From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: astronaut psychology (was Re: The Moon as a Gateway to Mars)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:27:23 GMT

In article <4mec9q$16g@lace.colorado.edu> fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Do bear in mind that mankind has considerable experience with long voyages
>>made in cramped quarters, mostly under far less pleasant conditions...
>>...The paranoia about astronauts' mental health is reaching really
>>ridiculous levels; Roald Amundsen would have laughed and laughed.
>
>Probably, but he might have been wrong to due so...
>...By Amundsen's standards, the conditions
>on a modern spacecraft would seem luxurious; except for the
>close confinement, probably better than the way he lived
>at home...

Frank, I think you're vaguely envisioning Amundsen as a contemporary of
Columbus.  Amundsen grew up in the late 19th century, and did his polar
exploration in the early 20th.  His father was a prosperous shipowner, and
Amundsen grew up in a villa on the outskirts of Oslo, in conditions that
would be comfortable -- approaching luxurious -- even by today's
standards.  While Amundsen himself was never wealthy, his ideas about
pleasant standards of living would not have been far from ours. 

>Psychologically, I believe what matters is the living
>conditions on the spacecraft compared to the living conditions
>the astronaut is used to...

I do tend to agree that today's astronauts, accustomed to sleeping in
their own beds and working in air-conditioned offices, might be poor
choices for Mars missions.  But even today, there is no shortage of
examples of people who cope successfully with widely varying living
conditions, especially given strong motivation and competent leadership.
-- 
Unix was a breakthrough.                           |       Henry Spencer
Windows 95 is more like a smash-and-grab.          |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

From: dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Capt. Scott (was Re: Define 8:1 $$ Return from Apollo)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:18:20 GMT

award@eildon.win-uk.net (Alastair Ward) wrote:


>>It was better to have died because of incredible incompetence?
>>Scott's expedition to the pole was practically a murder-suicide, he
>>was so clueless.
>>
>Well - I know what you mean Paul. It would have been much better if they had
>followed the kind of tactics used by Amundsen. Nevertheless it was a very brave
>try. 

Must be a British thing.  Over here, brave but lethal incompetence
garners more contempt than admiration.

Have you read Roland Huntford's "Scott and Amundsen" (reissued a few
years back as "The Last Place on Earth")?  Scott's bad luck was almost
entirely the result of his own disastrous mistakes -- delays, poor
planning, the last minute inclusion of an extra member on the trip to
the pole.  Even so, they very nearly survived.  It took an amazing
number of screwups to achieve the result he did.

	Paul

     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com

     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review

Date: 19 Nov 89 01:45:29 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: deadliness of environments

In article <191700030@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>I am curious to here what you consider "basic technology"...

Reasonably solid pressure vessels, thermal insulation, a food supply, plants
and equipment for simple air and water recycling, power, and sufficient 
"make-up" supplies of air and water to tolerate some non-zero loss rate.  Not
trivial; not spectacularly hard either.

> In the wilds of
>Antartica, the "basic technology" necessary to conserve heat, obtain water,
>and breath is supplied to every human child by its mother. Food gathering
>is a bit more complicated, you generally have to locate a rock or a big
>stick.

In the wilds of Antarctica, the basic technology necessary to conserve heat,
obtain water, and obtain food is artificial, not natural.  The thin layer of
fine hair that humans have naturally is *not* sufficient protection
against cold there.  Indeed, it takes quite carefully-made clothing to avoid
serious problems.  (The Amundsen south-pole expedition -- by far the most
competently-run Antarctic expedition -- spent its first fall/winter/spring
in Antarctica doing almost nothing but testing and rebuilding equipment.
For example, they completely rebuilt their boots three or four times, as
the original designs were grossly inadequate... even though Amundsen based
his equipment on extensive experience in the Arctic.)  There is lots of
water there, all of it frozen, and fuel for melting it is as important as
food to continuing survival.  There is *no* natural food on the Antarctic
plateau, and you have to haul all of it with you.  Read about what happened
to the Scott expedition sometime:  starving, dehydrated (badly short of 
fuel), exhausted, gasping for breath (much of the Antarctic plateau is
10,000 feet up, and they were pulling heavy sledges by hand), frostbitten,
debilitated by B-vitamin deficiencies, crippled by scurvy, groping through
subzero blizzards trying to find inadequately-marked supply caches, after
coming second to the pole despite far superior resources.  *That* is what
happens when you trust to nature to provide, instead of planning your
operations and equipment meticulously.

>Please don't underestimate the massive amount of infrastructure which will
>be necessary to produce a sustainable space colony.  EMphasis on the word
>sustainable.  Projects such as Biosphere II in Arizona are but a modest
>step in the general direction towards self-sufficient artificial
>ecosystems.

Biosphere II, while a fascinating experiment, is trying to maintain a
completely self-sufficient ecosystem without material flow in or out.
I agree that with our current technology, you can't keep a lunar colony
going with no outside inputs.  So what?  No human community today operates
that way, not even the "self-sufficient" ones in primitive areas.  Many
problems get lots easier if you're willing to assume a steady flow of
raw materials in and waste out, plus occasional shipments of equipment,
parts, and scarce materials from outside.  Agreed, we're not talking about
places where humans can survive with hands and teeth; it will take brains,
tools, and materials.

>Space is not a panacea.  When "we" get there, "we" will be the same
>squabling lot of ego-centric beings that we are now. With life support
>sytems on which all of "our" lives depend on, government will become more
>stringent, not less. Responsibility of the individual to the whole will
>increase, not decrease.  The "throw away" society will perish or its
>members will fade away.

We'll cope, as we do today in place like Los Angeles, and, I'd suspect,
Fort Worth where you are -- ever considered what happens to your
neighborhood if the city water system dies?  Communities dependent on
artificial life-support systems are nothing new.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Date: 12 Aug 91 16:28:49 GMT
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Technical Errors in Synthesis Group Report

In article <1991Aug11.214604.6033@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Unless you count Norway as "similar conditions" Rauld Amundsen (not Admunson)
>did not learn from any "people living in similar conditions." His experience
>was based on personal experience (as well as the experience of others) in
>exploring the artic icesheet.

First, let's get the spelling right:  his name was Roald Amundsen.  Second,
Amundsen's explorations of the arctic included extensive contact with the
Inuit and other natives of the region, and he himself acknowledged that he
learned a lot from them.

>... Amundsen also did may politically unacceptable things:
>He did not (deliberately) take enough food for his entire expidition. Once
>he had reached the Antarctic Plateau and had no further need to haul supplies
>uphill, he had all his dogs killed and used to feed his men. From that point
>on, he "manhauled" all his supplies (e.g. had the men drag the sleds). 

Frank.  Frank.  Frank.  Would it be too much to ask that you learn the facts
before spouting off about them?  Amundsen *never* man-hauled, ever.  He held
the possibility in reserve for extreme emergencies only.  Amundsen had *lots*
of food along, far more than he needed; on the return trip, once he was sure
the reserves were not needed, both men and dogs were gorging themselves --
they actually gained weight -- and he still had so much extra that he was
leaving food behind him.  It is true that he killed *some* of his dogs once
he reached the Antarctic Plateau; the meat was used to feed both the men
and the other dogs.  He did this more than once, in fact, partly because
the dogs were being worked hard enough to wear some of them out and partly
because the fresh meat was visibly helpful to performance of both men and
dogs.  (Remember, this was before the discovery of vitamins and their
significance.  Amundsen didn't know why it helped but he knew it did.)
Amundsen reached the pole, and returned, on dog power; the surviving dogs
went back to Norway with him.

It was Scott who relied on man-hauling, starting well before the ascent to
the plateau.  This was one of his many mistakes.

>He was also remembered for years, not as the first man to reach to pole,
>but as the man who "eat his dogs."

There are many myths about Amundsen and Scott, but this is the first time
I'd heard that one.
-- 
Any program that calls itself an OS     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
(e.g. "MSDOS") isn't one. -Geoff Collyer|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Date: 13 Aug 91 20:49:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Technical Errors in Synthesis Group Report

In article <1991Aug13.013456.9310@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Amundsen *never* man-hauled, ever.  He held
>>the possibility in reserve for extreme emergencies only.
>>Amundsen reached the pole, and returned, on dog power; the surviving dogs
>>went back to Norway with him.
>>
>I am quite sure than NO dogs were used on the final (~4 days I think) leg
>of Amundsen's trip...

Amundsen's supplies were at all times pulled by dogs.  Later in the trip
the number of sleds needed to carry supplies was less than the number of
men, so some of the men were simply skiing along with the sleds.

Incidentally, there was no "final leg" of Amundsen's trip, at least not
one lasting four days.  Five men, plus dogs, left his base; five men,
plus (fewer) dogs, reached the pole; five men, plus (some) dogs, returned.
He did pre-position some supplies on the ice shelf earlier, and he dropped
supplies for the return trip at regular intervals to lighten the load,
but at no time did he leave men or (live) dogs behind en route.

A good reference on this is Roland Huntford's "Amundsen and Scott" (also
published as "The Last Place On Earth"), the first study I'm aware of
that actually went back to the original sources rather than relying on
thirdhand reports.  (And in the process uncovered the true depth of Scott's
incompetence, far worse than the popular tales would have it.)
-- 
Any program that calls itself an OS     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
(e.g. "MSDOS") isn't one. -Geoff Collyer|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Date: 13 Aug 91 00:33:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Technical Errors in Synthesis Group Report

In article <1991Aug12.231643.3575@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>It was Scott who relied on man-hauling, starting well before the ascent to
>>the plateau.  This was one of his many mistakes.
>
>Although that was not his intent. His horses whern't up to the cold and
>his tractors failed ...

He did, actually, intend to man-haul for the plateau, as I recall.  It's
true that he did have to start doing so rather earlier than planned.

His support teams included not only the Siberian ponies (not horses) and
the primitive tractors, but also a small set of dog teams... which, to
his apparent disgust, consistently performed very well.  If he had left
clear instructions and experienced dog-drivers had been available to
carry them out, his dog teams might have been able to meet up with him
on the return trip in time to save him.
-- 
Any program that calls itself an OS     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
(e.g. "MSDOS") isn't one. -Geoff Collyer|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
 

Date: 16 Aug 91 19:46:42 GMT
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Technical Errors in Synthesis Group Report

I wrote:
>A good reference on this is Roland Huntford's "Amundsen and Scott" (also
>published as "The Last Place On Earth")...
 
Wups, correction, the original title was "Scott and Amundsen".  The original
hardcover was an honest-to-Ghod scholarly study complete with detailed
documentation of sources; the version published as TLPOE has been revised
for a wider audience (possibly just by removal of footnotes and references,
although the details were not specified).
 
>... the first study I'm aware of
>that actually went back to the original sources rather than relying on
>thirdhand reports...
 
Anyone doubting the importance of this might want to consider, as a case
in point, that the published version of Scott's diary differs considerably
from the original.
--
Any program that calls itself an OS     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
(e.g. "MSDOS") isn't one. -Geoff Collyer|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry