A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does Mars need women? Russians say no



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 13th 05, 11:57 PM
Rhonda Lea Kirk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Ads
  #12  
Old February 14th 05, 07:04 AM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #13  
Old February 14th 05, 08:35 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #14  
Old February 14th 05, 08:38 AM
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker ([email protected])
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #15  
Old February 14th 05, 01:46 PM
Rhonda Lea Kirk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #16  
Old February 14th 05, 03:40 PM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:

:"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 ?

I suspect the best answer anyone has right now is 'maybe'.

:Woudldn't they need to find way to deal with calcium loss
:even for men ?

Yes.

: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 ?

That doesn't necessarily follow. Women are not men, a fact for which
I am perpetually grateful.

: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 doubt anyone has a definitive answer here, either, so once again the
answer is 'maybe'.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #17  
Old February 14th 05, 04:48 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rand Simberg wrote:

I can go that long without forcing my unwanted tongue on a woman.



I'm going to resist the temptation.
I'm going to resist the temptation.
I'm going to resist the temptation.
(497 more times) :-P

Pat
  #18  
Old February 14th 05, 04:59 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:35:10 -0500, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

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.
  #19  
Old February 14th 05, 05:15 PM
Rhonda Lea Kirk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rand Simberg wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:


I can go that long without forcing my unwanted
tongue on a
woman.


I'm going to resist the temptation.
I'm going to resist the temptation.
I'm going to resist the temptation.
(497 more times) :-P


I should add that one of the reasons I can manage it
is that they
rarely find it unwanted...


Andre No proof offered? Claim fails. /Andre

(Sorry, Rand, I just couldn't help myself.)


  #20  
Old February 14th 05, 05:20 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Fred J. McCall wrote:

: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 doubt anyone has a definitive answer here, either, so once again the
answer is 'maybe'.




Of course the solution to all this is simple...we need a Mars ship with
a one G artificial gravity field, but that is going to be a pretty big
ship. Still, that might prove to be the only real solution to the
problem in the long run; since the ship will probably use a reactor to
generate its power anyway, a long cable or framework (say 1000 feet)
with the ship's crew quarters and lander at one end and the reactor at
the other would solve the radiation problem while allowing a radius of
rotation that would be big enough not to cause nausea as the crew moved
around. Once Mars was reached it would be de-spun for the deployment of
the lander (the crew could handle the zero G for a a one or two month
sojourn of the lander's crew on the surface, or it could be re-spun up
after the lander is released and stopped again for the surface crew's
return*) and then it could be re-spun up for the return voyage.
Entering and leaving Mars orbit? Either nuclear or conventional motors
mounted at the reactor end with there nozzles angled outwards and facing
towards the center of rotation of the vehicle; once its de-spun the
motors are fired for the delta V change. Because of their direction of
thrust the floor stays the floor in the crew quarters at the other end
of the ship while the motors fire.

*So who stays in orbit and who goes down to the surface? Two landers,
each capable of carrying half the crew...the first lander goes down with
half the crew, and on its return the other half of the crew takes their
lander down to a different landing site. This has the advantage that if
one of the landers develops a fault on the way to Mars, you can at least
get half the planned landing mission out of the trip with the other
lander. If something happens to the first lander on the surface that
would prevent it leaving Mars, the other lander could serve as a
lifeboat with a skeleton crew piloting it down to the surface to pick up
the marooned crew.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does Mars need women? Russians say no Jim Oberg Policy 95 February 19th 05 06:06 PM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 1 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 August 28th 03 05:32 PM
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 Ron Baalke Misc 0 August 28th 03 05:32 PM
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 July 24th 03 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.