Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-30 10:31:59

Under a different heading, the question of optimal (minimum) crew size for early missions again arose. There have been several discussions of this topic embedded in other threads, but this is now becoming closer to reality than ever in the past.

If we go back to the Zubrin-Baker original Mars Direct concept, they suggested a 4 man crew and an 18 month stay couples with 200 day +/- residence time between Hohmann transfer windows. It probably would have worked OK, but would have imposed tremendous workload requirements and mental strain on the crew members. With such a small crew, the workload would have ultimately become overwhelming, and took no notice of the possibility of incapacitation through illness or injury by accidents.

After the presentation to NASA, the size and scope of the mission was suitably modified to include a crew of 7. The arguments there were salient and allowed for better utilization of residence time on Mars.

We're had other suggestions on this website for even a solo mission, 2 or 3 man missions, etc. These in my mind, would be doomed to failure from mental breakdowns, illness, accident injuries, as well as a host of other unplanned or unanticipated causes.

In one of my first mission architectures posted a year or more ago, I argued for either a 7 man or 10 (or 11) man mission. Below, I'll detail my reasoning for such. As well as the composition of this team, starting with the 10 man and working backwards to 7.

Ten (11) man crew Mission:

Mission leader (1) or (2, second in command)

Exploration teams (3) composed of 3 crewmen

OK, why 3 members on each exploration team? Primary reason is rescue from unanticipated accidents. Two crew can more readily rescue and transport a team member who has fallen into a ravine or sinkhole, or who has fallen from an exposed position. A broken limb due to a form of osteoporosis cannot be ruled out. The rovers should be designed for occupancy by 4 with a fold down set of seats in order to accommodate a litter.

Since I am one here who is less concerned with the exposure to GCR than the radiation worriers, the GCR load will be significantly lower than those on ISS in LEO. Some have calculated the GCR exposure will be something like 40% of deep space. On the other hand it would be irresponsible to ignore the cumulative effects that could later in life lead to health issues. This is my rationale for exposure reduction.

Each team would be strictly limited to36 hours per week of exposure outside the habitat, which should be constructed in a manner to take advantage of some regolith overburden for safety in the case of a solar flare event. The powered rovers should also be constructed from materials which attenuate radiation exposure, as well as the tracked "Bobcat" front end loader-skid steer.

I'll henceforth call these 3 man (person?) crews "Triads," since the crew composition would be a mutually complimentary set of explorers. But each Triad will be somewhat unique; the emphasis of the first mission will be getting as much science and planetary data collected as possible. To that end, we will need several disciplines along, but at least 2 geologists, one of whom should be a hydrologist concerned with locating a source of water. The second geologist should be a field paleontologist concerned with looking for evidence of fossils of past Martian life forms and sample collection. We will also need something of a construction foreman/excavation expert capable of clearing a large landing site and levelling such, as well as determining the potential of the regolith to support a fully loaded BFS/BFR cargo mission and a larger passenger transporter.

Inside the habitat we'll have a science crew capable of doing analysis of samples and appropriate recording of data which will be streamed back to Earth. There will be a lot of equipment maintenance involved, too. And rest, some relaxation, and habitat sanitation, food preparation, etc. With 2 triads outside at a time, one group will be on exploration missions in the rover; the second will be engaged in additional construction and site improvement. The inside crew will be charged with monitoring the environment of the hab, and maintaining adequate communications with the outside crews and mother Earth. Everyone will be engaged, but the outside work will be on a rotating basis. No single crew will be outside more than 2 Sols in a row. There will of necessity, be mandatory stand-down times during sandstorm periods as well as some necessary R & R time where crew members can communicate with their families/loved ones on Earth.

Many will have their own "take" on things, but my crews will probably survive and not become burned out physical or emotionally.

elderflower · 2018-04-30 11:06:54

Oldfart. You need, I believe, at least two people specifically trained in medicine. One a Physician and General Surgeon and the other a Nurse and Physiotherapist. They will be researching the effects of the Martian environment on the people as well as fixing up injuries and dealing with illnesses.
Your rationale for seven minimum gets my agreement and is about the ideal number for effective teamwork.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-30 12:11:11

elderflower-
Yeah, I was interrupted while writing my blurb above, and your comments about needing a physician are spot-on. A physician with some surgical skills would be mandatory. A simple thing like appendicitis would be deadly otherwise. I would include an additional PA or nurse practitioner for backup in a crew of 10 or 11. Everyone would need some major First Aid skills, and there should be some serious thought about the compatibility of blood groups in the crew. No one with an excessively rare blood type should be included; that unfortunately, would exclude me for being blood type A negative. I designed my initial mission architecture for a crew of seven, then expanded to a crew of 11 being the largest number we should risk on the first mission, as well as consideration of all the supplies needed for such.

As you indicate in your comments, the physician should be monitoring such things as blood counts and other physical baselines. Probably monitor the EKG, which is pretty simple these days.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-30 12:11:39)

RobertDyck · 2018-04-30 12:13:51

Oldfart1939 wrote:

If we go back to the Zubrin-Baker original Mars Direct concept, they suggested a 4 man crew and an 18 month stay couples with 200 day +/- residence time between Hohmann transfer windows.

Um, what? That's redundant. Mars Direct included a 500 day surface stay between transfer windows, and it wan't Hohmann. Both transits would be "express", which means 6 month transit each way, not the Hohmann 8.5 month.

Mars Direct included 2 scientists and 2 engineers. When scientists were away from the hab, one engineer would accompany. If something broke, the engineer would fix it so they could get back alive. Furthermore, all astronauts (particularly engineers) would be trained as paramedics. Dr. Zubrin pointed out that many astronauts from Mercury/Gemini/Apollo did not want a dedicated medical doctor on the crew because that medical doctor would get bored and concoct things to do. This would include invasive medical procedures on the crew. Astronauts were medical guinea pigs prior to flight, they certainly didn't want doctors doing the same things during the mission.

During Apollo, the mission commander was the pilot. The "Lunar Module Pilot" actually was a computer operator. The commander would move his head up and down until tick marks on both the inner and outer pane of the window lined up with the horizon as they descended to the Lunar surface, then read out the number etched into the glass beside that tick mark. The "Lunar Module Pilot" would type that number into the computer, then read out the number it produced. The Lunar Module computer was not nearly as sophisticated as a modern smart phone, it was basically a fancy programmable calculator. The "Command Module Pilot" would only pilot the ship when in Lunar orbit. The commander would normally do all flying. The point is we don't need a dedicated "commander" who has no other duties than command. Do it like Apollo.

You want 11 crew? Really? You realize Mercury has a single crew member. Gemini had 2, about as much interior volume as a 2-seat sports car. Apollo had 3 crew members for the Moon, but a rescue ship for Skylab placed 2 more seats where food and lithium-hydroxide canisters would go for a Lunar mission. Apollo Command Module (not counting LM) had as much interior volume as a mini-van. Mars Direct habitat was originally designed with only a single deck, beneath that was landing rockets, RCS thrusters, propellant tanks, landing legs, and a rover. That single deck (or upper deck of more recent designs) was to be 8.0 meter inside diameter. That means 541 square feet, or as much floor area as a 60-foot class-A motor home with slide-outs extended. And since ceiling height of the Mars hab would be about the same as a class A motor home, interior volume would be the same. Under state laws for many American states, any motor home with more than 400 square feet is not an RV, it's a mobile home. A 60-foot motor home has two sections connected by an accordion flex joint. In addition, modern designs for Mars Direct would have a lower deck with an airlock, compartment the size of a single car garage for the rover and surface science equipment that would be emptied once on Mars so could be used as a laboratory or workshop, and an inflatable greenhouse that once set up would have same width as a double car garage and twice the length. My point is Mars Direct is *NOT* spartan. It's luxurious. Anyone who thinks Mars Direct is spartan, try saying that to the face of an Apollo astronaut who had to sleep in a LM on the Moon. But you want to expand crew to 11?

Expanding the first mission that big will end up with one of these Hollywood monstrosities:
latest?cb=20160412174019
This is Hermes, the interplanetary ship from the movie "The Martian". It's as big as a navy frigate, but while an Oliver Hazard Perry-class ship carries 176 men, this fictional ship carried 6. Notice it has 3 solar arrays identical to ISS. ISS had 4. We don't need to send an entire space station.

latest?cb=20091215000835
Discovery, from the movie "2001 a Space Odyssey".

Alexei Leonov, from the movie "2010: Odyssey Two".

Battlestar Galactica, the one Robert Zubrin likes to cite. The top one is from the original 1978 movie and series, the lower one is from the 2004 reboot.

I could go on, but you get the point. We need something real. Mars Direct is a significant increase in size from Apollo; the appropriate next step.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-04-30 12:52:11)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-30 12:36:36

Rob-
I typo'd the 500 day stay as 200 due to a distraction. So-- going 860 days without a physician present is a GOOD idea? Not. On a mission of this type, we need to acquire as much data on the crew members as possible, as well as doing all the Mars science.

I understand the reluctance of the early astronauts of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo to a physician, but those were missions of limited duration. What concerns we--traumatic injury caused by a rover overturn or operational accident; a fall down a ravine; appendicitis or an abcess; dental emergency from a cracked or broken tooth, or a dental emergency requiring an extraction. These are all possible requirements that aren't simply fantasy.

The type of data collection requiring a physician would be periodic monitoring of temperature, pulse, and respiration; all minimally invasive these days. Periodic EKGs, and monitor of blood counts--say on a weekly to every 10 days period. This is how we can monitor the effect of reduced gravity and the ability to withstand the rigors of Earth return reentry. I really don't expect that the physician will become bored, as he will also be tasked with doubling up on all the other duties, including exploration and sample analysis.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-30 13:15:16)

louis · 2018-04-30 12:59:23

That crew scenario certainly appears doable. However, I would still favour a crew of six. This being Mission One, Space X will need to be ultra-cautious, doubling or tripling up on supplies and back up equipment. The more crew means the more habitat.

Six crew members could cover the following roles (covered in each case by at least one crew member, who will have at least one assistant or deputy who can take over the role if necessary):

1. Mission Leader
2. Landing/Ascent Pilot (largely an emergency role)
3. Geologist/biologist
4. Medical doctor/psychologist
5. Rover driver
6. Surface mining specialist.
7. Agricultural supervisor
8. Coms Specialist
9. Industrial processes supervisor
10. 3D printer operator
11. Propellant plant operator and fuelling supervisor
12. Engineer and robotics specialist.

Six is a good number for daily briefing meetings. Ten or more starts to get a bit more difficult to manage.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Under a different heading, the question of optimal (minimum) crew size for early missions again arose. There have been several discussions of this topic embedded in other threads, but this is now becoming closer to reality than ever in the past.
If we go back to the Zubrin-Baker original Mars Direct concept, they suggested a 4 man crew and an 18 month stay couples with 200 day +/- residence time between Hohmann transfer windows. It probably would have worked OK, but would have imposed tremendous workload requirements and mental strain on the crew members. With such a small crew, the workload would have ultimately become overwhelming, and took no notice of the possibility of incapacitation through illness or injury by accidents.
After the presentation to NASA, the size and scope of the mission was suitably modified to include a crew of 7. The arguments there were salient and allowed for better utilization of residence time on Mars.
We're had other suggestions on this website for even a solo mission, 2 or 3 man missions, etc. These in my mind, would be doomed to failure from mental breakdowns, illness, accident injuries, as well as a host of other unplanned or unanticipated causes.
In one of my first mission architectures posted a year or more ago, I argued for either a 7 man or 10 (or 11) man mission. Below, I'll detail my reasoning for such. As well as the composition of this team, starting with the 10 man and working backwards to 7.
Ten (11) man crew Mission:
Mission leader (1) or (2, second in command)
Exploration teams (3) composed of 3 crewmen
OK, why 3 members on each exploration team? Primary reason is rescue from unanticipated accidents. Two crew can more readily rescue and transport a team member who has fallen into a ravine or sinkhole, or who has fallen from an exposed position. A broken limb due to a form of osteoporosis cannot be ruled out. The rovers should be designed for occupancy by 4 with a fold down set of seats in order to accommodate a litter.
Since I am one here who is less concerned with the exposure to GCR than the radiation worriers, the GCR load will be significantly lower than those on ISS in LEO. Some have calculated the GCR exposure will be something like 40% of deep space. On the other hand it would be irresponsible to ignore the cumulative effects that could later in life lead to health issues. This is my rationale for exposure reduction.
Each team would be strictly limited to36 hours per week of exposure outside the habitat, which should be constructed in a manner to take advantage of some regolith overburden for safety in the case of a solar flare event. The powered rovers should also be constructed from materials which attenuate radiation exposure, as well as the tracked "Bobcat" front end loader-skid steer.
I'll henceforth call these 3 man (person?) crews "Triads," since the crew composition would be a mutually complimentary set of explorers. But each Triad will be somewhat unique; the emphasis of the first mission will be getting as much science and planetary data collected as possible. To that end, we will need several disciplines along, but at least 2 geologists, one of whom should be a hydrologist concerned with locating a source of water. The second geologist should be a field paleontologist concerned with looking for evidence of fossils of past Martian life forms and sample collection. We will also need something of a construction foreman/excavation expert capable of clearing a large landing site and levelling such, as well as determining the potential of the regolith to support a fully loaded BFS/BFR cargo mission and a larger passenger transporter.
Inside the habitat we'll have a science crew capable of doing analysis of samples and appropriate recording of data which will be streamed back to Earth. There will be a lot of equipment maintenance involved, too. And rest, some relaxation, and habitat sanitation, food preparation, etc. With 2 triads outside at a time, one group will be on exploration missions in the rover; the second will be engaged in additional construction and site improvement. The inside crew will be charged with monitoring the environment of the hab, and maintaining adequate communications with the outside crews and mother Earth. Everyone will be engaged, but the outside work will be on a rotating basis. No single crew will be outside more than 2 Sols in a row. There will of necessity, be mandatory stand-down times during sandstorm periods as well as some necessary R & R time where crew members can communicate with their families/loved ones on Earth.
Many will have their own "take" on things, but my crews will probably survive and not become burned out physical or emotionally.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-30 13:04:59

I saw TV interviews with astronauts. Chris Hadfield was a Canadian astronaut, was commander of ISS for one "mission". Before becoming an astronaut he was a test pilot. He said part of his astronaut training included learning how to perform simple dental work you describe, or an appendectomy.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-30 14:40:21

Rob-
It's one thing to "be crosstrained to do...XXX," versus being able to do it because you've done it before. One of the objectives of these early missions is to ensure good health of all team members, but also collect a bunch of data on the physiological impact of living and working in 0.38 g environment for 500 days, in addition to the effects observed from 360 days of interplanetary travel. Yeah, I'm sure the associated MD wouldn't be the most popular guy in the crew, but a "necessary evil." Until someone gets seriously hurt or if illness overtakes someone. Along with the ability to conduct a rather cursory autopsy, should someone expire. Data is data is data. It's one of the reasons for the early missions. Get that DATA!

RobertDyck · 2018-04-30 15:28:51

I could understand the need for a physician for a permanent settlement. However, we're talking about earth Mars landings. That is exploration, and cost has to be kept low. We already saw NASA ask for everything under the Sun in their 90-Day Report in 1989, with a $450 billion price tag. In 1989 dollars. Congress took one look at the price tag as say "No way in hell!" In fact Congress prohibited NASA from even thinking about anything human beyond LEO until George W. Bush. We don't want another over-priced monstrosity. We don't want what Robert Zubrin calls "Battlestar Galactica".

SpaceX is getting funding from the military for BFR. Good for them. We'll see if/when that happens. I still point out plans for BFR really require something in place on Mars before the first one arrives. And we need something small. Some people are already complaining that SLS is too expensive. Well, I guess I'm one of them. If SLS were to take the same time to develop as Saturn V, the first unmanned test launch should have happened last December. And if you take total development cost of Saturn V and apply inflation, SLS has already cost more. And that's just for SLS block 1, it would take block 2 or 2B to match lift capacity.

I'm saying keep it small. We have seen missions grow large, and get cancelled because the budget ballooned to large. Contractors are trying to balloon any Mars mission. Corporate executives think it's Ok. They don't care about Mars. From their perspective, it's just about funnelling cash into their pockets. So if they're paid for something with the word "Mars" in it, which gets cancelled, they're still paid. Then they can promise to do it again, get paid more money, and get it cancelled again. And again, and again, and again.

Making the initial mission big and expensive, greatly increases the chance it'll never happen.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-30 15:56:12

Rob-
I fully appreciate that position, and I am in agreement that we need something on Mars prior to the BFS landings to ensure they work out smoothly. It's just IMHO that trying to go too "minimalist," will also be problematic. I don't want to see failure. Part of my rationale is psychology/sociology in play. We need a few more faces and individuals where we can not become bored or angry with the company we are forced to keep. I also believe that when the first booster stage of the BFR is completed, it could conceivably be incorporated to a somewhat smaller trans-Mars stage for starters. The engineering for the BFS upper stage will be an engineering monster, so a smaller version might keep things going for my suggested mission profile.

louis · 2018-04-30 16:28:15

This is already a large project - the BFR is as its name suggests pretty huge.

I think you definitely need medically trained people as part of the Mission One crew. Space X appear to be planning to have over 500 tonnes as cargo for Mission One so there's plenty of scope to take relevant medical equipment, including x ray machine, ultrasound, and I would suggest a robot anaesthetist. I think Space X should look into robot surgery and AI diagnostics. (It might also be useful for crew members to have a private consultation with an AI doctor rather than a team member...it could be used to assess psychological health as well.) If someone breaks a leg or there is a pressure acccident or some other disaster, a doctor's presence could be vital. Of course the doctor could be the victim, which is why I suggest for every role there has to be an understudy. If someone is seriously injured or otherwise falls seriously ill, a doctor may be required to nurse them. On 2-3 year mission someone could fall ill with a serious cancer say and need at palliative care in the form of pain control. Also, all the crew need to be medically monitored, and a doctor really needs to oversee that monitoring and prescribe medication where necessary.

RobertDyck wrote:

I could understand the need for a physician for a permanent settlement. However, we're talking about earth Mars landings. That is exploration, and cost has to be kept low. We already saw NASA ask for everything under the Sun in their 90-Day Report in 1989, with a $450 billion price tag. In 1989 dollars. Congress took one look at the price tag as say "No way in hell!" In fact Congress prohibited NASA from even thinking about anything human beyond LEO until George W. Bush. We don't want another over-priced monstrosity. We don't want what Robert Zubrin calls "Battlestar Galactica".
SpaceX is getting funding from the military for BFR. Good for them. We'll see if/when that happens. I still point out plans for BFR really require something in place on Mars before the first one arrives. And we need something small. Some people are already complaining that SLS is too expensive. Well, I guess I'm one of them. If SLS were to take the same time to develop as Saturn V, the first unmanned test launch should have happened last December. And if you take total development cost of Saturn V and apply inflation, SLS has already cost more. And that's just for SLS block 1, it would take block 2 or 2B to match lift capacity.
I'm saying keep it small. We have seen missions grow large, and get cancelled because the budget ballooned to large. Contractors are trying to balloon any Mars mission. Corporate executives think it's Ok. They don't care about Mars. From their perspective, it's just about funnelling cash into their pockets. So if they're paid for something with the word "Mars" in it, which gets cancelled, they're still paid. Then they can promise to do it again, get paid more money, and get it cancelled again. And again, and again, and again.
Making the initial mission big and expensive, greatly increases the chance it'll never happen.

Last edited by louis (2018-04-30 18:43:26)

RobertDyck · 2018-04-30 17:22:30

I have also argued for a lot of small things first. Notice the Moon plan that I proposed. Use Falcon Heavy and Dragon. The new stage I proposed would use carbon fibre composite propellant tanks, and LCH4/LOX. The Lunar module would also, and it includes propellant transfer. BFR requires all of this, but my proposal is to do it first with something much smaller. Develop technology with something small first.

I have also argued for:

unmanned orbiter to enter Mars orbit use aerocapture
small robotic Mars sample return mission, to demonstrate ISPP as well as Earth return technology
install Centrifuge Accommodation Module on ISS to research long-term effects of partial gravity, such as Mars gravity
demonstrate manoeuvring while rotating in tethered flight using a small crew capsule tethered to an unmanned cargo ship filled with garbage
upgrade life support equipment on ISS to recycle more tightly
operate ISS without cargo resupply for full duration of a Mars mission (from Earth surface to Earth surface), to demonstrate life support can reliably operate that long with nothing other than pre-positioned spare parts and tools
develop MCP spacesuit, machine washable
install lithium ion batteries on existing spacesuit on ISS that can withstand 500+ charge/discharge cycles (one full EVA every Mars sol) - [I think now complete]
If the powers that be insist on anything significant on the Moon, do so with a Mars habitat.

SpaceNut · 2018-04-30 18:47:14

Initial post of how many is more dependant on how large the ship is that will bring man to mars and less on what they will be in charge of or the science that will get done even by none experts just general all around abilities will go farther towards the end goal.

Second post about Doctors, just send a general surgeon with a nurse practicianer should do just fine as biometrics will be apart of weekly to monthly checkups for health issues. Biometrics will be also taken while in the space suits and relayed to earth for monitoring.

Would be nice to have a BFR but when planning will we get one on that first mission and not just what we have assembled in earth orbit and modified for mars landings.

Using the moon as a building of technology, hardware to go to mars as practice is a plus and we can get a data point for man's health as well for a long surface stay on the moon.

elderflower · 2018-05-01 02:21:10

Ships have carried, and continue to carry, medical personnel. In the Navy they call them surgeons. They get quite senior ranks so that they can't easily be overruled. Ships are not out of touch for anything like the duration of a Mars mission. Not even missile deterrent boats are away that long.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-02 20:44:59

Could monitoring the crew be as simple as Teen's Apple Watch may have saved her life

Apple Watch alerted her that her resting heart rate had spiked to 190 while she was simply sitting in a pew at church...

"The watch kept saying that Deanna's heart rate would go up to 140, then dip back down to 60, then go up to 140 again. Then it spiked to 190 and the watch vibrated on her arm, alerting her to seek medical attention,"

So could some of the crews healthcare be as simple as providing the tech.....

Sure the outcome did require more tests but it was a simple pulse detection that led the way....

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-02 21:09:05

The suit for on surface outside activities will undoubtedly have a respirometer/heart rate monitor system built in. It should be able to monitor & regulate the flow of oxygen of the wearer. Daily monitoring of blood pressure is simple. Frequent urinalysis is also simple with various dip test sticks. A weekly finger prick should be all that's required for a blood count and coagulation monitoring. These are all the vitals really needed for health monitoring.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-03 16:36:58

Thou we should also monitor when at rest as it would seem to find the not so normal conditions that might occur. All of the above requires a not even a doctor to do as the test gear does everything for you. Collect the data and send it on its way... back to Nasa.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-03 17:28:04

A doctor would be advisable, in case of severe traumatic injuries. Also, doing periodic EKG, listening to lungs and heart. These are things that a "paramedic trained" crewman would be marginally able to do. I'm just saying that the medical monitoring should NOT be a full time job, and as such, the practitioner will have other duties as well.

louis · 2018-05-03 18:22:01

I agree entirely. There are many doctors who are also v. capable sculptors, rally drivers, farmers etc.

I would say that v. gifted people can span a couple of discrete disciplines.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

A doctor would be advisable, in case of severe traumatic injuries. Also, doing periodic EKG, listening to lungs and heart. These are things that a "paramedic trained" crewman would be marginally able to do. I'm just saying that the medical monitoring should NOT be a full time job, and as such, the practitioner will have other duties as well.

Terraformer · 2018-05-04 16:56:26

Well, there's going to be a biologist going along anyway. There are a fair number of people who have both biology and medical degrees, so I don't think it will be that hard to find someone.

samardza · 2018-05-04 18:16:19

The expedition you want to really look at in Nansen's Fram expedition, 1893-96. The Doctor on that expedition had very little to do as far as healthcare. You have to remember that these men are going to be very healthy to start with.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-04 18:33:42

Welcome back to Newmars, you sure have not been around much but I hope that this time will be longer....

I happened across an image of early shelter and thouight that it was very mars appropriate..

Sure looks like a mars recycled rocket to me....

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-04 20:44:44

My personal choice for an appropriate MD would be a trauma cross-trained Pathologist, one with great microscopy skills. That way we would have an experienced set of eyes looking at potential "alien" life forms. That is what everyone has alluded to.

louis · 2018-05-05 05:27:55

Maybe but AI software has been shown to better than humans at spotting pathologies and presumably could be trained to spot possible organic life...

Oldfart1939 wrote:

My personal choice for an appropriate MD would be a trauma cross-trained Pathologist, one with great microscopy skills. That way we would have an experienced set of eyes looking at potential "alien" life forms. That is what everyone has alluded to.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-08 18:38:09

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.spacere … 18_Web.pdf

page 20 Human Health Countermeasures Element (HHC)

lots of good stuff in the document

page 22 Exploration Medical Capability Element

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-04-30 10:31:59

Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#2 2018-04-30 11:06:54

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#3 2018-04-30 12:11:11

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#4 2018-04-30 12:13:51

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#5 2018-04-30 12:36:36

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#6 2018-04-30 12:59:23

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#7 2018-04-30 13:04:59

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#8 2018-04-30 14:40:21

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#9 2018-04-30 15:28:51

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#10 2018-04-30 15:56:12

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#11 2018-04-30 16:28:15

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#12 2018-04-30 17:22:30

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#13 2018-04-30 18:47:14

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#14 2018-05-01 02:21:10

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#15 2018-05-02 20:44:59

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#16 2018-05-02 21:09:05

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#17 2018-05-03 16:36:58

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#18 2018-05-03 17:28:04

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#19 2018-05-03 18:22:01

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#20 2018-05-04 16:56:26

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#21 2018-05-04 18:16:19

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#22 2018-05-04 18:33:42

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#23 2018-05-04 20:44:44

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#24 2018-05-05 05:27:55

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

#25 2018-05-08 18:38:09

Re: Minimum crew size for early Mars landings.

Board footer