You are not logged in.
Why shouldn't we assume mental health is a serious concern? It appears to at least be a risk from historical extended confinement tests and from actual stays on Mir/ISS.
Why assume what there is no evidence of?
The occasional argument among crewmembers or annoyance with ground controllers hardly translates into "serious mental health issues" for the crew.
I would assume that as part of crew selection, the primary and backup crews will undoubtedly train together for at least a few years. Including training in isolation where they have to work together for months on end with no other contact aside from radio messages from the "ground".
Any significant personality conflicts, psychological problems, or other abnormalities should be detected then.
If a serious abnormality escapes detection prior to the mission, then it probably won't matter how much square footage the Hab has
This is more like living in a one room effiency appartment.
Actually, it's more like everybody living in a one room efficiency apartment. (In fact, my first efficiency apartment was slightly bigger.) With that little space, unless the exercise equipment is left out all the time, there's not even reasonable assurance that they'll be able to pull it out to use it every day without having to shove somebody else's "workspace" aside. That consumes even more space for exercise equipment than necessary just ensure it's always available.
The only way to make the Mars Direct Hab livable is to get rid of the lab and clean out all that junk downstairs.
IIRC, if you go Mars Semi-Direct, most of the equipment used on the Mars Surface goes out with the Mars Ascent vehicle.
Why do you assume that the crews mental health would be such a big issue on a manned Mars mission?
You dismiss the "suck it up soldier" attitude. Apparently not considering the fact that the crew of the first missions to Mars will be the best possible selected out of what would certainly be HUNDREDS of volunteers.
You're suggesting that rigorously trained and screened professionals who WANT to go on the greatest history making mission in world history will somehow start falling apart because the living room on the Hab is cramped.
[quote="GCNRevenger
The problem is two-fold as well, not only should the crew have significant space to live in, but they should also have sizable contiguous space too. If all the rooms are hardly bigger than a walk-in closet it doesn't matter how much room they have.
Do you have any proof that a large "contiguous" space is necessary for crew comfort and mental health?
Sure it would be kind of nice. But every house doesn't need a "great room" as its sometimes called.
IIRC, even the original design of the Hab for Mars Direct, the crew had 250 square feet EACH.
And 125 square feet each in the ERV.
Each crew member had their own separate room as well.
Forget the Ares I launched "taxi".
Just launch the outbound crew in the Hab.
It has got to be capable of supporting them for two years anyway.
I know what people will say "no launch escape system for the Hab".
Who cares?
In what, more than 250 launches of manned missions by the U.S. and Russia, there have been TWO thats two disasters on launch.
In the Soviet one, a launch escape system saved the crew. The other was Challenger.
If we can launch 120 shuttle missions with no launch escape system, then launching a Mars crew without one once every two years should be no big deal.
Your implication that I simply parrot Dr. Zubrins beliefs is insulting. And I've done nothing to provoke insults from you.
I think six launches is excessive.
I think its excessive because the launch of ANY spacecraft (manned or unmanned) is most dangerous and prone to errors during launches.
You have the largest mass, the greatest concentration of highly complicated volatile materials, the greatest forces involved in play.
Thus I believe that its incumbent to reduce those launches. Thats my first reason.
Second reason is political. I've stated those political reasons earlier.
And GCN, you go to a Congressional committee trying to get support for something and say "No,we can't do it"..........I guarantee that you will not get funding for it.
Congress is far more forgiving of cost overruns once something is actually being built than appropriating enough money up front. Space Shuttle, ISS being prime examples.
In regards to launches, I find you accounting methodology highly suspect.
You are saying basically, the ground crew at Kennedy Space Center all has to be paid anyway, so they might as well spend their time launching rockets instead of waiting around between fewer launches.
I would bet good money, that it costs more (substantially more) from an operational standpoint for the people at KSC and JSC to oversee six launches in a year than two or three.
You propose sending a manned mission all the way to Mars orbit and DO NOT land and you will be LAUGHED out of the Congressional committees.
Not VOTED ON & RECOMMENDED for approval.
The Manned Mars program must take political realities into serious consideration.
I didn't bring up submarine crews.
GCN did trying to "prove" what he thought (incorrectly) was a valid point.
And sure there will be stresses among a crew of four, five, or six sent on a 26 month mission.
There will be disagreements and arguments probably.
But its foolish to argue that we MUST provide a large enough space and/or a large enough crew to PREVENT ANY disagreement or argument.
Once again, GCN tried the argument with crew physical health and could not win it.
Now its the mental health of the crew argument.
We will never eliminate every danger factor in a mission to Mars.
Go with what we've got, what we can afford, the earliest we can.
The best research into any of these issues will be in the doing.
U.S. submarines NOW only are on patrol for three months or so, and only completely isolated for a month or so (depending on the status of their SLBMs and what targeting package they are covering).
But during the 1980s well before the end of the Cold War, five or six month patrols were not unknown. During which up to three months might be spent cut off from the outside world.
And though Submarine crews for the U.S. are about 100-133, the fact that aboard a submarine "there is space to get away from people" would be news to anyone who has served on one. Submarines are cramped enough (even modern ones) that crew members often develope acute near sightedness because their eyes never have anything to focus on more than a few dozen feet away.
And regarding submarines, though it is not done this way since the end of the Cold War, at one time submarine crews were told that if they developed a severe illness aboard during a key part of the patrol that was incurable by the medic aboard.................they might simply die rather than pull the sub off of a vital mission, even in peacetime.
Remember, U.S. nuclear submarines even with crews of more than 100 don't have a fully trained doctor aboard.
Their medics are supposed to be able to perform appendectomies by themselves. Its certain that a biologist with cross training and medicine could do that much with guidance from Earth.
We could do so much more with a crew of 20. Or 50.
why not wait until we can put Aldrins Mars Cyclers into operation?
Zubrin has no crew medic nor a dedicated mission commander. The engineers are in charge of keeping them alive; while at least one mission scientist is needed. I can understand the argument for 5, but 4? Too many compromises, no margin.
Sending a dedicated crew medic makes no sense. Just choose a biologist that has training in medicine.
And you don't need to waste a crew member on someone who just "commands".
Make the commander one of the engineers.
That does sound more reasonable.
Now, I'm not a strict adherent of Mars Direct.
I think the "Semi-Direct" methology would be okay.
But what I do object to is a half dozen launches for ONE manned mission.
I don't care how much it makes sense from an "engineering" standpoint.
Engineers don't vote in Congressional committees on budgets.
Politicians do. And a politician is likely to say something like "why do you need all these launches for one Mars mission? Can't you do it in less".
By the way GCN just how much space do you think astronauts need for a manned mission to Mars and back?
And you've spoken about Salyut and Mir cosmonauts being crippled or disabled or life.
Where is the evidence of this?
I think the DRM-III arrangement is pretty good, offering a bit under double what MD does, and more contiguous space.
What is your evidence that they're not? Not Soviet film clips and carefully scripted propaganda. Its pushing it for Submariners for three months, but six in much smaller quarters?
Prove that they can live and work after 6mo cooped up in a tin can without significant side-effects, don't challenge for proof that there are none! Thats the same kind of inhuman calculation that we have got to avoid.
You made the assertion GCN that Soviet cosmonauts have suffered real physical and psychological damage from their stays aboard Salyut.
You've offered no evidence to back this up.
You made the assertion, by most accepted rules of debate (and logic) its incumbent upon you to provide evidence.
Not me.;
And for that matter, I am not obligated to prove a negative in any case.
And submariners during the Cold War have stayed down longer than 3 months. Much of it without any kind of regular communications with loved ones.
By the way GCN just how much space do you think astronauts need for a manned mission to Mars and back?
And you've spoken about Salyut and Mir cosmonauts being crippled or disabled or life.
Where is the evidence of this?
We could do so much more with a crew of 20. Or 50.
why not wait until we can put Aldrins Mars Cyclers into operation?
I could go with some of your reasoning GCN if you would not keep trying to gold plate your mission planning.
While a crew of six might be reasonable (though on a first mission why not risk the fewest astronauts possible) and some orbital rendevous might be acceptable, I don't see why the FIRST mission has to throw in everything.
Why must be have deep drilling rigs, reusable ascent vehicles, multiple pressurized rovers, vast amounts of lab space, the nucleus of a base complex.........all on the very first manned mission?
Its only six months there. Six months back.
And once again, the Salyut cosmonauts did okay with that amount of space IIRC and seemed to get by okay.
And if Ares-V is too small, then I say just build a larger booster.
As Zubrin pointed out in The Case For Mars, there have been literally hundreds of designs for viable superboosters (larger than the Saturn V capability) over the years.
If Mars Direct really needs a superbooster, then it can get one.
Better than launching a fleet of rockets with multiple in space dockings required.
As Dr. Zubrin has pointed out, its better to do your "docking" on the ground where if you are off a hundred meters or so, you can simply "walk over".
In space, miss docking by a single meter, and your mission is screwed.
Somebody needs to do it, people are being hoodwinked by Bob's crazy plan, born of his insatiable "lust for red dust" as soon as possible at any price or risk, even the future of Mars. Oh, that and the sick messianic complex he has.
Thats an awfully bold claim to say that without Zubrin, NASA wouldn't be considering Mars. Did you get that from him? He thinks entirely too highly of himself and his... "destiny."
Your link is broken too.
Sorry about the link. It was at Spaceref.com last year.
It is a drawing of the SDV (Shuttle Derived Vehicle) ILC-3 In-Line Cargo Vehicle Option.
This rocket design doesn indeed have four FIVE SEGMENT SRBs with 4 SSMEs in the core.
Its LEO capability is estimated at 350,000 lbs. plus.
How much larger Hab could that send to Mars than the 288,000 lbs. capability Ares-V?
I would bet it would be somewhat larger.
Needed for what? There is nothing up that warrants keeping the eye-watteringly expensive Shuttle program alive.
Just a hypothetical GCN.
You seem to be trying to build a career out of dissing Mars Direct and insulting Dr. Robert Zubrin.
Without Zubrin, NASA wouldn't be bothering even considering a manned Mars program.
Incidentally, see http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/ilc-3cargo.med.jpg
Have you even looked at the MD HAB? Its terribly claustrophobic, its more cramped than my little apartment if you look at it, especially how little of the volume is contiguous and how the airlock is internal. You just can't expect four people to stay properly glued together for years in such a little tin can. And the ERV is much worse! Enough with the "suck it up soldier!" attitude, this stupid excuse of "oh their morale will be so high, they won't even notice!" is nuts. Its endemic of the disregard for safety, margin, and effectiveness that pushes MD over the threshold beyond credibility.
.
The heroic "suck it up soldier" attitude of sacrifice, hardship, and yes even danger is one of the things that makes space travel appealing to the average American.
Americans I would say don't give a rip about spending 100 billion dollars putting the average scientist down the street on Mars.
If perceived danger and sacrifice helps get our first mission to Mars, promote it on that basis.
You are way overstating the problems of astronauts staying for six months in such and enclosed space.
Once they get to Mars, they also have the ERV and for that matter, the pressurized rover for space. So its not like they'll spend "years" cooped up in a tiny space.
What about flying the shuttle unmanned if its really needed for some reason.
The Soviets had few troubles flying Buran to orbit and landing it unmanned.
Why nearly 20 years later would it be that difficult for NASA to do the same with the shuttle?
And if landing an unmanned shuttle is too risky, why not launch unmanned then put a two person astronaut crew aboard from the ISS to land it?
Weren't there some designs on line somewhere for Ares type boosters that included up to four five segment SRBs that could deliver up to 158 metric tons to LEO?
348,000 lbs to LEO!
Now that could definitely lift Zubrins Mars Direct hardware!!!
[
They will leave nothing behind but scattered worn out HABs and flags, just like we did on the Moon fifty years ago.
It might well be that.........or nothing.
I much prefer to gamble on a deeply flawed program in 2020 than an eternally hypothetical "perfect" program in 2040 or whenever.
