jeff findley wrote:
(bob haller) writes:

Ahh its one thing to go somewhere on a long flight thats useful, like mars,
thats justifable.

Its altogether different to spend a year orbiting earth endlessely, away from
family and friends, possibly causing long term health troubles, definetely
damaging your hearing from the poorly designed too noisey station. ALL so
russia can make a few bucks...

NASA's first experience with long term (greater than one year) space
flight ought not to be on the first mission to Mars. That is a
recipe for failure. It would be far better to gain this experience in
LEO, where evacuation to Earth is less than a day away, than on a trip
to Mars where such an abort simply won't be possible.


On the other hand, the Mars team will have signed on for that
duration. If the astronauts picked for ISS didn't sign on for longer
than 6 months, and there is genuine concern that a 1 year mission
would have adverse effects on their health, then it seems reasonable
to look for a crew that is prepared for that issue.

A pertinent data point would be long term effects on those cosmonauts
who have been on missions greater than 6 months (especially the 14
month mission). Has there been an increase in post flight problems
such as permanently reduced bone density?

I can see a younger astronaut saying, "I have too many years on earth
after the mission to spend them all with brittle bones; I want to be
healthy enough to raise a family."

/dps