Does Mars need women? Russians say no

On 2005-02-13, Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Michael Smith wrote in
:

Incidently I see a connection here with the thread on emergency return
from a stranded shuttle at ISS. Do some people fly on shuttle who
could never fit into a Soyutz seat?

Yes. Good point!

Are there constraining features other than height, which is the one I
seem to recall having been mentioned before?

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote in
:

On 2005-02-13, Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Michael Smith wrote in
:

Incidently I see a connection here with the thread on emergency return
from a stranded shuttle at ISS. Do some people fly on shuttle who
could never fit into a Soyutz seat?

Yes. Good point!

Are there constraining features other than height, which is the one I
seem to recall having been mentioned before?

Torso length, and weight.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Michael Smith wrote:

:On 12 Feb 2005 11:04:27 -0800
wrote:
:
: Working in a factory (like the ones where many Chinese female workers
: work), sniping, living in micro-G enviroment and operating things do
: no require a strong and resistant creature.
:
:But going to mars actually requires somebody physically small and able to live on smaller quantities of oxygen, food, etc.
:
:More women would satisfy this requirement than men, so using Grigoryev's own argument it should be women going to Mars.

Think 'calcium loss'. I think this affects women much more severely
than men.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Dale wrote:

Maybe personality filled monkeys?



Monkeys to Mars? It's been done. :-)


Pat

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Michael Smith wrote:

But going to mars actually requires somebody
physically small and able to live on smaller
quantities of oxygen, food, etc.

More women would satisfy this requirement than men,
so using Grigoryev's own argument it should be
women going to Mars.

Think 'calcium loss'. I think this affects women
much more severely than men.

So now we're sending post-menopausal women to Mars?

Seriously, women don't have a higher risk of
osteoporosis until after menopause. Other risk factors
include being Asian or Caucasian, taking certain drugs,
smoking, alcoholism, bone structure and body weight,
lack of weight-bearing exercise and heredity.

rl

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Michael Smith wrote:
:
: But going to mars actually requires somebody
: physically small and able to live on smaller
: quantities of oxygen, food, etc.
:
: More women would satisfy this requirement than men,
: so using Grigoryev's own argument it should be
: women going to Mars.
:
: Think 'calcium loss'. I think this affects women
: much more severely than men.
:
:So now we're sending post-menopausal women to Mars?
:
:Seriously, women don't have a higher risk of
steoporosis until after menopause.

That was not my understanding of what the space medicine studies
indicated. Women under zero-g lose calcium more quickly than men do,
as I recall it. Calcium loss is pretty much THE big problem we're
aware of with prolonged exposure to zero-g.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
That was not my understanding of what the space medicine studies
indicated. Women under zero-g lose calcium more quickly than men do,
as I recall it. Calcium loss is pretty much THE big problem we're
aware of with prolonged exposure to zero-g.


For a trip the duration of the Mars expedition, does it make a
difference ? Woudldn't they need to find way to deal with calcium loss
even for men ? And if they do find a way to stabilize calcium level on
men, wouldn't that also work for women with just different dosage of
whatever they do ?

And what about age ? Would younger crews have lesser problems with
calcium and in fact less problems with exercising sufficiently to
maintain good shape ?

I find it interesting that in that "failed" russian study, they enclosed
young adults whereas people of such age rarely get to go up to space.
Younger adults would make the sexual tension issue more prevalent (this
isn't taboo anymore, right ?), but their higher energy levels and better
bodies might make the trip far more surviveable.

Raising occupancy of the station should be made a very high priority in
order to allow crews of varying ages to work there. This would not only
allow proper experiemnts on age versus body depletion in 0g, but also
personal relationships between younger and older crewmembers, issues of
authority and of course the sexual issues and how to best deal with
them. None of this has been tested yet with crews on Mir and Alpha
having been too small.


As far as the argument of sending only "professionals", this is
ludicrous. You can't be "professional" 7/24 for over a year without any
break. Also remember that interactive communications with a spouse will
not be possible once far enough from earth, and that is something which
has not really been tested much so far. And it isn't just the person is
space one much consider, but also the spouse and possibly kids who won't
see their parent for such a long time.

And all this is contingent on a decision on how many cremembersw are to
be sent to Mars and back. It defines the size of the ship, the type of
crew and crew training necessary, and the crew selection (sex, marital
status, education etc). It also requires setting up a training schedule
to find out how soon prior to the trip you need to start the mission
specific training, and how much of it can be done during the trip. And
that also means skills based training.

Another issue is how much personal space is required for a mission of
that duration, and whether the amount of personal space varies with age
and/or sex. Would you need duplicate lounges/gyms in case the crew
splits into two groups that don't get together well during off-duty
times ?


This isn't Star Trek. You can't ignore toilets and sexual issues, and
you can't garantee that all crew members will get along wonderfully and
constantly sport smiles and never complain about workload or food for
1.5 years in closed quarters. There are issues and they need to be dealt with.

Am Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:04:45 GMT schrieb "Fred J. McCall":

: Think 'calcium loss'. I think this affects women
: much more severely than men.
:[...]
That was not my understanding of what the space medicine studies
indicated. Women under zero-g lose calcium more quickly than men do,
as I recall it. Calcium loss is pretty much THE big problem we're
aware of with prolonged exposure to zero-g.

The answer, WHY women lose more body calcium in zero-G is the basic
solution to find a way to overcome that problem. We should find it -
if it isn't already obvious - and use it for our advantage. Even males
would surely profit (If I were on a multi-year space trip, I would
like "close misses":-) ...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use.

mailto: http://zili.de

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Think 'calcium loss'. I think this affects women
much more severely than men.

So now we're sending post-menopausal women to Mars?

Seriously, women don't have a higher risk of
osteoporosis until after menopause.

That was not my understanding of what the space
medicine
studies indicated. Women under zero-g lose calcium
more
quickly than men do, as I recall it.

Where would I find those studies (or even a reference
to women experiencing greater bone loss)? Because I'm
not finding them.

Calcium loss is pretty much THE big problem we're
aware of
with prolonged exposure to zero-g.

From what I've read, it's as big a roadblock for men as
it is for women.

rl

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:59:01 GMT, h (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

As far as the argument of sending only "professionals", this is
ludicrous. You can't be "professional" 7/24 for over a year without any
break.

I can go that long without forcing my unwanted tongue on a woman. I
can also go that long without being a classic male chauvinist pig.
I've in fact managed both those things for decades.

This is a cultural problem, not a hormonal one.

I'm trying to find a way to agree in a left-handed way, but seem
to only be able to agree straightforwardly. Sorry.

Dale