/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10219243]

What are the advantages/disadvantages of sending men vs women to Mars on the early trips?

[Anonymous No.10220137]

>>10219243
You mean the exploration trips or the colonization trips?

[Anonymous No.10220327]

imagine pms in close quarters.
nothing gets done cause brendas being a bitch.
then 0 g periods.
wew lad what a great time

[Anonymous No.10220353]

>>10219243
They should send couples to see what the effects of low gravity are on human development, both in space and on mars. If there are serious detrimental effects it won't be possible to colonize mars.

[Anonymous No.10220368]

Women eat less and would be less perturbed by lack of sexual expression, generally speaking. There'd be more likely fighting if the women to men ratio was greater than about 1.

Men would be more likely to deal with technical problems immediately, and although the trip might be more psychologically stressful for men, men are more used to being socially isolated, and generally cooperate better. If there was a female on board, it'd be likely at some point that she'd have sex with somebody and it'd cause a host of issues. Worse, screening candidates would probably have the reverse outcome, as the most psychopath and deceitful candidates would look the most impressive, but would also be many times more likely to rape the woman, or convince her the sex is a thing which wouldn't produce antagonism from other crew mates. Fortunately in space violence is a lot harder to pull off (you can't brace yourself as easily to deliver an impulse).

[Anonymous No.10220375]

>>10220327
incel

[Anonymous No.10220378]

Muricans will probably send an all black, transsexual crew for the first (wo)manned mission to mars.

[Anonymous No.10220547]

>>10220375
frogposting nigger

[Anonymous No.10221507]

>>10219243
I'm not going to make baseless claims on stereotypes, positive and negative, about the behaviour on either gender, and I don't know of any psychosocial isolation experiment that specifically isolated gender. If anyone has some actual data to put up that'd be interesting though.
There are a few biological considerations though. Radiation risk is a serious concern in getting to Mars and women are significantly less resistant to radiation. A male's career exposure allowance is between 33% and 50% higher than a females. As it is we're already considering loosening the career exposure limits to allow for manned travel to Mars.
They are on average smaller and lighter, which is technically an advantage but its unlikely that the hardware would be scaled down to capitalize on that. An actual advantage is that they consume less calories, which does have a tangible effect on launch costs in either a directly supplied or ISRU.
Given the cautious nature of mission planning I doubt physical advantages men have will come into play much. Direct manual labor just isn't going to be a huge component - a female operating a power drill or bulldozer is not going to be significantly different to a male doing the same.

[Anonymous No.10221510]

>>10220378
This would be funny if it wasn't so real.

[Anonymous No.10222993]

>>10221507
>Direct manual labor just isn't going to be a huge component
How do you know? EVA is said to be quite demanding. Also it is hard to bring all sorts of power equipment and corresponding power sources to Mars.

[Anonymous No.10223306]

>>10222993
>How do you know? EVA is said to be quite demanding.
Yes but its mostly endurance where the gap is smaller and they're kept to lengths that both genders can handle. The longest EVA record is jointly held by both a male and female.
>Also it is hard to bring all sorts of power equipment and corresponding power sources to Mars.
Because moving in a space suit is a bitch. Trying to do manual labor is a waste of time. It would be more cost efficient to send power tools than manually dig a hole just due to the wasted man hours. You can see this in NASA manned rover and missions design concepts. And if its simple stuff like Apollo tier sample collection, either gender can use a pair of tongs or a rock hammer.

[Anonymous No.10223376]

>>10223306
>It would be more cost efficient to send power tools
The advantage with human effort is that the human body is far more adaptable than a specialised power tool and uses simple fuel: food. Probably not efficient but it is simple.

[Anonymous No.10223377]

>>10220547
It's sad that a frogposter has leggit ways to make less of you

[Anonymous No.10223384]

>>10223377
???
if it's about the incel thing im not.
anyone who throws around that word is an obvious case of
>you need to go back
and so do you.

[Anonymous No.10223387]

>>10219243
Women, especially Women of Color (WoC), would be able to establish a peaceful and productive settlement without planting the seeds of whiteness-driven cispatriarchy.

[Anonymous No.10223396]

>>10223384
>Tfw u

[Anonymous No.10223481]

>>10220353
Nothing a few rotating habitats can't fix.

[Anonymous No.10223501]

>>10219243
Mars is long term enough that it isn't going to matter. Men might be worse off because of their test going to shit and their balls being irradiated on the journey.

People saying it's going to be physically demanding, any given mode for physicality is not going to have that much difference between the sexes compared to the variance within the sexes. Another way to think about this: most men are weaker than the strongest women, even though there are men that are stronger than any woman. Because you're selecting for a large combination of skills and attributes, strength is less important than physical fitness and intelligence and youth etc. So a strength preference may skew desirability towards males, but not exclusively to males.

[Anonymous No.10223662]

>>10223376
For what job? Astronauts aren't going to be digging ditches with shovels on Mars.
As for power tools, they aren't optional. A man can break up rock with a pick and his muscles but a teenage girl with a jackhammer will makes him literally unemployable through the difference in efficiency. A jackhammer might be expensive to send, but when you can do 10x the amount of work, and do work you literally can't do otherwise it's worth it.
NASA and space agencies are also risk averse. They're not going to get 3 guys to haul heavy equipment (heavy being heavy enough to actually demonstrate a difference between the sexes) out by hand - they'll give them a crane and winches etc. The limits where gender matters are also where injury is most likely and where previous injury or illness could impede a mission objective. You don't want them to not be able to unload the life support because Joe and Bob both have the flu and can barely stand. So you get rid of that dependency.

[Anonymous No.10223786]

>>10219243
Something something probe her.

[Anonymous No.10224098]

>>10219243
If we send women and the mission fails nothing of value would be lost

[Anonymous No.10224119]

>>10220368
>Women eat less

Id like to point out, this is generally true for women in the military who maintain their physique, it is not generally true for most women. Women are able to store more body weight and do high calorie intakes for child bearing. A trained woman be better than a trained man. As 12-36 months worth of food adds up even if the calorie count is 2200 vs 2400, one day that's nothing, 3 years that can really be noticed.

[Anonymous No.10224164]

>>10223387
Nice bait, but wouldn't that be racist?