Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

Dayton3 · 2002-06-12 21:01:16

What do you consider the possibility of a manned mission using Mars Direct might end disastrously?

Its been estimated that each Space Shuttle launch has around 1 in 100 chance of disaster.

I think the first Mars Direct mission should be expected to be at least 5 times more dangerous than a space shuttle launch.

On the order of one in twenty. That seems like a reasonable level of risk for the first mission.

Naturally, subsequent mission risk would decline because of the buildup of hardware on the Mars surface (mainly Habitation modules) on the Mars surface.

Pat Galea · 2002-06-13 00:51:54

Of course, it's very difficult to estimate the risk involved in a mission like this before it's actually taken place.

The return vehicle will already have been sent ahead, and should be making fuel before we leave Earth, so that should give us some confidence that the technology is fundamentally sound.

Rather than thinking in terms of the chance of disaster, we should take the view that we've done our best to make the whole thing work as well as possible; we've designed it using sound procedures, we've tested it thoroughly, and we've built in lots of redundancy and contingency. It should work if all goes to plan, and should still work if some things go slightly off-plan.

But you can't account for everything. We'll just have to live with the risk.

Palomar · 2002-06-22 12:46:28

*I don't want to sound the The Harbringer of Doom, but after having read both posts in this thread, I'll voice some concerns of my own:

Will, or have, the planners of Mars Direct/NASA look to the Apollo 13 incident in mapping out survival strategies en-route to Mars...or on return from Mars to Earth? Yes, I know going to Mars versus going to the moom (Apollo 13) are two very different "ballgames."

Worst case scenario: En-route to Mars with 4 crew members on board, one dies of a massive heart attack and another suffers a cerebral aneurysm and is now in a comatose condition and does not come out of it.

Yes, any space exploration is fraught with danger. Yes, we need to take the chance in spite of the dangers, so long as we try and look ahead, and plan for any potential dangers or disasters.

But what will be the fate of that crew of 2 persons? Could they go ahead with the mission? If the mission cannot be aborted, can 2 people handle all tasks and responsibilities, or can some of the instruments be put on "automatic pilot"?

Can they use the gravity of Mars to sling-shot them back en-route to Earth, like the Apollo 13 astronauts did with controlled burns in order to avoid becoming captured by the moon's gravity (and thereby becoming a satellite of it) , and instead using the gravity in order to create a sling-shot effect to carry them away from Mars and back to Earth ASAP?

There certainly must be some plans in the works for worst-case scenario situations. I'd hope, anway.

Just wondering...

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-06-22 14:02:27

Rather than thinking in terms of the chance of disaster, we should take the view that we've done our best to make the whole thing work as well as possible; we've designed it using sound procedures, we've tested it thoroughly, and we've built in lots of redundancy and contingency. It should work if all goes to plan, and should still work if some things go slightly off-plan.

You have a good way of thinking about it. If we get to bogged down in saying we have to have an X percentage of success before we even go we might never go. X can be a hard number to judge anyway. The best way, like you said, is to put in a lot of redundancy, do the research that needs to be done, test the systems out extensively, then go to Mars!

Worst case scenario: En-route to Mars with 4 crew members on board, one dies of a massive heart attack and another suffers a cerebral aneurysm and is now in a comatose condition and does not come out of it.

Unless the ship carries extremely powerful engines with enough fuel to turn the ship around and shoot it back toward Earth (which probably won't happen) the ship will probably just have to complete its flight to Mars before it can head back toward Earth. With computer guidance and control the ship should be autonomous enough to get itself back to Earth without any help from the crew, so the death of a crewmember probably won't be catastrophic in the sense that it would doom everyone else. I wonder though how you would handle a corpse in such a situation. It could be a problem if there's no airlock to eject it out of or some other storage capability built just for such a scenario.

Palomar · 2002-06-22 15:42:38

I wonder though how you would handle a corpse in such a situation. It could be a problem if there's no airlock to eject it out of or some other storage capability built just for such a scenario.

*Perhaps a few specially-designed body-bags could be included on-board; "just in case." Back in the "old days," particularly when mass, open-burial was the custom (such as in 18th-century Vienna), a newly-deposited corpse into the pit was covered with a shovelful of either salt or lime. Perhaps with the body bags could be included a substance to be sprinkled over the corpse, which retards the decomposition process or at least neutralizes the odor. The body-bag could be sealed and taken care of either on Mars (if they're en-route to it), via burial or leaving the corpse there; and likewise if en-route to Earth. As to where to store the body until it can be taken off-ship, I don't know. Since elbow-room will be at a premium in the ship, it would seem a bit unnecessary to allow a corpse to take up an entire room (even if a small room); however, it also seems disrespectful to not allow the corpse to rest with some dignity.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-06-22 16:28:29

Truthfully, I think the principle of "burial at sea" would apply to long space voyages. Like the long ocean voyages of the past, there will really be no way to keep a body in storage on the ship, unless you could keep it frozen...but the ship will be so cramped in terms of storage space, I don't think it could be done for something as large as a human body.

I'm certain the the brave astronants who make those early voyages will accept the very real risk of dying as "part of the job," and that would include being buried out in space. And of course there would be an airlock..how else will the astronants get off the ship when they arrive at Mars...

B

Dayton3 · 2002-06-22 17:22:52

In "The Case For Mars" Dr. Zubrin makes it clear that his trajectories outbound to Mars involve the ease of turning it into a "free return" trajectory to simply whip past Mars and then be on the way back to Earth.

Of course it would still take nine months or so.

He has several other "alternate mission profiles" primarily involving possible Hab or ERV failures enroute.

As for the disposal of a dead crewmember. At least while in space, I think that the dead crewman would be strapped to the exterior of the hab or ERV and remain their until atmospheric entry. The vacuum of space would preserve the corpse personally for burial in Arlington National Cemetary.

I do think that Mars crewmembers will have to undergo some elective surgery before hand to reduce the chance of severe medical problems enroute.

For example, removal of appendixes and gall bladders. As well as any dental surgery to correct ANY likelihood of dental problems or pain enroute.

And I believe that any female crewmembers should be using birthcontrol pills and a backup birthcontrol method.

That should be mandatory.

Palomar · 2002-06-23 09:43:31

And I believe that any female crewmembers should be using birthcontrol pills and a backup birthcontrol method.
That should be mandatory.

*I think male crewmembers should also be required to use a condom. ::Anyone:: who wishes to participate in sex during something as serious as a mission to Mars should be required to take a level of active responsibility in preventing pregnancy or STDs. In the event a mishap occurs and a woman gets pregnant, the blame can be shared -- as it should be, since "it takes two." If they both wanna play, both have to "pay."

As for birth control pills, they have an extremely high number of possible side effects -- many of them serious. I took them about 14 years ago; my gynecologist thought they would help with my dysmenorrhea. The side effect I had was the onset of a very intense and horrible depression. I stopped taking them, and the depression went away; obviously, the birth control pills caused it. If you can get access to a Physicians Desk Reference, do read that VERY LONG list of possible side effects. I certainly wouldn't require male astronauts subject themselves to a birth control treatment which has scores of potentially serious side effects, and it's not fair to demand that women be willing to subject themselves to it, either.

It goes without saying that the ::last:: thing needed on a mission to Mars are people dealing with side effects of a medical treatment, particularly when there are many other options for both men and women that don't include having your hormones scrambled on a daily basis.

A better birth control requirement for a female astronaut might be an IUD (intrauterine device).

--Cindy

Adrian · 2002-06-23 12:31:18

I'm not sure that the side effects can be that widespread - after all, it is used by millions of women across the world, having been approved by the FDA and other authorities. I do concede that some people will experience some nasty side effects though. You have to remember that astronauts going to Mars will already have to accept a not insignificant amount of risk by mere exposure to cosmic rays; any medical risk posed by birth control pills will be tiny in comparison.

But yeah, men should use condoms. Plus, there's been some news about a very effective male pill which is safe - it's already in extensive human testing.

Dayton3 · 2002-06-23 12:36:39

Of course it would be easiest to just send all male or all female crews initially.

I think it would be very unstable to the group dynamic to have a crew of four and have three men and one woman (or vice versa) over the two and a half years of the mission.

Or a six man crew with the four men and two women (and vice versa).

At any rate, I would insist that EVERYONE be prepared to the max with birth control just in case something did develop during an extended mission. And if married couples were sent I would want precautions redoubled.

Palomar · 2002-06-23 17:17:12

I'm not sure that the side effects can be that widespread - after all, it is used by millions of women across the world, having been approved by the FDA and other authorities.

*I'm a medical transcriptionist with 15 years' experience. Many women have problems with birth control pills. Yes, it's been approved by the FDA and other authorities...so are many drugs which are later taken off the market, such as Serzone (an antidepressant) recently. Serzone was available on a prescription basis for years. Now, because of liver damage studies, it will no longer be manufactured.

I am amazed birth control pills haven't been yanked off the market a long time ago. I suppose enough women don't have problems with them to keep them considered "safe enough"...however, after all the hospitals and large multispeciality clinics I've worked in, let's just say if I were an astronaut and the bigwigs told me I had to take birth control pills "or else," I'd tell them to take those pills and shove it.

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-06-24 08:45:47

For the first mission to Mars, wouldn't it be better to order the astronauts involved to just keep their pants on, rather than loading them up with birth control? The mission has enough risk involved, and the astronauts would not need the added complication of monkeying around with each other. A relationship that has soured would damage the group dynamic, and with a crew of four or six it would be devastating.

As far as I know, the astronauts on board the ISS do not use birth control, so it should not be required for a Mars mission. Of course, NASA is in denial about its experiments about sex in space, so I could be wrong. But I still think that the first crew to land on Mars should be prudent about the matter for the sake of the mission. We can worry about procreation when we begin to colonize Mars.

Palomar · 2002-06-24 17:11:50

For the first mission to Mars, wouldn't it be better to order the astronauts involved to just keep their pants on, rather than loading them up with birth control? The mission has enough risk involved, and the astronauts would not need the added complication of monkeying around with each other. A relationship that has soured would damage the group dynamic, and with a crew of four or six it would be devastating.
As far as I know, the astronauts on board the ISS do not use birth control, so it should not be required for a Mars mission. Of course, NASA is in denial about its experiments about sex in space, so I could be wrong. But I still think that the first crew to land on Mars should be prudent about the matter for the sake of the mission. We can worry about procreation when we begin to colonize Mars.

*I couldn't agree with you more, especially as regards the effects of sexual liaisons on group dynamics -- especially in such a setting. Not a pretty picture. I'd like to think that the astronauts would be paragons of decorum, reserve, and self-control. Perhaps they will be; I hope so.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-06-24 21:24:40

*I couldn't agree with you more, especially as regards the effects of sexual liaisons on group dynamics -- especially in such a setting. Not a pretty picture. I'd like to think that the astronauts would be paragons of decorum, reserve, and self-control. Perhaps they will be; I hope so.

Are there any psychological tests useful for revealing a person's lack of hormonal control? Self-control and brains aren't always synonymous qualities you find in people. Three years is a loooooong time to go without! Even though I'd hope they have self-control, being in close, intimate quarters with someone for three years can lead to situations. I think it would be a good precaution to still pursue some kind of birth control just in case. The lack of privacy could be a good deterrent though.

Aetius · 2002-06-24 21:27:24

Well, if NASA decides that ordering the astronauts to keep their pants on is too much to ask...it would be a product-placement triumph of interplanetary proportions for "Trojans", wouldn't it?

I'm torn about the whole celibacy-for-the-duration thing. The most skilled people for the job may have psychological difficulties coping with such a prolonged period without sexual intimacy. Personally, I'd make sure that both crew members of BOTH genders used birth control during the mission.

Bill White · 2002-06-24 22:12:32

Could we simply add vascetomy to the elective surgical procedures?

Mark S · 2002-06-25 07:52:30

Vasectomy/Tubal Ligation would be a good idea for an elective surgery, but I'm certain that many of your potential astronauts would take themselves off the mission instead of having the surgery. The first humans to travel to Mars will want to resume normal lives when they return; having chidren may be a part of that.

Of course, we still have issues about conception in a low-gravity, high radiation environment. I don't know if conception is possible at all in zero-G, and it's probably more difficult in Martian gravity. The second question will hopefully be answered by Translife when it gets off the ground.

Palomar · 2002-06-25 11:32:13

Vasectomy/Tubal Ligation would be a good idea for an elective surgery, but I'm certain that many of your potential astronauts would take themselves off the mission instead of having the surgery. The first humans to travel to Mars will want to resume normal lives when they return; having chidren may be a part of that.

*Agreed. Even though vasectomies and tubal ligations have, in some cases, been successfully reversed, many more have not. Maybe an option for our future astronauts to Mars would be sperm and ovary retrieval and cryostorage prior to vasectomy/tubal ligation.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-06-25 11:45:10

Phobos: "Are there any psychological tests useful for revealing a person's lack of hormonal control?"

*There probably are, but I don't know the formal names of such tests (most of my work has been medical and surgical, not psychiatric).

Phobos: "Self-control and brains aren't always synonymous qualities you find in people."

*For sure.

Phobos: "Three years is a loooooong time to go without! Even though I'd hope they have self-control, being in close, intimate quarters with someone for three years can lead to situations. I think it would be a good precaution to still pursue some kind of birth control just in case. The lack of privacy could be a good deterrent though."

*I agree. What continues to concern me the most is the impact of human sexuality on the group dynamics of the crew. There will be the potential for sexual rivalries, feelings of sexual betrayal/disloyalty, and then there is the matter of unwanted advances.

This just now came to mind: I read in "Discover" magazine about a year ago (damn, I cannot recall the volume number or month) that one of the female astronauts aboard either the International Space Station or MIR (I can't remember which) said that after months in space, a male astronaut tried to force her to kiss him. He brushed it off as "just having some fun," but she felt it a prelude to rape. The incident was reported and recorded; nothing came of it.

A friend of my husband's made a few advances to me, which made me feel sick. I continued to avoid and stay away from him until he and his wife recently moved a couple of hundred miles away (thank god). I can't imagine being cooped up in a small spaceship with him.

I guess maybe our mission planners had better check into those psychiatric tests regarding hormonal control.

--Cindy

Adrian · 2002-06-25 12:31:59

About sperm and ovary retrieval and cryostorage - I would think that it would be a very good idea for all long-term space travellers, considering that there is the (admittedly low) possibility of DNA damage from cosmic rays while in space.

Byron · 2002-06-25 13:19:25

Phobos: "Self-control and brains aren't always synonymous qualities you find in people."
*For sure.
Phobos: "Three years is a loooooong time to go without! Even though I'd hope they have self-control, being in close, intimate quarters with someone for three years can lead to situations. I think it would be a good precaution to still pursue some kind of birth control just in case. The lack of privacy could be a good deterrent though."
*I agree. What continues to concern me the most is the impact of human sexuality on the group dynamics of the crew. There will be the potential for sexual rivalries, feelings of sexual betrayal/disloyalty, and then there is the matter of unwanted advances.

I would have to say that expecting a mixed-gender crew to go three whole years without any extra-curricular activity is rather unreasonable, and steps really should be taken to deal with the inevitable side of human nature to prevent a social "disaster" on such a long and dangerous mission.

To get around this problem, I would propose either having married couples on the mission, so everyone's sexual needs would be satisfied, -or- just stick with a one-gender mission, male or female. While there might be some tension there, there shouldn't be any real problems in a single-gender environment (unless a homosexual is on board, so that's something else they would have to screen for.) There's no getting around the chance that any two people might end up hating each other after being cooped up together for so long, but hopefully the risk of this happening would be quite low if proper psychological screening was implemented for the crew selection.

But putting several (uncoupled) people of mixed gender in very close quarters for such a long period of time (we're talking years here, people...) is a high-risk situation, IMHO, and I sincerely hope future mission planners will take this under consideration in the selection process of Mars astronants...

B

Palomar · 2002-06-25 13:44:59

-or- just stick with a one-gender mission, male or female. While there might be some tension there, there shouldn't be any real problems in a single-gender environment (unless a homosexual is on board, so that's something else they would have to screen for.) There's no getting around the chance that any two people might end up hating each other after being cooped up together for so long, but hopefully the risk of this happening would be quite low if proper psychological screening was implemented for the crew selection.

*My apologies to any other women who interact at this message board, but I must state my opinion that if a one-gender crew is slated for Mars Direct, it should be ::male::.

There is much more data on male behavioral patterns, interaction, etc., in close quarters and in extreme conditions (combat, prisoner of war, group exile, etc., situations) than there is data on female behavioral patterns, interaction, etc., in similar situations.

Based on my observations in office environments [and only in office environments...heck, I'm a woman myself, so I really must be fair to my own gender!], women don't get along all that well when confined in close areas. Most tend to pair off in exclusive pairs of 2 [and you are not welcome to intrude] , and then there is the matter of territorality -- which more of my fellow females than I care to recall very aggressively demonstrated in offices. The number of women, in offices, who were generally exclusive, territorial, and hostile to other women outnumbered inclusive, sharing, good-natured gals by about 3 to 1.

I think in a Mars Direct situation, 4 men would get along better, over a 3-year period, than 4 women would.

I could be wrong, of course. I hope I am! This wasn't easy for me to post, all things considered. Again, I'm going on what I've observed and experienced down the years, working in both mixed-gender and women-only environments.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-06-25 17:55:50

*I agree. What continues to concern me the most is the impact of human sexuality on the group dynamics of the crew. There will be the potential for sexual rivalries, feelings of sexual betrayal/disloyalty, and then there is the matter of unwanted advances.

Now that's dangerous! I could easily see something like that making a mission less productive or even ruining it. Sexual harassment will definately ruin the mission if people don't feel comfortable or safe working with each other. Candidates that are prone to commit sexual harassment will definately have to be weeded out somehow. Personally I hope the mission isn't a uni-gender one. It might solve some problems but I think it would make a powerful symbolic gesture if both genders went along. I never heard the story about that astronaut trying to force himself on another crewmember, I think that's a good example of how sexual urges can become destructive on a space mission. At least we weeded out one astronaut from the candidate pool.

To get around this problem, I would propose either having married couples on the mission, so everyone's sexual needs would be satisfied, -or- just stick with a one-gender mission, male or female.

I think the married couple idea could work if the candidates aren't like some of the married people I know with their not so secret affairs. Newly weds would probably make the best choice as they're probably less likely to start eyeballing other people on the crew. They could go on a Martian honeymoon! The whole idea of marriage makes me queasy though. I just don't think people are built for that kind of monogamous relationship. A bunch of pretty words are no match for raging hormones.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-12 21:01:16

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#2 2002-06-13 00:51:54

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#3 2002-06-22 12:46:28

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#4 2002-06-22 14:02:27

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#5 2002-06-22 15:42:38

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#6 2002-06-22 16:28:29

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#7 2002-06-22 17:22:52

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#8 2002-06-23 09:43:31

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#9 2002-06-23 12:31:18

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#10 2002-06-23 12:36:39

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#11 2002-06-23 17:17:12

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#12 2002-06-24 08:45:47

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#13 2002-06-24 17:11:50

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#14 2002-06-24 21:24:40

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#15 2002-06-24 21:27:24

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#16 2002-06-24 22:12:32

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#17 2002-06-25 07:52:30

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#18 2002-06-25 11:32:13

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#19 2002-06-25 11:45:10

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#20 2002-06-25 12:31:59

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#21 2002-06-25 13:19:25

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#22 2002-06-25 13:44:59

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

#23 2002-06-25 17:55:50

Re: Mission Risk Involving Mars Direct - Mission Risk

Board footer