A 100 ton mission, flown with 1 man on and two rocket launches and costing $50 billion is much more likely to survive to the launch pad. The scientific value is irrelevant. The purpose is to prove that humans can get to another planet and come back alive. That's a huge thing by itself. If it is science you want, mass produce probes and fly 10 probes a year. It's cheaper, faster and more scientifically productive.
Selecting small astronauts really is not that extraordinary. If it means a 25% reduction mass that's a big deal. So why shouldn't it be discussed?
4) Klingons are big and mean. A petite size 0 astronaut living on 1200 calories a day is likely to get her butt whipped.
Spacesuits are smaller, lighter as well.
A. You have eliminated anyone with real piloting skills.2. You have eliminated most meniii. the few of the remaining will not have a cross section of skills required
As we ponder when, how and how much it'll cost to do a Mission to Mars -- or for that matter to other destinations beyond LEO -- the predominant problem has always been the mass of the spacecraft and the mass of the consumables on a long mission. Which brings us to a very interesting question...Why not recruit small astronauts? A typical Astronaut weighs 195 lbs and consumes about 3.8 pounds of food on the ISS. He also measures about a good 5 feet 11 inchs tall and a spacecraft, berthing spaces, etc must be size for that.If we are bending over backwards for a few extra Isp on the engines, trying to same 200kg off a 1 ton aeroshell. Why aren't we looking at build the mission around very small astronauts?Let's consider this... a 5' 2" height limit, 95 lbs body weight limit for the astronauts being recruited for BEO missions. Yes, a Petite Size 0 Astronaut -- a small framed but otherwise healthy adult. The space craft can be 20~30% lighter, food consumption is down to about 2.2 pounds a day. Spacesuits are smaller, lighter as well. If you are trying to get back up to orbit from Mars, the ascent vehicle can be notably smaller as well. Yes, this is definitely the 10th percentile in human sizes, but it is not that rare and I am pretty sure more than enough can be recruited. And, it is arguably easier to do this than to put 45 tons instead of 30 tons in Martian orbit.
Quote from: dwightlooi on 07/04/2012 12:26 amAs we ponder when, how and how much it'll cost to do a Mission to Mars -- or for that matter to other destinations beyond LEO -- the predominant problem has always been the mass of the spacecraft and the mass of the consumables on a long mission. Which brings us to a very interesting question...Why not recruit small astronauts? A typical Astronaut weighs 195 lbs and consumes about 3.8 pounds of food on the ISS. He also measures about a good 5 feet 11 inchs tall and a spacecraft, berthing spaces, etc must be size for that.If we are bending over backwards for a few extra Isp on the engines, trying to same 200kg off a 1 ton aeroshell. Why aren't we looking at build the mission around very small astronauts?Let's consider this... a 5' 2" height limit, 95 lbs body weight limit for the astronauts being recruited for BEO missions. Yes, a Petite Size 0 Astronaut -- a small framed but otherwise healthy adult. The space craft can be 20~30% lighter, food consumption is down to about 2.2 pounds a day. Spacesuits are smaller, lighter as well. If you are trying to get back up to orbit from Mars, the ascent vehicle can be notably smaller as well. Yes, this is definitely the 10th percentile in human sizes, but it is not that rare and I am pretty sure more than enough can be recruited. And, it is arguably easier to do this than to put 45 tons instead of 30 tons in Martian orbit.minimum height on Soyuz for female Cosmonauts is I think roughly 4'10" give or take a bit.
Hello all,(In case some mistake this as a joke it is not. I am being serious here)I'm new to these forums, but have been interested in space missions for most of my life. I have pondered many times when (if at all) we will go back to the Moon and on to Mars. Recently it struck me that there is a very simple solution to the rather high cost of sending humans into space on extended missions.Send small people (or people of small stature). Advantages: 1. They take up far less room.2. They breathe less oxygen (at least that's my understanding).3. They are every bit as capable as "normal" height people.4. They can go places few others can go (literally).5. It would captivate the world's attention and help elevated the stature (no pun intended) of little people in the eyes of the community.6. The equipment, machinery, vehicles, space suits etc. would all be reduced in size and therefore weight. 7. Theoretically, the cost could almost be halved if NASA thinks imaginatively and takes a chance that the public and the world is ready to accept that true representation is not about the size, but the spirit of exploration.Disadvantages:There are none, except to say that some people are prejudiced and it is this prejudice which will not allow anyone to even talk about it, let alone suggest it.What do you think?