"Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

Dayton3 · 2004-12-05 13:08:22

I think all the whining about astronauts staying sane on a 2 and a half year mission to Mars and back are vastly overstated.

Do we really think that four (or six) astronauts can't live and work in close proximity for that long on a mission they know that will make them legends? Placeholders in history?

I mean come on. They'll never be more than 40 minutes or so from contact with Earth. They'll be getting news, personal vidoe and text messages from loved ones every hour of the day probably.

I would wager that the first astronauts on Mars will end up restricting the amount of time they talk to Earth because the shear mass of calls and inquiries will consume so much of their time.

While they are on Mars, they'll probably be working like sled dogs for months on end. Alot of it serious physical labor.

Few things keep people cooperating like lots of hard work.

On the six month trip home, sure they'll be pretty confined, but they'll have time to rest from their long exertions, look forward to their coming celebrity status and communications with home will become ever shorter in lead times.

So why do people carp about "human factors" so much?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-05 13:23:39

"Do we really think that four (or six) astronauts can't live and work in close proximity for that long on a mission they know that will make them legends?"

Thats correct, yes. I think that confinement for six months in a volume not much bigger then a spacious hotel room is a bad idea. What about on subsequent missions, when the ticker-tape parades are smaller?

Being trapped in a tin can and unable to hold any conversation with anyone on Earth is also a signifigantly mental strain.

There are other human factors to be concerned with. Zero-G exposure for 6mo is a pretty long stretch. Cosmic radiation may be much more damaging to the eyes then previously believed. Biological contamination from Earthly pathogens. Etc etc.

Dayton3 · 2004-12-05 13:36:12

You can hold conversations with people from Earth. They'll just be more akin to email than face to face.

And how many astronauts and cosmonauts have been exposed to zero G for more than six months? Dozens I believe. Shannon Lucid WALKED off the space shuttle after six months in space.

I think the "hero factor" will last at least for the first two or three missions.

By the time those are over, alot of the dangers associated with the missions will be reduced (thus reducing stress) and we'll either have enough public and political support to expand the missions with NTR technoloyg....

...or the program will be dead.

Either way, the human factors problem will be lessened.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-05 14:04:43

"You can hold conversations with people from Earth. They'll just be more akin to email than face to face."

Thats not a conversation then. The poor lonely astronaut unable to sit down and talk to his wife and kids for three solid years?

There are other astronauts, Bowersox I believe was his name, which have not ever fully recoverd after 6mo in space. Shannon Lucid is more of an exception to the rule.

Unless the mission uses larger HAB modules, then this will be one risk that isn't mitigated by experience.

samardza · 2004-12-05 14:29:36

Nansen's Fram expedition, 9 men for almost 3 years, no external contact.

Dook · 2004-12-05 14:30:51

Hmm, people in a small area unable to talk or have a conversation with their loved ones for 6 months at a time. Sounds like being at sea aboard ship. Something navies around the world have been doing for hundreds of years.

With that kind of reasoning I would imagine that after every submarine voyage the entire crew would have to be replaced.

Only send single astronauts then. There, problem solved.

If we really don't want to go to mars lets come up with a real reason, something more substantial.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-05 14:39:33

3 years > 6 months

John Creighton · 2004-12-05 14:41:36

3 years > 6 months

mission > 6 months

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-12-05 14:55:30

I have some friends that are squids that do three month tours on Ohio Class missile boats (the USS Nebraska to be specific) one of them has actually been on a six month cruise back during the cold war when there was a problem with the boat that was going to relive them (they just sent out a tender to restock them with food and various other items). (the USS Nebraska to be specific) Even the officers quarters are amazingly tight and they have never really had a problem, you adapt and learn to live with it. On a sub there is no TV feed, no video mail, just what ever books, computer games, movies, ect you bring down with you.

Having your own room and communications would make a world of difference. I think if submariners can survive and be realitivly happy in that environment then I don't see at all how human factors would be much of an issue on the road to Mars.

Besides crew size there really are alot of parralels between nuclear subs and a Mars flight.

Palomar · 2004-12-05 17:04:42

Hmm, people in a small area unable to talk or have a conversation with their loved ones for 6 months at a time. Sounds like being at sea aboard ship. Something navies around the world have been doing for hundreds of years.

*Yes, the human factor concerns can be exaggerated and overblown.

As for Dook's comments (not directed at him personally, simply responding to what he's said): But the difference is those mariners of old were at least still on Earth. I've read accounts/exploits of pirates, adventurers, mariners of the 16th through 18th centuries (nearly all of whom IF not all of whom sought glory, fame, wealth and a place in the history books). Yes, they faced incredible hardships, isolation, many died. But in many instances there might be an island to anchor near for a while -- native fruits and vegetables, wild animals to hunt for food. Maybe even a native population to get acquaintained with, barter with, etc.

And if push came to shove and you couldn't hack it, turn the ship around and go home. Astronauts en route to Mars won't have those "luxuries."

But again...yes, I suppose some concerns are overblown. But not all of them. :-\

There's a mighty big difference between "I don't want to turn around -- forward, ho!" and "We can't turn around."

Options can be very nice to have.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-05 19:18:47

The living space must necessarily be cramped on these early expeditions to Mars, unless you go back to the 'Battlestar Galactica' type of ship(s). If there are genuine concerns, which I don't share by the way, that astronauts will be unable to cope with this kind of confinement, then it's unlikely we'll be going to Mars at all.
In an ideal world, GCNR's "larger HAB modules" would be the best solution but, in the absence of a large increase in the funding we don't even have yet ( ), it doesn't seem likely that will happen.

6 months in zero-g, of itself, might actually mitigate the crowding problem, as I think Cindy pointed out in past conversations about this, giving us ceilings to 'live' on as well as floors! But I believe we've more or less reached a tentative consensus that some form of rotational 'gravity' will be needed for crew health, so that leaves us with the crowding problem again.

There has been a bit of a scare lately regarding early cataract formation in people who've spent long periods in space. This might be a good time for me to repeat the gist of a post I made earlier this year about cataracts in general, and cataracts in astronauts in particular.
When humans get to about 42 - 47 years of age, their ability to focus on near objects, which has been declining gradually since their teens, reaches the point where it becomes a very real impediment to close work. In the early days of space exploration, it was unusual for astronauts to be more than 40 when sent into space, and they were generally tip-top physical specimens. None of them needed 'near prescription' eyeglasses to accomplish their missions, which was a very good thing when you have to wear a closed helmet a lot of the time.
But what about Alan Shepard, who was 47 when he went to the Moon in 1971? If he and people like Shuttle astronaut Storey Musgrave (flight-listed astronaut at 61! ), were in a tight spot and unable to rely on spectacles, their near vision difficulties could quite conceivably endanger the mission. If you're on an Extra-Vehicular-Activity (EVA) at age 61 and you need to look for tiny holes in the hull of your vessel, for example, you're going to need your reading prescription to do it. But you can't slip your glasses on while wearing a helmet.
Multifocal contact lenses or other contact-lens-based answers to this problem carry their own intrinsic risks, and drying out of the lenses in a low-pressure environment would probably lead to discomfort and compromised visual acuity. Getting an eyelash under a contact lens at just the wrong moment could be disastrous!

When older people have their cataracts removed these days (which involves removing the 'fogged-up' natural crystalline lens we're all born with), they have a plastic lens inserted into the capsule their own natural lens was removed from. Clear distance vision is usually fully restored in this way. But this artificial lens, or 'implant', doesn't change shape like a young natural lens, so again near-vision requires reading glasses.
However, there's a new implant material in development right now, and likely to be available to the general public within 5 years, which is injected as a liquid into the capsule and 'sets' as a soft flexible structure - very much like a natural lens. Preliminary data suggest the new implant will enable the eye to perform at a level normally associated with that of a healthy 30 year-old eye.
I can foresee a time when this implant will replace cataract surgery performed on people in their late 60s and 70s. I believe replacement of the ageing natural lens at about 45 will become standard procedure in the western world, restoring good distance and near vision without the need for eyeglasses - permanently. And, since the implant is an inert polymer, it should remain clear indefinitely - no cataract.

It seems likely to me that such an implant will be impervious to radiation in space. (This will need to be verified, of course.) If the rapid formation of early cataract among Mars crews is as big a problem as some would have us believe, then surgery to insert these implants in all crew members before their departure may become routine practice - especially for those who are 40 or older.

So, in my opinion, gravity will be provided for Mars crews of necessity and the cataract problem will be solved before it ever becomes a problem. (GCNR will no doubt be pleased to hear this as it will relieve at least some of his epic internal struggle with chronic pessimism about the human exploration of Mars! :;): O.K., O.K. ... just kidding around. )

The 6-month trip to Mars will be filled with excited anticipation of what's to come and the 6-month return trip will be filled with spectacular memories of the expedition and anticipation of getting home. There's no doubt in my mind such distractions will be more than sufficient to keep boredom at bay.
The 500 days on Mars will be a surreal experience, a physical and intellectual adventure beyond the imagination of most of us left here on Earth. While human beings are capable of the most appalling excesses of greed, stupidity, and violence, we're also capable of heroic levels of cooperation, camaraderie, and self-sacrifice when the good of the group depends on it.
I agree with Dr. Zubrin that of all the 'links in the chain' on any Mars mission, the human factor is likely to be among the strongest, not the weakest.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-05 22:32:05

We now have a couple of thread talking about basically Fear in one form or another. Coming, going and even of staying. This weeks sunday parade news paper ran an article Lets stop Scaring ourselves and I quite Agree that it is very easy to blow things out of proportion and that it is almost sometimes the excuse to not go and try to achieve our goals.
We have all seen the histerier that was whipped up over Y2K and now there seems to be alot of the same going around for the future of manned space travel and that needs to end if we are ever going to leave this rock.

http://www.parade.com/current/coverstory/index.html

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-06 02:27:51

As long as they can exercise each day, have some tasks to keep them occupied (such a science experiments/observations on the way, maintaining the ship etc), and some varied stimulants - something to read, dvd's to watch for example. There should be no problem, remember we're not talking about someone who has walked in from the street to take part in some TV reality show, these will be highly trained and conditioned people.

Graeme

Dook · 2004-12-06 10:28:46

Cindy, your comments show that old time ignorant sailors tolerated much greater adversity for little to no benefit. Sure they died but never from loneliness. They didn’t go insane. Instead they died in battle, from diseases they didn’t understand, and accidents. So you are saying that the whole difference is the fact that they were on the earth? I find it absolutely ridiculous. They thought the planet was flat and that they could fall off. They thought that monsters could get them at any time! Yet somehow they still accomplished great things.

Also ships could not just turn around and go back. Old ship captains were smarter than you know. They caught the prevailing wind currents that took them across the Atlantic and knew full well that on either side were dead areas called “The Doldrums” and “The horse latitudes." If they were pushed into those areas by a storm they would have to kill and eat their horses to survive. Just like going to mars, when crossing the oceans under wind power it was easier to continue on your way and then come back on the winds at the correct latitude.

Sure there will be an argument or two but that is how humans cope with stress. Those going will be highly educated, hand picked, NASA scientists, military officers, and astronauts. They don’t really go crazy and run around sabotaging the ship like in the movies. I have no doubt the human spirit will be the strongest thing out there.

I really can’t believe there is even discussion about this.

Palomar · 2004-12-06 10:47:05

So you are saying that the whole difference is the fact that they were on the earth?

*No. But IMO it is a factor. Water, air, food isn't available in outer space; can't simply "drop anchor" and find respite if the going gets too tough. There are no islands between Earth and Mars. (Reference to William Dampier's adventures).

I find it absolutely ridiculous. They thought the planet was flat and that they could fall off. They thought that monsters could get them at any time! Yet somehow they still accomplished great things.

*Um...yeah, I know. Perhaps I didn't explain my position clearly enough (but please give me a bit of credit for having some brains at least...thanks). :laugh: Also, the earlier sailors believed the Earth might be flat and they might fall off; subsequent sailors knew that'd been disproven (such as William Dampier in the late 1600s).

Also ships could not just turn around and go back. Old ship captains were smarter than you know. They caught the prevailing wind currents that took them across the Atlantic and knew full well that on either side were dead areas called “The Doldrums” and “The horse latitudes."

*Sometimes they could turn around and go back if they'd wanted...sometimes they couldn't. Again -- apparently I didn't flesh out my point of view enough.

I really can’t believe there is even discussion about this.

*So you're chiming in why? :;):

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-06 11:27:27

I have to agree with Dook on this one, the hardships of cruising to Mars will be trivial compared with what humans have endured and overcome for hundreds if not thousands of years. Men have been confined for months at a time on ships since the dawn of ocean-going navies if not even earlier, millions have come through war without cracking. Sure, when you take citizens of Western industrialized powers who are used to a certain standard of living and stick them in a can for months on end it will require a period of adjustment, but it's by no means unprecedented. When talking about selecting astronauts we have this idea that we need extensive psychological screening (as though it's an exact science) and that we need to compensate for every little deprivation lest the fragile human psyche shatter. As pointed out earlier in this thread, submarine crews endure very similar conditions with much less concern. Going back a few centuries and the picture is even simpler: if you're male, have hands and feet and can understand orders you're in. No choice in the matter. Now suddenly volunteers can't be expected to endure confinement (in much more comfortable conditions) for a comparable span of time? It's unfounded.

Palomar · 2004-12-06 12:03:36

As pointed out earlier in this thread, submarine crews endure very similar conditions with much less concern.

*Right.

And they also have the ability to re-emerge and head for port, docking and exiting the sub within a few days' time.

I did point out in my first post in this thread "Yes, the human factor concerns can be exaggerated and overblown."

Probably they often are.

But to go to the other POV (denial) that nothing could possibly go wrong, no one could possibly "crack" is erroneous IMO as well.

I'm simply trying to point out the difference between the trip from A to B, what options are available in a certain situation which aren't in another.

Just my opinion/viewpoint and if it's disagreeable to some folks, that's fine of course.

--Cindy

Dook · 2004-12-06 12:09:32

Certainly something could go wrong with the crew mentally. But the ship could also be hit by an undocumented asteroid. Or attacked by aliens.

All of the above carry the same chance of happening though. Little to none.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-06 12:13:48

But to go to the other POV (denial) that nothing could possibly go wrong, no one could possibly "crack" is erroneous IMO as well.

I'm certainly not suggesting that humans are as a rule unbending rocks of stability, merely that off all the things that could go wrong on a Mars mission "cracking" crewmembers is way down the list.

Going a step further, I don't put much stock in the conclusions of psychoanalysts trying to predict behavior based on their own interpretations of responses to questions by people knowing full well they're being judged on their answers and therefore lying whenever it seems prudent. The whole idea is comically absurd.

Palomar · 2004-12-06 12:53:02

Certainly something could go wrong with the crew mentally. But the ship could also be hit by an undocumented asteroid. Or attacked by aliens.
All of the above carry the same chance of happening though. Little to none.

*Right.

I haven't said otherwise.

Now can we rest it on this point of agreement?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-12-06 13:14:43

Going a step further, I don't put much stock in the conclusions of psychoanalysts trying to predict behavior based on their own interpretations of responses to questions by people knowing full well they're being judged on their answers and therefore lying whenever it seems prudent. The whole idea is comically absurd.

*Not necessarily.

Ever heard of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory? It is so intricately constructed and finely detailed that lies (no matter cleverly attempted), distortion and even playful facetiousness are automatically "outed" -- glaringly so. There's also the issue of how folks *don't* respond in the MMPI. It is an ingenious mesh of checks and balances.

Is that to say psychoanalysts are always right? Of course not.

FBI profilers aren't always right either...but lots of times they are (and I'm *not* referring to racial profiling, but rather of criminology).

But I have a feeling this topic could potentially become more rancorous than I care to see. Not sure how much further I'll go with it.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-12-06 13:19:03

Well one way to get around the half way point is to give your self a stopping point, lets say a small ISS at any of the legrange points or put them on an orbit that can be synchronized to both worlds such that they are always along the way on each launch.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-06 13:55:19

Ever heard of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory? It is so intricately constructed and finely detailed that lies (no matter cleverly attempted), distortion and even playful facetiousness are automatically "outed" -- glaringly so.

Yet the interpretation of the those administering the test factor in. For example, if someone lies to a question it could be interpreted many ways, perhaps they always lie out of habit, perhaps they're trying to beat the test, perhaps they're just annoyed at having to go through it... the more in depth the exam the more likely an objective observer is to get a rough idea of the individual's tendencies, but not all observers are objective and nothing is exact.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1102362937

Mad Grad Student · 2004-12-09 21:10:14

I hope I'm not just reiterating what's already been said, but I just wanted to get my two cents in.

IMHO, human factors won't be a big issue on any Mars mission. As has been stated before, submarine crews often go through the same sort of conditions for the same lengths of time as the transit to or from Mars, incidentally while at war, in even more densely packed housing, and without any communication with the outside world. I think that the psychoanalysts at NASA are yet another group of people in the organization that maybe should just lighten up a little; more important than how well the crews can interact with each other is how balanced the workload is. Too little and the astronauts are bored out of their minds, too much and they go into a stress-induced rebellion like the crew of Skylab 4.

Fortunately, we won't have to worry about too little work ever during a Mars mission. Astronauts aboard the ISS spend almost all of their time keeping shop and fixing every part that keeps breaking; a crew of four astonauts would be kept pretty busy with basic maintainence tasks alone. Then when you consider all the little science tasks that every researcher in the country would be trying to throw at the crew, big chunks would to be left out to keep the astronauts from being overworked. Could the crew go insane and start murdering each other? Of course. But much more likely something mechanical would be their demise, I honestly don't think that we need to dwelll on this topic very long.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-04 18:30:55

Bump another topic to fix

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-12-05 13:08:22

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#2 2004-12-05 13:23:39

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#3 2004-12-05 13:36:12

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#4 2004-12-05 14:04:43

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#5 2004-12-05 14:29:36

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#6 2004-12-05 14:30:51

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#7 2004-12-05 14:39:33

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#8 2004-12-05 14:41:36

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#9 2004-12-05 14:55:30

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#10 2004-12-05 17:04:42

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#11 2004-12-05 19:18:47

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#12 2004-12-05 22:32:05

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#13 2004-12-06 02:27:51

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#14 2004-12-06 10:28:46

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#15 2004-12-06 10:47:05

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#16 2004-12-06 11:27:27

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#17 2004-12-06 12:03:36

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#18 2004-12-06 12:09:32

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#19 2004-12-06 12:13:48

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#20 2004-12-06 12:53:02

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#21 2004-12-06 13:14:43

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#22 2004-12-06 13:19:03

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#23 2004-12-06 13:55:19

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#24 2004-12-09 21:10:14

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

#25 2018-05-04 18:30:55

Re: "Human Factors"-Not Really A Factor? - Overrated I Think.

Board footer