Study finds female astronauts more efficient, suggesting future space missions with all-female crews

AP5Diva · 07/05/2023 17:20

“More efficient” in that study just means eat less food, drink less water, need less oxygen and create less waste because women tend to be physically smaller than men. Which is so obvious it was a waste of money to even do the study.

Of course, there is a lot of overlap between the body sizes of the two sexes. I would think the only outcome of this would be to have a maximum height and maximum body weight to be an astronaut if resources are going to be an issue for a longer interplanetary voyage like to Mars rather than banning half the population for having XY chromosomes.

(You could do the exact same study comparing East Asian vs Black African astronauts btw and similarly conclude all crews should be East Asian people due to population body size averages. So not only can a scientist engineer a sexist result like in the above study, a racist one can be easily engineered as well).

ILikeDifficultSums · 07/05/2023 17:41

I don’t fully understand these paragraphs, but doesn’t “all parameters at all statures” imply that they controlled for height?

”In the study, "Effects of body size and countermeasure exercise on estimates of life support resources during all-female crewed exploration missions," the team utilized an approach developed to estimate the effects of body "size" on life support requirements in male astronauts. For all parameters at all statures,
estimates for females were lower than for comparable male astronauts.

When considering the limited space, energy, weight, and life support systems packed into a spacecraft on a long mission, the study finds that the female form is the most efficient body type for space exploration.”

midgemadgemodge · 07/05/2023 18:21

It seems Women have a lower tdee ) calories required ) than men at the same age and height and weight as the men

BellaAmorosa · 07/05/2023 18:32

I don't know if it's sexist, any more than a study I saw finding that most American woman soldiers can't carry full equipment packs like their male counterparts. It wasn't quite as clear-cut as this - a minority of women who had large frames and rower-type physiques were actually able. Maybe the differences in energy consumption etc are so great that even a small man would be significantly less efficient? The cost of these missions means the sponsors will be looking for any way they can cut costs.

I have no expertise in analysing data so I don't know how to assess this.
@helleofabore if you're on the board, would you take a look?

WeeBisom · 07/05/2023 19:25

During the space race to the moon, a group of women underwent the same tests as the men in the NASA program and did just as well or outperformed them. The women were able to stay for hours in a genuine sensory deprivation chamber, whereas the men managed twenty minutes on average (Nasa later made this easier on the poor chaps by making them sit inside a dark room for two hours). NASA didn't countenance having female space crew because they wanted an all american male line up.

bluebeardswife7 · 07/05/2023 19:32

WeeBisom · 07/05/2023 19:25

During the space race to the moon, a group of women underwent the same tests as the men in the NASA program and did just as well or outperformed them. The women were able to stay for hours in a genuine sensory deprivation chamber, whereas the men managed twenty minutes on average (Nasa later made this easier on the poor chaps by making them sit inside a dark room for two hours). NASA didn't countenance having female space crew because they wanted an all american male line up.

You beat me too plus more articulately than I would have said it.

MrGHardy · 07/05/2023 23:18

AP5Diva · 07/05/2023 17:20

“More efficient” in that study just means eat less food, drink less water, need less oxygen and create less waste because women tend to be physically smaller than men. Which is so obvious it was a waste of money to even do the study.

Of course, there is a lot of overlap between the body sizes of the two sexes. I would think the only outcome of this would be to have a maximum height and maximum body weight to be an astronaut if resources are going to be an issue for a longer interplanetary voyage like to Mars rather than banning half the population for having XY chromosomes.

(You could do the exact same study comparing East Asian vs Black African astronauts btw and similarly conclude all crews should be East Asian people due to population body size averages. So not only can a scientist engineer a sexist result like in the above study, a racist one can be easily engineered as well).

It seems to be that they also compared absolute heights, so this is because men are taller on average implying they are more wasteful on average, this is saying at the same height men are more wasteful.

Also, I wonder why they just picked height, and not weight as well. The more muscle anyone has the more energy they need.

bluebeardswife7 · 07/05/2023 23:23

I guess the bottom line was it would be cheaper to put women in space but it wouldn't be good optics in the USA/USSR Willy waving so they went for men.

yoga4meinthemorning · 07/05/2023 23:47

Women are better astronauts and better pilots but we don't select on merit. Men win.

RedToothBrush · 08/05/2023 08:45

Are we saying that NASA has found that men are scientifically a waste of space?

Gets coat

BiologicalKitty · 08/05/2023 08:47

RedToothBrush · 08/05/2023 08:45

Are we saying that NASA has found that men are scientifically a waste of space?

Gets coat

spits tea

Beowulfa · 09/05/2023 09:52

Arthur C Clarke was predicting this in the sci fi I was reading as a teenager yonks ago!

Cantstaystuckforever · 09/05/2023 10:16

AP5Diva · 07/05/2023 17:20

“More efficient” in that study just means eat less food, drink less water, need less oxygen and create less waste because women tend to be physically smaller than men. Which is so obvious it was a waste of money to even do the study.

Of course, there is a lot of overlap between the body sizes of the two sexes. I would think the only outcome of this would be to have a maximum height and maximum body weight to be an astronaut if resources are going to be an issue for a longer interplanetary voyage like to Mars rather than banning half the population for having XY chromosomes.

(You could do the exact same study comparing East Asian vs Black African astronauts btw and similarly conclude all crews should be East Asian people due to population body size averages. So not only can a scientist engineer a sexist result like in the above study, a racist one can be easily engineered as well).

Would have been helpful to put the same amount of effort into reading as into writing. The efficiency benefit was for all parameters at all statures - i.e., controlled for height.

The point is that getting humans to Mars with enough resources to either stay or to return would require huge resources, so marginal differences become very important. This might mean that all being equal, the best people for the job are 3 very bright and very short women. They might even have similar heritage if that truly makes a massive difference, and if testing showed them as the best candidates for the job. It's only sexist or racist if they don't consider or encourage anyone of certain groups regardless of whether they are an outlier to the general trend.

DemonicCaveMaggot · 09/05/2023 10:18

I am not surprised. Wasn't there a study years ago that showed women made better submariners?

DemiColon · 09/05/2023 10:21

I don't think this is that surprising a result, any more than lots of firefighters being men is a surprising result. I've read speculations around similar analysis of submarine crews.

Although I imagine efficiency is not the only thing selected for in astronauts, and there is also probably self-selection, for example in the childbearing years, that might take more women out of the pool.

stealtheatingtunnocks · 09/05/2023 10:24

Women are less likely to fight with each other too.

ErrolTheDragon · 09/05/2023 11:12

WeeBisom · 07/05/2023 19:25

During the space race to the moon, a group of women underwent the same tests as the men in the NASA program and did just as well or outperformed them. The women were able to stay for hours in a genuine sensory deprivation chamber, whereas the men managed twenty minutes on average (Nasa later made this easier on the poor chaps by making them sit inside a dark room for two hours). NASA didn't countenance having female space crew because they wanted an all american male line up.

The 'Mercury 13'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13

There was an excellent thing (docudrama iirc) about them on radio 4 a few years ago.

RedToothBrush · 09/05/2023 16:27

DemiColon · 09/05/2023 10:21

I don't think this is that surprising a result, any more than lots of firefighters being men is a surprising result. I've read speculations around similar analysis of submarine crews.

Although I imagine efficiency is not the only thing selected for in astronauts, and there is also probably self-selection, for example in the childbearing years, that might take more women out of the pool.

Does the study refer to just 'in space' or getting into space?

DH was suggesting to me that given men cope better with gforce (so are better at F1 due to neck and upper body strength) that getting to and from space may favour men.

But I haven't read the scope of the study.

ErrolTheDragon · 09/05/2023 16:40

DH was suggesting to me that given men cope better with gforce (so are better at F1 due to neck and upper body strength) that getting to and from space may favour men.

The number of female astronauts to date suggests that this isn't an issue -their neck strength is obviously sufficient. (Maybe it's relevant to fighter jet pilots executing fast turns and dives?)

DemiColon · 09/05/2023 17:53

RedToothBrush · 09/05/2023 16:27

Does the study refer to just 'in space' or getting into space?

DH was suggesting to me that given men cope better with gforce (so are better at F1 due to neck and upper body strength) that getting to and from space may favour men.

But I haven't read the scope of the study.

Show quote history

I don't know, but I wondered about that as well.

midgemadgemodge · 09/05/2023 18:01

3G space shuttle
9G fighter plane

JanesLittleGirl · 09/05/2023 19:00

I'm not sure that the fact that women consume fewer resources than men on a pound for pound basis is rocket science.

BellaAmorosa · 09/05/2023 19:17

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

BellaAmorosa · 09/05/2023 19:18

So sorry, @JanesLittleGirl
I have completely got your post wrong. I do apologise. I've given myself a little slap, if that helps at all?

ErrolTheDragon · 09/05/2023 19:28

JanesLittleGirl · 09/05/2023 19:00

I'm not sure that the fact that women consume fewer resources than men on a pound for pound basis is rocket science.

But rocket science is why it matters - payload is pretty crucial isn't it?