Here is something sexist to think about

[SuperDemocrat]

I was kind of thinking how we are all kind have pre-concieved notions of who should go first. Lets say we were going to put some men on mars. OK. We calculate food, waste, and air that is needed for the long trip their. What if it was realized that a woman's body was better for long space travel because they are smaller so they require less of those things? NASA decides to use an all female crew as the first 'men' on mars. Wouldn't almost everyone think that would be strange? Why would we assume that males should be their automatically.

The other thing to think about is that if we were to use an all female crew the ship itself would have to be redesigned since bathrooms, eating areas, and many other things are built around men's bodies. The height of sleeping areas and hallways would seem to tall or wide since a lot of women's bodies are narrower than a man's. The entire ship could be more efficiently redesigned to accommodate their smaller bodies but the fact that the ship had to be redisigned in the first place only shows that the ships are all built for men.

 

[Moonglow]

You know they will send a mixture of females and males, so the soap opera can keep them buzy while the flight get's where it's going...

 

[The Great Goose]

don't tempt those pseudo scientists!!

Look at the damage they are doing with climate change.

 

[Moonglow]

don't tempt those pseudo scientists!!

Look at the damage they are doing with climate change.

And they don't get high as fuck...

 

[Spare_change]

I was kind of thinking how we are all kind have pre-concieved notions of who should go first. Lets say we were going to put some men on mars. OK. We calculate food, waste, and air that is needed for the long trip their. What if it was realized that a woman's body was better for long space travel because they are smaller so they require less of those things? NASA decides to use an all female crew as the first 'men' on mars. Wouldn't almost everyone think that would be strange? Why would we assume that males should be their automatically.

The other thing to think about is that if we were to use an all female crew the ship itself would have to be redesigned since bathrooms, eating areas, and many other things are built around men's bodies. The height of sleeping areas and hallways would seem to tall or wide since a lot of women's bodies are narrower than a man's. The entire ship could be more efficiently redesigned to accommodate their smaller bodies but the fact that the ship had to be redisigned in the first place only shows that the ships are all built for men.

Hell, I can think of several women that should get on that flight .... my mother in law comes to mind.

Frankly, I think your thought process is flawed. You are trying to build a strawman that says women are inherently more qualified, when in fact, you haven't considered a single facet of the mission.

Let the mission define the crew ... the crew doesn't define the mission. If the job is to go pick up 200 lb Martian rocks, women can't get the job done without special assistance. We shouldn't have to settle for 10 lb rocks simply because that's all the crew can lift.

If, on the other hand, the mission requirements say that the crew must be able to lay in a horizontal position for the trip, and women are more qualified to do that (why does my first wife come to mind?), then obviously, that's a positive point for women.

In the end, you make engineering decisions - and compromises - and you go with the best qualified crew - not because they're men and not because they're women.

 

[candycorn]

Another “brilliant” observation….

 

[emilynghiem]

I was kind of thinking how we are all kind have pre-concieved notions of who should go first. Lets say we were going to put some men on mars. OK. We calculate food, waste, and air that is needed for the long trip their. What if it was realized that a woman's body was better for long space travel because they are smaller so they require less of those things? NASA decides to use an all female crew as the first 'men' on mars. Wouldn't almost everyone think that would be strange? Why would we assume that males should be their automatically.

The other thing to think about is that if we were to use an all female crew the ship itself would have to be redesigned since bathrooms, eating areas, and many other things are built around men's bodies. The height of sleeping areas and hallways would seem to tall or wide since a lot of women's bodies are narrower than a man's. The entire ship could be more efficiently redesigned to accommodate their smaller bodies but the fact that the ship had to be redisigned in the first place only shows that the ships are all built for men.

Dear SuperDemocrat:
Maybe in the past, people might have thought this strange.
But if the smaller size was necessary, that would make sense.

And given today's political environment, where even people whose demographics make up "a fraction of 1%" of the population are demanding to be recognized by govt, then anything goes at this point!

Whatever people decide to "push through the media" as the right thing to do, it can be done.

 

[blastoff]

Well you have to keep in mind this mission would literally be to another world, one where we don't know what we don't know. Suppose Mars was inhabited with some alien life form, well, okay I guess they'd be the natives and our crew would technically be the aliens. But what if the natives aren't thrilled with an alien invasion and decide to get nasty, decide to get physical with our guys? We'd have to plan for such a contingency and that obviously means we'd have to make sure they're armed and able to defend themselves and defeat the natives. But that would mean a lot of extra weight due to their weapons and additional room to store them, meaning additional size and weight for their space craft and whatever habitat they'd bring along to live in while there. Lots of additional details to consider in planning and executing the mission.

On the other hand if we sent an all female crew instead we could eliminate all such contingency requirements as there'd be no need to equip them with any armaments at all. If the natives tried any rough stuff with them they'd be doing so at their own peril because our women would then be free to bitch and nag the poor bastards to death. So, yeah, I think an all female crew is definitely the way to go. Once the hostile native problem is taken care of we could then send all the men we want to the red planet.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I was kind of thinking how we are all kind have pre-concieved notions of who should go first. Lets say we were going to put some men on mars. OK. We calculate food, waste, and air that is needed for the long trip their. What if it was realized that a woman's body was better for long space travel because they are smaller so they require less of those things? NASA decides to use an all female crew as the first 'men' on mars. Wouldn't almost everyone think that would be strange? Why would we assume that males should be their automatically.

The other thing to think about is that if we were to use an all female crew the ship itself would have to be redesigned since bathrooms, eating areas, and many other things are built around men's bodies. The height of sleeping areas and hallways would seem to tall or wide since a lot of women's bodies are narrower than a man's. The entire ship could be more efficiently redesigned to accommodate their smaller bodies but the fact that the ship had to be redisigned in the first place only shows that the ships are all built for men.

Hell, I can think of several women that should get on that flight .... my mother in law comes to mind.

Frankly, I think your thought process is flawed. You are trying to build a strawman that says women are inherently more qualified, when in fact, you haven't considered a single facet of the mission.

Let the mission define the crew ... the crew doesn't define the mission. If the job is to go pick up 200 lb Martian rocks, women can't get the job done without special assistance. We shouldn't have to settle for 10 lb rocks simply because that's all the crew can lift.

If, on the other hand, the mission requirements say that the crew must be able to lay in a horizontal position for the trip, and women are more qualified to do that (why does my first wife come to mind?), then obviously, that's a positive point for women.

In the end, you make engineering decisions - and compromises - and you go with the best qualified crew - not because they're men and not because they're women.

The point I was trying to make is that the engineers who designed the ships automatically build them for men. It kind of shows that we assume that men will be doing these missions and be the first ones on mars. It is like telling people that Bethoven's grandparents were black. People react like 'no way'. Why?

 

[Spare_change]

I was kind of thinking how we are all kind have pre-concieved notions of who should go first. Lets say we were going to put some men on mars. OK. We calculate food, waste, and air that is needed for the long trip their. What if it was realized that a woman's body was better for long space travel because they are smaller so they require less of those things? NASA decides to use an all female crew as the first 'men' on mars. Wouldn't almost everyone think that would be strange? Why would we assume that males should be their automatically.

The other thing to think about is that if we were to use an all female crew the ship itself would have to be redesigned since bathrooms, eating areas, and many other things are built around men's bodies. The height of sleeping areas and hallways would seem to tall or wide since a lot of women's bodies are narrower than a man's. The entire ship could be more efficiently redesigned to accommodate their smaller bodies but the fact that the ship had to be redisigned in the first place only shows that the ships are all built for men.

Hell, I can think of several women that should get on that flight .... my mother in law comes to mind.

Frankly, I think your thought process is flawed. You are trying to build a strawman that says women are inherently more qualified, when in fact, you haven't considered a single facet of the mission.

Let the mission define the crew ... the crew doesn't define the mission. If the job is to go pick up 200 lb Martian rocks, women can't get the job done without special assistance. We shouldn't have to settle for 10 lb rocks simply because that's all the crew can lift.

If, on the other hand, the mission requirements say that the crew must be able to lay in a horizontal position for the trip, and women are more qualified to do that (why does my first wife come to mind?), then obviously, that's a positive point for women.

In the end, you make engineering decisions - and compromises - and you go with the best qualified crew - not because they're men and not because they're women.

The point I was trying to make is that the engineers who designed the ships automatically build them for men. It kind of shows that we assume that men will be doing these missions and be the first ones on mars. It is like telling people that Bethoven's grandparents were black. People react like 'no way'. Why?

Actually, you're 100% wrong. I was actively involved in the design of two manned spacecraft (I worked on comm and telemetry systems). The seats are designed for the person who sits in them ... in fact, they are tailored for the ass in them. In addition, the height of the sittee determines the location of the eco-connects, as well as the length of the comm cables (you want the cables taut but not stretched. Excess cable represents a significant safety hazard during weightlessness). While the seats are put on standard mounts, the seat is configured to the individual. If, by any chance, you happen to go to the Smithsonian, you will see the seat that Alan Shepard sat in is much smaller than the one for John Glenn. If you get into the shuttle at the Smithsonian's the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Center they have the Discovery on display, and you'll also see that there are 5 different seat sizes.

The point you were trying to make was that somehow NASA was disrespecting women ... at least, be honest about that. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. Originally, astronauts had to be military trained fighter pilots. At that point in time, no women were not allowed to fly fighters, so, logically, it would be assumed - accepted - that astronauts were male. If you understood the significance of weight differential in a spacecraft, you would understand why NASA actively campaigned for women to be allowed to qualify. I seem to remember - though, don't quote me on it - I was told that for every 10 lbs of "live weight", there was a significant .004% increase in propulsion, not only due to the extra body weight but the increase in uniform weight, seat and equipment weight, extra food, more fuel to move the mass, etc.