More women astronauts needed?

Realistically, when could the colonisation of other planets become possible? While I'm not knowledgable about science and technology, I get the impression that we're some distance from being able to pursue this kind of undertaking.

If it's possible to acquire useful resources on other planets, I suppose that's an advantage, as is the possibility of new scientific discovery. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who look at the vastness of space and all of the discoveries it promises, and all they can think of is something like, "Hey! Space travel! That's how I can live out all my masturbatory colonialist fantasies! Awesome!"

Hey, the poles had a bunch of guys with DOG sleds racing each other to plant a flag on ice.

Does it really seem so odd that humans would go out of their way into some trully horrible real estate just because?

I'm estimating sometime in the next few hundred years. Most likely not withing our lifetimes, but possibly soon after stuff will get set up on Mars. I'm hoping anyways.

Also, we might not be able to solve the issue of resources. Not to mention that most of the point of space exploration on the face of it is the scientific discoveries. And that we're seemingly geared as a species to spread out as much as possibly.

There's also something you don't seem to be thinking of. Maybe we're not going to be "solving problems" by colonizing another planet. Maybe people just think sometimes that going to a new place will open up new opportunities for a more fulfilling life? Which people do now, by the way, just on a lesser scale. Some people are just that adventurous. In any case, it's a thing we've been theorizing about for decades, and barring the technological and cost issues there's no reason we wouldn't.

Also.... we seem to have gone massively off topic. Not that I don't like the subject of space colonization, but maybe we should start another thread. This is supposed to be about the necessity of female astronauts.

Female Astronauts/Colonists will rule Mars! (and maybe Venus for extra twist of Irony)

What?

Because children are qualified enough for such things.

In his book How to Live on Mars, respected scientist and engineer Robert Zubrin dedicates a chapter to "how to deal with The Sisterhood". In his sci-fi setting, because women weigh less, they are more preferred for "ride-alongs" - basically house-sitting robotic transport spacecraft as they move rich people's stuff out to the colonies. The women in the setting band together to form "the Sisterhood", basically an all-female mafia reminiscent of the Spacing Guild from Dune. If you want to deal on Mars, you've got to get in the Sisterhood's graces. And never, EVER, get on their bad side.

The notion of using women rather then men based on the whole difference in mass thing goes back all the way to the 1960s. There was even serious debate on whether or not the first astronauts should be women, but they rejected the idea because it was the 1960s and people were still uncomfortable with putting women in the spotlight. Also, the Americans designed the first space diapers to only fit men, so that was the excuse given for why it took Americans so long to get a woman in orbit (Russians beat us by almost a decade on that score, because there is no gender distinction in the post-capitalist world).

This may not seem like such a big deal, but when you consider the fact that it costs three to ten thousand dollars to launch one kilogram, and women are typically a few kilograms shy of most men on average, the numbers do add up. So yes, I was serious about the mass difference being an advantage, strictly from an economics point of view. As for sending children and people with dwarfism, well, take that with a grain of salt. I see no reason why a little person couldn't be an astronaut, but you'd have to redesign spacesuits and who knows what the low gravity would do to their bodies. As for children, the occupation is still a bit dangerous, so sending someone who might not fully appreciate the risks seems dodgy.

Highschoolers though...why not? The are plenty of gifted highschool students who could potentially qualify for the astronaut program. And considering that you could potentially shave off several grand each trip, I don't see why we aren't investigating this possibility right now.

Because kids might not be able to handle it when it goes wrong?

Its illegal?

Kids aren't physically fit enough to handle the g-forces and what not?

Hey, why aren't we employing them in the mines again while we're at it? Their small stature makes them perfectly suited for it, and idling around would just make them immoral anyway! So yes, let's shove minors into an extremely dangerous environment in order to live off masturbatory colonization fantasies!

Please, they handle much worse things in anime.

Why waste such dexterity?

edited 12th Feb '12 2:19:43 PM by Firebert

You better be trolling too

I am quite sure he is making a joke, but the fact that you have reasonable grounds for assuming otherwise really speaks volumes, doesn't it?

edited 12th Feb '12 2:24:53 PM by TheGloomer

I dont know anymore Gloomber, I really don't.

However, yes there are more women astronauts needed because its still seen as a man's profession

AND they're cheaper to get to work. Lighter and all....though I suppose this will now slid right down into the PC mine field where women's value is tied to her weight.... [[facepalm]]

edited 12th Feb '12 2:45:02 PM by Natasel

I have to disagree. Hiring people simply because of the need to "even out" the gender numbers is simply discrimination in reverse. Hire women because of their assets, not because they are women. Girls are smaller than men, and this is an advantage in the field in question, so therefore women should be hired more often.

Of course I was joking, whale. It would be ridiculous to assume something works in real life because it works in a piece of fiction.

I agree, Stars, but once again your tone is a little misogynist.

edited 12th Feb '12 2:46:49 PM by Firebert

Who said anything about gender numbers?

edited 12th Feb '12 3:04:32 PM by Natasel

...what?

I think it's a preference against hiring a specific gender because that's the population dispersal, as opposed to something that actually has an effect such as body mass? I'm not sure.

If men are indeed the only ones affected (I still want to see a sufficient number of test subjects so that a person isn't worth more than one percent by themselves) by this, then men are a liability on these types of missions.

...wtf just happened.

Ok, the "frozen sperm" idea is just...odd.

the children thing is just plain stupid.

High schoolers, slightly less.

If we colonize a planet,I say we do it right, send people who want to live there, and not just send women as "Birth machines". On top of the moral issues, if they're all like that WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO WORK?!

I'm not saying they'd be useless, but between mood swings and everything, you need SOME people not pregnant.

Take turns being pregnant.

Depending on how well sprem freezers are in the future, Space Astronaut/Colonist can probably plan several generations in the future for their birthing cycle.

They could allow male births as they run low on sperm to stock up.

Variety may be an issue though.

edited 12th Feb '12 3:55:06 PM by Natasel

I think it's just weird overall. Is a few pounds really worth NOT sending some of the best male minds in the world out there?

Well, the question here is if making them possibly suffer long-term vision damage is worth not sending the best male minds in the world out there. Although I think that astronauts are generally picked for qualities other than just sheer intelligence (which doesn't hurt).

I thought the idea of sending women into space first was because women were less susceptible to Space Madness.