation and delayed contact with control?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What can they hope to learn from this that they haven't/can't learn from the ISS?
Sexual behavior in confined space ?
Re: (Score:2)
ISS doesn't have gravity. Mars does.
Re: (Score:3)
Imposing posting limits after only a couple of comments just drives people away, and that's exactly what Slashdot of today does not need!
Don't post as AC. Your limits are gone. Personally I'd say do away with AC posting all together 90% of them are trolling.
Re:What has happened to Slashdot?! (Score:5, Informative)
Post per day limits are gone. Limits to how fast you can post (sucks for short messages when you're a good typist) and how soon you can make another post are still in place.
Re: (Score:2)
"Personally I'd say do away with AC posting all together 90% of them are trolling."
I wish that mod points hadn't disappeared!
is it Hawaii, Hawai'i, or (Score:2)
They're using my stuff! (Score:2)
It's in Hawaii, on a volcano (Score:2)
Isn't this a neo-colonialist structure that angers the volcano gods? Given today's politics, actually putting the dome on Mars would have been easier.
It would be tolerable ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bit harsh (Score:4, Funny)
except for space-suited out-of-dome excursions, where they will eat space-style meals
That's pretty rough, making them eat their meals in their space suits.
Spacious (Score:4)
A journey outside the dome - which measures only 11 metres in diameter and is 6 metres tall - will require a spacesuit."
Sounds like winter in Vermont.
That sq-meterage of habitat is spacious at about 1,000 sq-ft for reference to a typical home.
Our house is 252 sq-ft for five people for a comparable. Smaller than usual but it gets us through the long Martin, er, I mean Vermont winters.
We spend much of each day in extravehicular activities in our space suites. We farm right through the cold northern mountain Vermont winters which would be much like them leaving their habitat and doing their daily work out on "Simulated Mars". Believe me, here on Vermont you dress up much like a space suit and you do not touch things with bare skin as the temperatures are routinely -25ÂF (-32ÂC) during the day and frequently dip to -40ÂF (-40ÂC)and that is all before the wind chill which drops it to -95ÂF (-71ÂC).
Simulating Mars might be more realistic on a Vermont mountain in some ways than in Hawaii although Hawaii might be more fun. South Pole could be good. Doing it while farming would make it even more realistic because you must go out and deal with the cold, the wind, the hostile environment and get real work done rather than just busy work in a simulation. You can die. Those who are dependent on you can die. Equipment really breaks down from the extreme weather. Bring two Tractors.
Onward to Mars! Pig Farmers in Space!
Re: (Score:2)
That sq-meterage of habitat is spacious at about 1,000 sq-ft for reference to a typical home.
Typical homes aren't measured in "square-feet"; where do you live, the 1700s?
The place is 95sqm, a small-medium apartment in western countries
Re: (Score:2)
USA homes are measured sq-ft. Catch up boyo.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, let me clarify: ... why don't you catch up to the rest of us, "boyo"?
94.5% of the world doesn't measure areas in sq-ft
Ultimately Invalid (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple of issues that invalidate these experiments.
1. The experiment participants know that if things go wrong they will not die. There is always the possibility of opening the door and going home. This will cause participants to take more risks and be more open to other people's ideas. If an idea goes horribly wrong in Hawaii no one dies. That is not the case on Mars.
2. Linked to that is the fact that they will be going home. Most people can deal with a bad situation for a defined period of time. Considering that there probably will be no return trip from Mars people will be less tolerant of issues. For most people the answer to "can I live with that for a few months" is yes. If the questions is "can I live with that for the rest of my life" the number of yeses is much smaller.
When every decision is life threatening and may be permanent there is much more stress than an experiment which can be ended at any time. Sorry but "do it wrong and we will die" causes much more stress than "do it wrong and we go home".
PS, Sure we could set up scenarios where the participants could die but then ethics get involved and no government would allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
"The experiment participants know that if things go wrong they will not die."
Tell that to Tom Richwood! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
And? Is your point that we might as well not test anything until we do the real thing? Because arguably, no ground-based test is ever really valid, since the situation will be different in all sorts of important ways on an actual mission.
Alternatively, we could do controlled albeit imperfect tests to try to answer specific questions, so that we understand failure modes as well as possible before the real deal. This has worked pretty well for the aerospace industry for the past ~100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Is your point that we might as well not test anything until we do the real thing?
That is a little extreme. There are many tests that are valid. The issue is that anyone who think the isolation tests are valid on face value are incorrect. In this case there the testers may need to be very conscious of all small issues that come up as those small issues could become very big issues in the real scenario. They also need to have plans for when things go horribly wrong.
Alternatively, we could do controlled albeit imperfect tests to try to answer specific questions,
There will always be certain things that can not be tested when dealing with people. There has never been a controlled study
Re: (Score:2)
Test engineering is about replicating flight conditions as closely as possible, within technical, budgetary, and (in this case) ethical limitations. The two main objections you brought up are basically impossible to address within those limitations - literally, you would have to manufacture some sort of deadly threat to the participants, and you would have to make it so they never return to their homes.
Within engineering limits, this test is a perfectly adequate test of long-term isolation - close quarter c
Re: (Score:2)
Test engineering is about replicating flight conditions as closely as possible, within technical, budgetary, and (in this case) ethical limitations.
There are also tests which are designed to destroy the test vehicle. That is the main difference between testing mechanical things versus testing people. One can not ethically test a human to destruction.
We could certainly learn something from this experiment that helps the design of future interplanetary spacecraft, or helps with crew selection, or informs training for handling the isolation.
Can we learn something? Yes. The issue is one year is not "long term". If you consider that a person may live on Mars for over thirty years (get there at 30 and live till 60) one year is very short. That would be like having someone run a mile and then say they would be fine running a marathon.
All I am sayi
Re: (Score:2)
There is no scenario in which a person is living long-term (decades) on Mars before we've made many, many short-term (~1-3 year) trips. This test is not meant to apply to the long term case because it is both impractical to test and has little relevance for any mission in the foreseeable future. What's more, any person living for that length of time on Mars will not be doing it in a tiny capsule - the level of infrastructure that would be required for that kind of sustained presence would mean the scenario
Re: (Score:2)
There is no scenario in which a person is living long-term (decades) on Mars before we've made many, many short-term (~1-3 year) trips.
Take a look at the missions proposed for Mars. None of them have anyone coming back for a very long time. Until there is fuel production on Mars or in orbit around Mars no one is coming back.
Don't criticize the test for not fitting some imaginary mission profile you made up.
Pot, Pot. This is Kettle, Kettle. Colour check, over.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the missions proposed for Mars. None of them have anyone coming back for a very long time. Until there is fuel production on Mars or in orbit around Mars no one is coming back.
What in the world are you talking about? There is no credible mission that has been proposed that involves a permanent stay at the beginning. Generating methane on Mars to fuel a return ship is technically feasible, and there are also plenty of mission profiles that could work (albeit expensively) without ISRU. And if you are talking about Mars One, that is complete baloney.
moscow girls really knock me out... (Score:1)
Antarctica? (Score:2)
Plenty of people winter in Antarctica, in a similar operational environment.
3d printers (Score:2)
I hope they've got 3d printers. It's one of those things that provides fixes for a variety of problems. :)
These isolation experiments would still require some kind of 'McGyverMath'. Measures of dual usage of objects, ability to use things in ways not originally intended. But just printing the shapes you need can help a lot. That and a stash of TEC7, WD40 and a ball of wire
170 sqft/person (Score:2)
6 People – 1022 sqft (plus loft-type 2nd-level sleeping cells).
It appears that the 11-meter dome is only for the human habitation section.
But still It's gonna turn out Like Biosphere 2, no question.
another story (Score:1)
Delayed Communications (Score:1)
I wonder if all communication with the outside world will have a simulated delay.