The following submission statement was provided by /u/chemistrynerd1994:
---
From the article:
"From NASA to SpaceX, numerous space agencies and private spaceflight companies have bold plans to send humans to Mars, possibly even within the next few decades.
Given NASA's ambitious plans to land astronauts on Mars by 2040, a hot topic of debate has been who will get to represent humanity on the Red Planet. At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1459j2u/should_future_mars_missions_have_allfemale_crews/jnjow82/
When I was young I had an old comic where an astronaut goes to mars, outruns attacking martians and flies back to earth. Mission Control is in contact with him and privately regrets not being qualified to be an astronaut. When he lands we find he is a little person because only they can fit in the little rockets possible.
Honestly now I'm just imagining a scenario where we send them then ww3 happens. Hundreds of years later we go back to Mars and find a race of small humanoids living in deep mines below the surface. Perhaps obsessed with rare metals.
Maybe the typical aliens with green skin, three fingers, and big heads are just the result of a secret attempt by a government to colonize another planet without enough genetic diversity.
Just get the smartest, most talented people possible. It’s a $100M vs what will probably be a trillion dollar program, so literally a rounding error.
This will be such a valuable and rare mission that we need to focus on maximizing the value gained.
Well, some diversity matters for the initial mission. Women and men do have some differences biologically, so it's useful to gather medical data on how both function in Mars's environment.
Aside from that though, just grabbing a random handful of the most qualified people is best.
There’s no way diversity won’t be a MAJOR bearing in the selection criteria for “First Humans to Step on Mars.”
I’m not suggesting any selections will be sub-par, there are plenty of geniuses out there, but I’d bet my car that we will see a woman of color on the landing craft.
I mean, of course it will be, regardless of whether or not it has scientific benefit. We'll probably have a white guy, a black man, a woman, and either an Asian or Latino if every other aspect is equal. NASA is a government program, so they want people watching to feel represented.
*Aside* from social concerns though, there is some scientific merit to having a variety of physiologies on a long term mission like this, as it allows us to gather a lot more data.
Literally diversity does not matter at all. Like, zero percent importance. All that matters is maximizing the chances of success. If that means they are all one armed dwarf Asian transsexuals, send them. If it’s all blond haired blue eyed white guys, send them.
Just send the best for the mission.
In this case, having women and men would provide better data on how our bodies will react to other worlds, which would be best for both the mission and future mission effeciency.
> Literally diversity does not matter at all. Like, zero percent importance
On an interplanetary mission? It does. Understanding how people bodies respond to that environment is part of the mission.
The margins on "best possible people" are so slim, and how can you ever be certain you've actually found the "best possible people" out of the many who are all qualified?
There are definitely other considerations worth taking into account
I'd almost bet nobody at NASA gives a hoot about the money beyond if its in budget or not..
It would be more the weight itself.
One and a half kilo might not *sound* like much, but that would be something like... one more small personal thing per crew. Or one more small experiment to run in low gravity.
Either you think that means the best possible people are ripped white cishet men only or you'd be happy if they coincidentally were, say, a group of queer women of color that all fell in poly love during training
If you accept only the smartest, most talented, most physically fit scientists and engineers...you still have hundreds of candidates for a 4 person mission.
Further whitling the candidates by caloric requirements makes sense.
That’s the talent pool you select from, from there you have training and cut prospects like in every other elite program. You have a class for each of the various job functions, people get graded and ranked, and then you build out a roster with primary crew and backups.
No, calories do not matter. Literally all that matters is maximizing the chances of success. That’s it. That’s the job. Go there, collect all of the data we can, perform whatever expirements are deemed necessary, and return home safely.
That might be true within a budget constraint. But this budget constraint will not be a factor. Again, it’s a $150 million cost against a $1,000,000 million program.
It's not just budget. It's physics. Nearly two tons of extra mass to get to orbit is a lot, and could probably benefit the mission more by being used for additional equipment and experiments.
Its not a "budget constraint" regardless of how the article is framed. Its a "food/02 are scarce in space and people that use less of those would probably be better for a mission where those requirements have to measured and rationed". If people with innie genitals use less resources and can complete the mission theres no reason to send someone with an outie genital if they would use more just because a few people on the internet don't like it.
They'll also have to account for the extra mass of fuel and supplies in calculating the route between planets. 2 extra tons will either increase travel time or require a greater burn both to accelerate and decelerate once you reach the destination.
Which will require more fuel to be loaded.
Which increases the weight, and increases the travel time.
Repeat as many times as you like.
It ain’t just the cost of the food that matters, it’s the weight and storage space requirements too though.
Getting heavy payloads to orbit requires more fuel, which creates more weight, which requires more fuel, which creates more weight, which requires more fuel…you see where this is going.
It's funny how often fireman, police officers etc you have idiots ranting and raving about muscle mass and blah blah. Here is a concrete benefit in the other direction and suddenly other factors are important now eh? :D
Not to mention the illusion that hiring people have magic abilities to get "the best", that there even is "the best".
Yes, with fireman and policeman an infantry and any other physically demanding job, the inherent biological physical advantages men have make them more suitable to the job.
No, this does not go the other way in this case because (1) the money saved is not mission critical and (2) the rarity and importance of the mission, not to mention the total financial outlay, demands that the mission be crewed by the best astronauts possible.
Yes, there are most certainly people who are better and worse at different jobs. Yes, they can be identified. This idea that it’s impossible to find elite individuals in something as demanding as scientific space exploration is laughable.
It's worth noting that there is such a specific reason in the case of space travel:
(1) the cost and complexity of lofting something to orbit, let alone all the way to Mars, increase more than exponentially with its mass and size. 1.5 tons may not sound like much, but unless you have torch drive technology it can make an enormous difference if you can shave it off your payload.
This isn't to say you should get nothing but women for this mission, but if you can get a few to shave even half a ton it can be significant. In space travel, *every gram counts*.
Yeah, just fuck all that weight eh?
It is clearly a biological benefit and again you presume humans have the ability to know who "the best" are.
Often times "the best" is who vibes most with the person hiring.
Though it's painfully clear you presume women could not be the best. Good luck in life.
Yes, fuck all that weight. It is literally a rounding error in the budget.
Yes, I presume humans have the ability to know who the best are. The entire world runs on this presumption which is how things actually get done.
No, I have not presumed anything about who the best are. I have simply rejected the stupid idea that women are a better choice because they eat less. Because it’s fucking stupid. If a woman outperforms a man, she she should be selected over that man.
This is going to be a trillion dollar investment with radical levels of risk both known and unknown. We need the absolute best people for the job regardless of their genitals or skin color or any other stupid diversity quota consideration. If it’s all women or men or white people or black people or Muslims or atheists or whatever else, it does not matter. Just get the best people period.
It would be moronic to choose people based on gender like you suggest. Absolutely room temperature IQ level stupidity.
Just launch the nukes and destroy the world already. I'm so tired of the ridiculous mental gymnastics men go through to justify why they are "better" than women, all while they pretend like it's just about finding the "best".
I think what most people who make this argument either fail to understand, or willfully and disingenuously set aside, is that we have a huge pool of the smartest most talented people. Frankly smart talented people are a dime a dozen. What you may lack is TRAINED people, but NASA keeps a pretty huge group of astronauts trained at any given time. (Also, this mission is far enough off they can train a whole new set before hand). So actually they can pick from a pool of the best most qualified people and easily make the decision for it to be fully staffed by women. Noooo issue.
Cost saving is just a way to express it for the masses, it really means there's that much extra weight and volume available for additional equipment, fuel or emergency supplies, which could be very valuable and likely would cost even more than the food to get on the ship.
It's not the money, it's the weight. And if you can assume that the smartest, most talented people can always be in contact with the team from ground control, there's little lost by economizing on weight. Better to spend 1700kg on scientific equipment rather than food after all.
I feel this is based on "old space" paradigm. I looked at the study and there was no reference of cost to orbit.
In the 1980s, it cost over $75k to carry one kilogram to space in a single use rocket (just the astronaut's body cost over $5M). SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has brought it down to $1,500/kg (50 times cheaper). Starship will bring it down a further 99.3% to \~$10/kg.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/09/28909310/elon-musk-calls-starship-an-incredible-enabler-for-science-launch-costs-at-a-highly-competitive-10kg
this is coming from the man that has been promising fully functional self driving vehicles coming "Next year" every single year?
the man that promises his neural implants will be going into human testing this year when it hasnt yet kept a single animal it's been implanted into alive?
i dont doubt spaceX has incredible achievements, i just doubt anything elon musk himself says
if the engineers working for his company are saying it then i'll take their word for it, but elon musk who has repeatedly lied to get investor money? i'll wait and see
This is very rocket specific. The only rocket being developed for Mars missions is Starship and prices for it are very up in the air. However the goal is being way cheaper than $10k. The Falcon 9 is cheaper than $10k already.
Alot of this thread is based on "old space". Reusable rockets are drastically cheaper.
In the 1980s, it cost over $75k to carry one kilogram to space in a big single use rocket. Just an astronaut's body cost over $5M! SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has brought it down to $1,500/kg, or 50 times cheaper. Starship will bring it down to \~$10/kg.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/09/28909310/elon-musk-calls-starship-an-incredible-enabler-for-science-launch-costs-at-a-highly-competitive-10kg
They could hire non-menstruating women or women who are on hormonal contraception to get around this. On a cursory google:
“Most women opt instead to use contraceptives and put their periods on hold, both in preparation for and during spaceflight, as highlighted in the [paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/npjmgrav20168) by Jain and her colleagues.”
I was referencing that time when NASA planned to stock Sally with 100 tampons for a week long trip, and she had to explain to them how insane that was.
Yeah that was a funny story lol. I was responding to your comment that “they would need all that weight and more to cover their menstrual cycles.” That isn’t necessarily the case.
Not only women, but small women
There are many women who are naturally 140, some even less, and yet they are strong healthy individuals
They can weight 40kg despite being ripped
Yes. It’s a great concept. Also, for re-population they don’t need men. iVF a few thousand/million embryos already inseminated and you have complete genetic diversity.
During the design phase, the Space Shuttle (STS) program planned and justified on the assumption that 'reusable' spacecraft would save money, but [that never worked out in the end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Space_Shuttle_program). In all likelihood, the estimated savings of restricting Mars missions to all-female crews will probably evaporate in real life, while unfairly denying male astronauts the opportunity to work on Mars missions. A 50-50 male-female crew complement might be justified, however.
>At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation.
Um...but wouldn't a crew explicitly restricted to only one gender be the exact opposite of diversity?
In this context, they mean 'diversity and representation' in the broader context of astronauts - i.e. 'we aren't trying to send only women for the sake of the PR, it has specific benefits'.
Except that the statement is so vague and nonspecific that it could be open to many possible interpretations, yours being one of many possible ones. My interpretation is that it is coded language for, 'we want female-only crews, regardless of whether or not it affects "diversity".
but an oopsie conceived and gestated in space would at least be interesting scientifically. Sucks for the kid having to come back to a gravity well eventually though.
Edit: Spelling
There have been long-duration mixed-crew assignments to the International Space Station and no accidental pregnancies have ever taken place. It's likely that the possibility you are suggesting is/has been avoided in similar missions in the past through careful crew selection.
This isn't really the reason why you want majority women in space.
Women are not as affected by space radiation and bone density loss, possibly something to do with estrogen, but the current exact reason is unknown. But it's been proven multiple times through space shuttle and ISS crews that women can land back on earth after long stays in space and get up and walk out of their own space capsules on their own feet usually.
Men however suffer much greater losses of muscle and bone density and usually require to be carrier out of there space shuttles and go through physical training back on earth.
If you really want to plan a long term Mars mission you better believe it's going to be majority women, and it has nothing to do with food consumption.
Nope. Females are just pre-adapted better to space than males.
With the bone density thing, that's mostly because females hold onto their calcium better. Their bodies need to compete with a fetus/nursing infant that's a massive drain on calcium, and nature tends to favor the life of the mother over the life of any fetus/infant. So, once a pre-menopausal woman's bones start experiencing a Ca deficit, they hold on hard to what remains
As to the radiological resistance, there's two things going on. The first is simple: females have two copies of the X chromosome, males have one copy. The X chromosome codes for *a lot*, so damage there cause serious issues. The second is that women seems to have a slight but significantly better repair pathway for genetic damage. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure if it's really known yet, but females experience less autosomal damage compared to males, when exposed to the same radiological flux.
It's strange how needs from troupes of hunter-gatherers from the African savanna shaped our fitness for spaceflight, but here we are.
If high testosterone criminals with endless traumatic events in their history (which lead to higher sex drive) are your endpoint.
By the way, there's not much substance to this myth in general, the overall incidence is in the lower single digits numbers, most of it is consensual. 43% affects women. So there's no big difference either.
It’s kinda fun how many of these comments come from a place of feeling left out for not being a woman… despite the fact that whoever they send, it was never going to be anyone in this thread 😂
That's... not how that works at all? 1.7 tons worth of extra cargo isn't likely to expand the size of the *rocket* or the *Mars transfer vehicle*, so we're strictly talking about a marginal scale-up of the *lander*. In the absolute most extreme case, an extra engine and a little more fuel tankage volume (along with the extra propellant plumbing, a handful of extra tubing loops in the radiators, stronger landing legs, etc. to compensate) would probably cost 7 million or so.
If another engine isn't needed, the cost increment would scarcely be noticeable (somewhere in the tens of thousands at worst) unless it just happened to push the design over some threshold that forced serious changes, like making the parts using new machinery instead of reusing something already built, or modifying one of the rocket stages used for the mission.
Cost per kilogram is another of those nonsense figures like GDP, that sounds like it tells you everything, but actually gives no useful description of the situation.
(Unless you're just sending bulk goods like water, rocket fuel, rivets, solar panels, or cheese into orbit. In that case, $/kg is a reasonable way to figure out how expensive the given part of the project will be. But often, the payload something like a space probe or a Mars lander. In those cases, the entire thing has to be put on one single rocket anyway, so unless it runs over the maximum payload capacity of the rocket, or the extra weight results in something massively more expensive on the payload such as extra engines, the cost essentially doesn't change.)
What about all the kotex pads they will need. And a way to dispose of them. And then the chocolate they'll need to eat while on their cycle.......just saying 🙄 🤔
Back then there hadn't been any movies showing 80 lb. women beating the crap out of several 200 lb. men at once. Now, we're much better informed. After all, you never know when you're going to have to go toe-to-toe with a space monster.
It depends, do you foresee needing strength greater than an all female crew can provide?
This isn't a slight. Women are typically smaller, requiring less food. Men are typically larger and stronger, requiring more food.
I'd imagine for an orbit-only mission, the answer would be no. Landing may be different, but they may also employ systems that weigh less than a man/his food allowance to assist them with lifting/moving stuff on planet, should they ever get there. Gravity is also lesser on Mars so less strength would be needed.
I'm sorry but picking people based on gender for a mission as important as the Mars Mission is idiotic.
Send the absolute best of the best. Politics be damned.
Women can be jockeys, ever seen Pushing Daisies (I know Olive Snook isn't a real person but the part of the show that addressed her being a jockey in the past didn't make it sound groundbreaking so they must have based that plot point on a history of at least some real female jockeys)
Lenin Peak 2.0. Additionally, I have never observed a group of more than 3 women living in close quarters that did not become very combative with each other when their wasnt a male regularly present. The female expression of aggression is through social means, destroying one anothers reputations and relationships incognito. I am of the mind that team cohesiveness would erode dramatically before reaching Mars, if it didn't simply Lenin Peak before then.
From the article:
"From NASA to SpaceX, numerous space agencies and private spaceflight companies have bold plans to send humans to Mars, possibly even within the next few decades.
Given NASA's ambitious plans to land astronauts on Mars by 2040, a hot topic of debate has been who will get to represent humanity on the Red Planet. At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation."
If 2 tons if what makes or breaks the mission, we are planning wrong. We should have the ability to send several hundred tons surplus supplies.
Nothing less than a 5-10 starships with 200 tons of cargo each. (not counting the 10+ ships with cargo they should send in the years leading to a mars mission)
Ok the food budget is saved. But what about strength and height and well rounded team being important. What if we need more power but just can’t get it. But great we saved a few carrots
Are there many situations where a marginal amount of physical strength factors in to space missions? Lots of heavy lifting in zero gravity? Did they forget to lube up the hatches and need some elbow grease?
this is a mars mission, not just zero gravity. And while things in zero gravity do not have weight they still have mass appropriate to whatever they are made of.
Mars needs robots that can be remotely controlled. You'd just be giving quite a bit of women rad poisoning. Robots controlled long distance by people, not people directly on planet yet.
rip the chances for all the better qualified female candidates that are slightly heavier or would require more nutrients.
Literally easiest problem to solve. Use tax money (probably cheaper than building a monthly worth of warhead productions) to build a supply rocket unit that starts just after the Mars mission.
And for fucks sake pick qualified people over cost efficient. In the end, it might become a full female crew anyway 🤔
it won't. If you have a group of several hundred candidates and all you are doing is picking the most dedicated, qualified, capable personell there will be men on the group unless you handicap them like putting a weight limit of 60kg.
I always question the idea that women need less food than men. Ok I get men have more muscle etc but you ever tried having a period? Dude I’d eat the house if I could.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chemistrynerd1994: --- From the article: "From NASA to SpaceX, numerous space agencies and private spaceflight companies have bold plans to send humans to Mars, possibly even within the next few decades. Given NASA's ambitious plans to land astronauts on Mars by 2040, a hot topic of debate has been who will get to represent humanity on the Red Planet. At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1459j2u/should_future_mars_missions_have_allfemale_crews/jnjow82/
Perhaps just send little people … even more savings.
Dwarfs, Hobbits or children?
Space Dwarves!
Rock and stone!
ROCK AND STONE BROTHER!!
Rock and stone yeaaaaah!
FOR ROCK AND STONE!
Rock and stone from the heart!
##ROCK AND STONE OR WE DON’T GO HOME
Rock and stone forever!
If you don't rock & stone, don't bother comin' home!
Say dwarven technology again!!
They can build a fortress on Mars! A dwarf fortress!
The lost Vikings in space is lit
[The children yearn for the mines](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/550/442/9db.png)
Hobbit children with dwarfism! Now we're cooking!
This is an interesting concept for a scifi book. Maybe Mark Watney was really 4 feet tall and it just never came up
When I was young I had an old comic where an astronaut goes to mars, outruns attacking martians and flies back to earth. Mission Control is in contact with him and privately regrets not being qualified to be an astronaut. When he lands we find he is a little person because only they can fit in the little rockets possible.
The Martians will be so confused when they see a normal sized person a hundred years later.
Honestly now I'm just imagining a scenario where we send them then ww3 happens. Hundreds of years later we go back to Mars and find a race of small humanoids living in deep mines below the surface. Perhaps obsessed with rare metals.
Former gymnasts.
Thats why Japanese anime uses 14 year old girls as mecha pilots
Too many health problems.
I think to save money, NASA's first Mars mission should be 100% Chinese
Nasa : we shaved 99% off our Mars mission by ordering our next rocket on wish. Also Nasa : our new rockets are open cockpit.
Send one man and a woman. Call them adam and eve. And test the theory.
But who will plant that tree?
you gotta send at least one snake too
Fyi, the "serpent" was a dragon, and god punished it by taking its wings and legs for deceiving Eve.
Imagine all the inbred necessary, they would become monsters by the 4° generation lol
Wait! Are you telling me that Adam and Eve story is made up?
Maybe the typical aliens with green skin, three fingers, and big heads are just the result of a secret attempt by a government to colonize another planet without enough genetic diversity.
Just get the smartest, most talented people possible. It’s a $100M vs what will probably be a trillion dollar program, so literally a rounding error. This will be such a valuable and rare mission that we need to focus on maximizing the value gained.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Just send the best possible people for the job. Nothing else matters.
Well, some diversity matters for the initial mission. Women and men do have some differences biologically, so it's useful to gather medical data on how both function in Mars's environment. Aside from that though, just grabbing a random handful of the most qualified people is best.
I personally want to know how a dolphin functions on Mars
I personally want to know how feelings will work on Mars
I also want to know if there will be a stowaway when they get to work on Mars.
Probably a Pauly shore biodome situation. Sure would suck to get tossed out the airlock.
There’s no way diversity won’t be a MAJOR bearing in the selection criteria for “First Humans to Step on Mars.” I’m not suggesting any selections will be sub-par, there are plenty of geniuses out there, but I’d bet my car that we will see a woman of color on the landing craft.
I mean, of course it will be, regardless of whether or not it has scientific benefit. We'll probably have a white guy, a black man, a woman, and either an Asian or Latino if every other aspect is equal. NASA is a government program, so they want people watching to feel represented. *Aside* from social concerns though, there is some scientific merit to having a variety of physiologies on a long term mission like this, as it allows us to gather a lot more data.
Literally diversity does not matter at all. Like, zero percent importance. All that matters is maximizing the chances of success. If that means they are all one armed dwarf Asian transsexuals, send them. If it’s all blond haired blue eyed white guys, send them. Just send the best for the mission.
In this case, having women and men would provide better data on how our bodies will react to other worlds, which would be best for both the mission and future mission effeciency.
> Literally diversity does not matter at all. Like, zero percent importance On an interplanetary mission? It does. Understanding how people bodies respond to that environment is part of the mission.
It matters because without public support the project could end.
What they are saying in this article is that the physical size of the people in question is a factor in picking the "best" people.
The margins on "best possible people" are so slim, and how can you ever be certain you've actually found the "best possible people" out of the many who are all qualified? There are definitely other considerations worth taking into account
I'd almost bet nobody at NASA gives a hoot about the money beyond if its in budget or not.. It would be more the weight itself. One and a half kilo might not *sound* like much, but that would be something like... one more small personal thing per crew. Or one more small experiment to run in low gravity.
It's not 1.5kg savings, it's 1695kg, like nearly 2 tons.
or less fuel needed for take off
[https://i.imgur.com/UO3rDXB.gif](https://i.imgur.com/UO3rDXB.gif)
Either you think that means the best possible people are ripped white cishet men only or you'd be happy if they coincidentally were, say, a group of queer women of color that all fell in poly love during training
Well the budget also matters
Physics matter.
If you accept only the smartest, most talented, most physically fit scientists and engineers...you still have hundreds of candidates for a 4 person mission. Further whitling the candidates by caloric requirements makes sense.
That’s the talent pool you select from, from there you have training and cut prospects like in every other elite program. You have a class for each of the various job functions, people get graded and ranked, and then you build out a roster with primary crew and backups. No, calories do not matter. Literally all that matters is maximizing the chances of success. That’s it. That’s the job. Go there, collect all of the data we can, perform whatever expirements are deemed necessary, and return home safely.
Having a more efficient engine, or a crew that can run on fewer resources, helps to maximize the chance of success.
The "best" people for the job also fit a very narrow and specific body size to maximize space and save on launch mass and food/O2 requirements.
That might be true within a budget constraint. But this budget constraint will not be a factor. Again, it’s a $150 million cost against a $1,000,000 million program.
It's not just budget. It's physics. Nearly two tons of extra mass to get to orbit is a lot, and could probably benefit the mission more by being used for additional equipment and experiments.
Its not a "budget constraint" regardless of how the article is framed. Its a "food/02 are scarce in space and people that use less of those would probably be better for a mission where those requirements have to measured and rationed". If people with innie genitals use less resources and can complete the mission theres no reason to send someone with an outie genital if they would use more just because a few people on the internet don't like it.
I like and agree with what you have said unfortunately it will still be a male crew of little David Spades
Finally! Something short people can be better at!
Money isn't the only factor -.- You understand mass has to be accounted for on the ship getting in and out of orbit's etc? :D
They'll also have to account for the extra mass of fuel and supplies in calculating the route between planets. 2 extra tons will either increase travel time or require a greater burn both to accelerate and decelerate once you reach the destination. Which will require more fuel to be loaded. Which increases the weight, and increases the travel time. Repeat as many times as you like.
It ain’t just the cost of the food that matters, it’s the weight and storage space requirements too though. Getting heavy payloads to orbit requires more fuel, which creates more weight, which requires more fuel, which creates more weight, which requires more fuel…you see where this is going.
It's funny how often fireman, police officers etc you have idiots ranting and raving about muscle mass and blah blah. Here is a concrete benefit in the other direction and suddenly other factors are important now eh? :D Not to mention the illusion that hiring people have magic abilities to get "the best", that there even is "the best".
Yes, with fireman and policeman an infantry and any other physically demanding job, the inherent biological physical advantages men have make them more suitable to the job. No, this does not go the other way in this case because (1) the money saved is not mission critical and (2) the rarity and importance of the mission, not to mention the total financial outlay, demands that the mission be crewed by the best astronauts possible. Yes, there are most certainly people who are better and worse at different jobs. Yes, they can be identified. This idea that it’s impossible to find elite individuals in something as demanding as scientific space exploration is laughable.
It's worth noting that there is such a specific reason in the case of space travel: (1) the cost and complexity of lofting something to orbit, let alone all the way to Mars, increase more than exponentially with its mass and size. 1.5 tons may not sound like much, but unless you have torch drive technology it can make an enormous difference if you can shave it off your payload. This isn't to say you should get nothing but women for this mission, but if you can get a few to shave even half a ton it can be significant. In space travel, *every gram counts*.
Yeah, just fuck all that weight eh? It is clearly a biological benefit and again you presume humans have the ability to know who "the best" are. Often times "the best" is who vibes most with the person hiring. Though it's painfully clear you presume women could not be the best. Good luck in life.
Yes, fuck all that weight. It is literally a rounding error in the budget. Yes, I presume humans have the ability to know who the best are. The entire world runs on this presumption which is how things actually get done. No, I have not presumed anything about who the best are. I have simply rejected the stupid idea that women are a better choice because they eat less. Because it’s fucking stupid. If a woman outperforms a man, she she should be selected over that man. This is going to be a trillion dollar investment with radical levels of risk both known and unknown. We need the absolute best people for the job regardless of their genitals or skin color or any other stupid diversity quota consideration. If it’s all women or men or white people or black people or Muslims or atheists or whatever else, it does not matter. Just get the best people period. It would be moronic to choose people based on gender like you suggest. Absolutely room temperature IQ level stupidity.
Also "of its all women" but you are sitting here bitching lol.
Just launch the nukes and destroy the world already. I'm so tired of the ridiculous mental gymnastics men go through to justify why they are "better" than women, all while they pretend like it's just about finding the "best".
Chill there are great female astronauts out there on the ISS etc.
I think what most people who make this argument either fail to understand, or willfully and disingenuously set aside, is that we have a huge pool of the smartest most talented people. Frankly smart talented people are a dime a dozen. What you may lack is TRAINED people, but NASA keeps a pretty huge group of astronauts trained at any given time. (Also, this mission is far enough off they can train a whole new set before hand). So actually they can pick from a pool of the best most qualified people and easily make the decision for it to be fully staffed by women. Noooo issue.
That's what they will do, but what becomes your next selection criteria when you have 50+ stellar recruits of similar caliber?
Cost saving is just a way to express it for the masses, it really means there's that much extra weight and volume available for additional equipment, fuel or emergency supplies, which could be very valuable and likely would cost even more than the food to get on the ship.
Is the weight not the issue? the money is just bonus.
But hear me out if we get 4 small children instead of 5 adult women, we will save even more money! Hey it worked in Enders Game.
Caloric requirements also matter. It's hard to launch that much more weight. It's not just about the money.
It's not the money, it's the weight. And if you can assume that the smartest, most talented people can always be in contact with the team from ground control, there's little lost by economizing on weight. Better to spend 1700kg on scientific equipment rather than food after all.
And if smarts and talent aren't needed?
Then a lot of Reddit members can sign up.
But what if they find a jar of space pickles?? /s
I revoke myself as a candidate because I did laugh at this out loud with no one else in the room.
I feel this is based on "old space" paradigm. I looked at the study and there was no reference of cost to orbit. In the 1980s, it cost over $75k to carry one kilogram to space in a single use rocket (just the astronaut's body cost over $5M). SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has brought it down to $1,500/kg (50 times cheaper). Starship will bring it down a further 99.3% to \~$10/kg. https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/09/28909310/elon-musk-calls-starship-an-incredible-enabler-for-science-launch-costs-at-a-highly-competitive-10kg
I'm not taking Musk estimates seriously until I see a functioning Hyperloop.
Hyperloop is a fucking stupid idea. Musk abandoned the idea years ago. Starship does genuinely have a chance at delivering promises.
this is coming from the man that has been promising fully functional self driving vehicles coming "Next year" every single year? the man that promises his neural implants will be going into human testing this year when it hasnt yet kept a single animal it's been implanted into alive?
Have you not seen the massive success that is Falcon9?
i dont doubt spaceX has incredible achievements, i just doubt anything elon musk himself says if the engineers working for his company are saying it then i'll take their word for it, but elon musk who has repeatedly lied to get investor money? i'll wait and see
Are you suggesting that Mars Needs Women? Works for me.
We all need woman.
[удалено]
They did to be born.
[удалено]
That's why they said "woman," not "women."
Take my upvote. And an award. I’ve not thought of that movie in a long long time.
Very thoughtful. Thank you for your kindness.
Yes my name is Mars
How does one save that kind of money on food for a three year mission?
Each pound you send to space costs something like $10,000, because you're paying for the fuel you need to send the fuel which sends the payload.
This is very rocket specific. The only rocket being developed for Mars missions is Starship and prices for it are very up in the air. However the goal is being way cheaper than $10k. The Falcon 9 is cheaper than $10k already.
Alot of this thread is based on "old space". Reusable rockets are drastically cheaper. In the 1980s, it cost over $75k to carry one kilogram to space in a big single use rocket. Just an astronaut's body cost over $5M! SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has brought it down to $1,500/kg, or 50 times cheaper. Starship will bring it down to \~$10/kg. https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/09/28909310/elon-musk-calls-starship-an-incredible-enabler-for-science-launch-costs-at-a-highly-competitive-10kg
Yeah but as Sally Ride demonstrated, they would need all that weight and more in tampons to cover their menstrual cycles.
They could hire non-menstruating women or women who are on hormonal contraception to get around this. On a cursory google: “Most women opt instead to use contraceptives and put their periods on hold, both in preparation for and during spaceflight, as highlighted in the [paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/npjmgrav20168) by Jain and her colleagues.”
I was referencing that time when NASA planned to stock Sally with 100 tampons for a week long trip, and she had to explain to them how insane that was.
[удалено]
Yeah that was a funny story lol. I was responding to your comment that “they would need all that weight and more to cover their menstrual cycles.” That isn’t necessarily the case.
Not only women, but small women There are many women who are naturally 140, some even less, and yet they are strong healthy individuals They can weight 40kg despite being ripped
Men are naturally stronger than women when they are the same weight. A 40kg average man will be way stronger than a 40kg average woman.
And he will also eat more food on average.
Yes. It’s a great concept. Also, for re-population they don’t need men. iVF a few thousand/million embryos already inseminated and you have complete genetic diversity.
During the design phase, the Space Shuttle (STS) program planned and justified on the assumption that 'reusable' spacecraft would save money, but [that never worked out in the end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Space_Shuttle_program). In all likelihood, the estimated savings of restricting Mars missions to all-female crews will probably evaporate in real life, while unfairly denying male astronauts the opportunity to work on Mars missions. A 50-50 male-female crew complement might be justified, however. >At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation. Um...but wouldn't a crew explicitly restricted to only one gender be the exact opposite of diversity?
In this context, they mean 'diversity and representation' in the broader context of astronauts - i.e. 'we aren't trying to send only women for the sake of the PR, it has specific benefits'.
Except that the statement is so vague and nonspecific that it could be open to many possible interpretations, yours being one of many possible ones. My interpretation is that it is coded language for, 'we want female-only crews, regardless of whether or not it affects "diversity".
I mean... it's not at all coded, and they are saying that exactly, because it would save money and be more efficient lol
There is one other advantage of single sex crews for long deployments that nobody brings up. No chance of an "oopsie" occurring.
but an oopsie conceived and gestated in space would at least be interesting scientifically. Sucks for the kid having to come back to a gravity well eventually though. Edit: Spelling
No less interesting that that one antarctic doctor who performed an appendectomy on himself.
There have been long-duration mixed-crew assignments to the International Space Station and no accidental pregnancies have ever taken place. It's likely that the possibility you are suggesting is/has been avoided in similar missions in the past through careful crew selection.
Not a problem because female astronauts are on birth control that skips periods
Exactly! Has no one watched the third season of "For All Mankind"? Someone send a DVD set to NASA, pronto!
That article is far better than the title would make it appear.
And that probably doesn’t include the overpriced hot sauce, space beer, and the grill we’d insist on bringing.
This isn't really the reason why you want majority women in space. Women are not as affected by space radiation and bone density loss, possibly something to do with estrogen, but the current exact reason is unknown. But it's been proven multiple times through space shuttle and ISS crews that women can land back on earth after long stays in space and get up and walk out of their own space capsules on their own feet usually. Men however suffer much greater losses of muscle and bone density and usually require to be carrier out of there space shuttles and go through physical training back on earth. If you really want to plan a long term Mars mission you better believe it's going to be majority women, and it has nothing to do with food consumption.
Probably has to do with center of gravity. Men are very top heavy in comparison.
Nope. Females are just pre-adapted better to space than males. With the bone density thing, that's mostly because females hold onto their calcium better. Their bodies need to compete with a fetus/nursing infant that's a massive drain on calcium, and nature tends to favor the life of the mother over the life of any fetus/infant. So, once a pre-menopausal woman's bones start experiencing a Ca deficit, they hold on hard to what remains As to the radiological resistance, there's two things going on. The first is simple: females have two copies of the X chromosome, males have one copy. The X chromosome codes for *a lot*, so damage there cause serious issues. The second is that women seems to have a slight but significantly better repair pathway for genetic damage. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure if it's really known yet, but females experience less autosomal damage compared to males, when exposed to the same radiological flux. It's strange how needs from troupes of hunter-gatherers from the African savanna shaped our fitness for spaceflight, but here we are.
Makes sense given they come from Venus
Plus, an all female crew won’t have sex with each other! Right, guys?! …*right?*
If that's our endpoint, I'd go for an all male crew. Or just asexual people in general.
Yes that works extremely well as evidenced by prisons. Men have a much higher sex drive on average.
If high testosterone criminals with endless traumatic events in their history (which lead to higher sex drive) are your endpoint. By the way, there's not much substance to this myth in general, the overall incidence is in the lower single digits numbers, most of it is consensual. 43% affects women. So there's no big difference either.
The math doesn't make sense on this. Saving $158M for 3,736 lbs of food saved? That's *saving* $42,291 per lb of food?
we probably will be sending hyper smart robots who want build and terraform by 2035, well before we send humans
It’s kinda fun how many of these comments come from a place of feeling left out for not being a woman… despite the fact that whoever they send, it was never going to be anyone in this thread 😂
Sure, until their periods all sync up and they burn through $160 million worth of snacks in 7 days.
That's... not how that works at all? 1.7 tons worth of extra cargo isn't likely to expand the size of the *rocket* or the *Mars transfer vehicle*, so we're strictly talking about a marginal scale-up of the *lander*. In the absolute most extreme case, an extra engine and a little more fuel tankage volume (along with the extra propellant plumbing, a handful of extra tubing loops in the radiators, stronger landing legs, etc. to compensate) would probably cost 7 million or so. If another engine isn't needed, the cost increment would scarcely be noticeable (somewhere in the tens of thousands at worst) unless it just happened to push the design over some threshold that forced serious changes, like making the parts using new machinery instead of reusing something already built, or modifying one of the rocket stages used for the mission. Cost per kilogram is another of those nonsense figures like GDP, that sounds like it tells you everything, but actually gives no useful description of the situation. (Unless you're just sending bulk goods like water, rocket fuel, rivets, solar panels, or cheese into orbit. In that case, $/kg is a reasonable way to figure out how expensive the given part of the project will be. But often, the payload something like a space probe or a Mars lander. In those cases, the entire thing has to be put on one single rocket anyway, so unless it runs over the maximum payload capacity of the rocket, or the extra weight results in something massively more expensive on the payload such as extra engines, the cost essentially doesn't change.)
Yes, because girls go to Mars to get more candy bars while boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider. That’s just science.
They should get the best people for the job. If they're all women, that should be seen as a bonus but not a core qualification.
200 billion dollar missions and they are worried about 158 million????
The total average cost per Space Shuttle flight is about $1.5 billion USD. So I guess save where you can lol.
If that outweighs other factors, Hell yeah, why not?
Yeah but what if something breaks and needs fixing?
What about all the kotex pads they will need. And a way to dispose of them. And then the chocolate they'll need to eat while on their cycle.......just saying 🙄 🤔
Yeah but think how much water they would use showering. Also who will kill the space spiders? /S
Psychologically, it would be a train wreck, though.
An all female crew could not get along. Catfights and ugh.. women amirite!
160 m$ is not a lot of money, as it pertains to space exploration
Men would get more done because they’d spend less time fighting
Yea but women hardly ever get along for long periods of time
Interesting idea, NASA actually came to these conclusions in the 60’s but still prevented women from entering the space program due to sexism.
Back then there hadn't been any movies showing 80 lb. women beating the crap out of several 200 lb. men at once. Now, we're much better informed. After all, you never know when you're going to have to go toe-to-toe with a space monster.
But what if it has tentacles???
Little people is the answer. Also, don't need legs in space, so a further potential saving.
I don't think gender matter so much vs size. Sending up tiny 5'0" but very strong and muscular people might be the best bet.
Saw this article. Immediately sorted by controversial. Was not disappointed.
It depends, do you foresee needing strength greater than an all female crew can provide? This isn't a slight. Women are typically smaller, requiring less food. Men are typically larger and stronger, requiring more food.
I'd imagine for an orbit-only mission, the answer would be no. Landing may be different, but they may also employ systems that weigh less than a man/his food allowance to assist them with lifting/moving stuff on planet, should they ever get there. Gravity is also lesser on Mars so less strength would be needed.
But you have to add in the cost and weight of all those tampons and maxi pads
Beauty creams, shoes, dresses... Men literally need a toothbrush and an extra pair of underwear.
Just pick the best people who meet the needs of the mission regardless of sex, ethnicity, or background? Or am I crazy
I'm sorry but picking people based on gender for a mission as important as the Mars Mission is idiotic. Send the absolute best of the best. Politics be damned.
They’re not picking people based on gender. They’re discussing which sex is cheaper to send up.
[удалено]
And the best part is that if anything goes wrong, we’ll still somehow blame men. Win win!
But then who is going to park the rocket they are flying?
Imagine the amount of suitcases needed for all them women.
_not to mention the amount of passive aggressive arguments starting out of thin air by just looking at one another "wrong"_
have you never heard a guy say that?
Instead of women why don't we send horse jockeys? Save even more!
Women can be jockeys, ever seen Pushing Daisies (I know Olive Snook isn't a real person but the part of the show that addressed her being a jockey in the past didn't make it sound groundbreaking so they must have based that plot point on a history of at least some real female jockeys)
Lenin Peak 2.0. Additionally, I have never observed a group of more than 3 women living in close quarters that did not become very combative with each other when their wasnt a male regularly present. The female expression of aggression is through social means, destroying one anothers reputations and relationships incognito. I am of the mind that team cohesiveness would erode dramatically before reaching Mars, if it didn't simply Lenin Peak before then.
From the article: "From NASA to SpaceX, numerous space agencies and private spaceflight companies have bold plans to send humans to Mars, possibly even within the next few decades. Given NASA's ambitious plans to land astronauts on Mars by 2040, a hot topic of debate has been who will get to represent humanity on the Red Planet. At the center of that discourse is the 70-year-old argument that an all-female crew would make the most sense both biologically and psychologically, and not just as a matter of diversity and representation."
is it me or talking about diversity and representation when you are thinking of making a group of just women is some kind of new way of stupid?
If 2 tons if what makes or breaks the mission, we are planning wrong. We should have the ability to send several hundred tons surplus supplies. Nothing less than a 5-10 starships with 200 tons of cargo each. (not counting the 10+ ships with cargo they should send in the years leading to a mars mission)
Ok the food budget is saved. But what about strength and height and well rounded team being important. What if we need more power but just can’t get it. But great we saved a few carrots
Are there many situations where a marginal amount of physical strength factors in to space missions? Lots of heavy lifting in zero gravity? Did they forget to lube up the hatches and need some elbow grease?
this is a mars mission, not just zero gravity. And while things in zero gravity do not have weight they still have mass appropriate to whatever they are made of.
I am sure NASA never thought of these questions while studying this
Mars needs robots that can be remotely controlled. You'd just be giving quite a bit of women rad poisoning. Robots controlled long distance by people, not people directly on planet yet.
Robots are far less effective explorers than humans. And the radiation levels on Mars, especially in a shielded habitat, are completely manageable.
I think it's more important to send the most qualified people instead of saving money, but that's just me. If it's still all female, then awesome.
Lol id love to see an all woman crew, theyd be ejecting eachother into space like 4 months in
rip the chances for all the better qualified female candidates that are slightly heavier or would require more nutrients. Literally easiest problem to solve. Use tax money (probably cheaper than building a monthly worth of warhead productions) to build a supply rocket unit that starts just after the Mars mission. And for fucks sake pick qualified people over cost efficient. In the end, it might become a full female crew anyway 🤔
it won't. If you have a group of several hundred candidates and all you are doing is picking the most dedicated, qualified, capable personell there will be men on the group unless you handicap them like putting a weight limit of 60kg.
have you seen females pack their luggage(s) on a week long vacation? press X for doubt
Make it all women, just to spite the dudes. lmao Lots of hurt feelings already xD
We must have only the most calorie efficient people. We will send a full team of Guatemalan Grandmothers to the stars.
Its for the mission so Anything outside of space I say we are humans regardless. Gl ladies
This is how you know NASA is run by men. They want to pay the astronauts 30% less.
I always question the idea that women need less food than men. Ok I get men have more muscle etc but you ever tried having a period? Dude I’d eat the house if I could.
I have one leg and therefor need fewer calories than other men. Go ahead and send me with the ladies. I will make this sacrifice.
Yea why not! That’s a sizable amount of money saved