865
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
865 points (100.0% liked)
News
24550 readers
3523 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Makes you wonder what challenges women will face in future space exploration missions. Long periods of isolation with groups of coworkers with very little personal space. Not like a belligerent party can be ejected out the airlock (It''ll probably happen who am I kidding)
a m o g u s
Future missions should be all-women teams. Problem solved.
Women eat less, use less oxygen, and weigh less than men. There's actually no logical reason to send male astronauts anywhere.
Edit: lol @ the downvotes with zero responses
Oh my God you're so clever!
Ah yes, Schrodinger's douchebag.
So not just Schrodinger's douchebag, but a regular douchebag as well.
Bold move Cotton
Sure, weight is definitely a more important factor than idk, reaction ability in danger situations or physical resistance to unfriendly environments.
Yes, it is. On a long mission, even a few kg can have big differences in fuel consumption. Also the mean difference of reaction times between men and women is around 20-30ms, which is miniscule. Idk about the differences in resistance to space, but I highly doubt that men are significantly more resistant than women.
I’m not saying men are better than women in those aspects. I’m saying a very limited amount of people, both men and women, have the physical and mental fortitude to withstand a space mission, and there is virtually never going to be a situation where two people have the exact same qualifications and weight has to be the “tiebreaker”. It’s pretty much a non-factor.
Why is 20-30ms "miniscule", but "a few kgs" compared to the weight of a fucking spacecraft isn't?
Milliseconds and kilograms are worlds apart in magnitude (e.g. the difference between 1000 seconds (kilosecond... kinda) and 0.001 seconds (1 millisecond)). Secondly, the benefits of having 20 to 30 ms in reaction time is far less than the benefits of having less weight, even though a few kg and a few ms are not really that impactful. Weight directly increases fuel consumption, but reaction time would come into effect, as far as I know, in emergencies. Of course it's important to have a good reaction time at a time like that, but I'm pretty sure 20-30ms on average slower reactions isn't going to crash a spaceship. And if it does I would put that to faulty design or bad luck than the crew being 30ms late. Weight, however, would increase the fuel consumption in every step of the way, especially the launch stages. That limits the amount of fuel, components or resources on the ship. Few kg sure aren't much, but each kg might be a kg away from fuel, food, air or water the ship can handle. That of course depends a bit on the type of mission and spacecraft, as in space each kg affects less than on earth.
I would assume a manned mission would have larger tolerances due to the unpredictability of humans and to ensure their safety
There are reasons to do that, women and men react differently to long-term microgravity.
I found this study about the differences (but it's from 2014, please tell me if you find a more recent one) The Impact of Sex and Gender on Adaptation to Space: Executive Summary.
TL;DR female astronauts have, according to the study:
Keep in mind that this data is not the best because only around 20% of people that had been on the ISS at the time of the study were women and because male astronauts are more likely to come from a military background.
I personally think this means we should send an equal amount of both sexes (maybe more women as it would help get more data on the differences). Sending all-men or all-women missions sadly won't fully solve the problem as sexual assault isn't always between men and women, that said, it is less common so it's not a bad idea.
Anyways, more investigation is required. If you find a newer/better study please tell me (or if something I wrote is inaccurate), I don't want to spread misinformation
Just FYI that username may get you some hostility. It's far too close to Ace of Bass which is a band from the 90s that were neo-nazis. The Base of Aces was a Nazi submarine base in WW2. I'm not assuming anything here, the lead singer and guitarist both confirmed separately that was what their band name was referring to, just before they lost all their fans.
Used this username for years; it's a pun on the famous suit of playing cards the Ace of Spades. While I appreciate the warning, please go touch grass.
Sorry I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but grass is another word for weed, and historically antimarijuana propaganda was used to oppress blacks.
It's much more likely to be a play on the much better known "Ace of Spades"?
I'm not completely ignorant on Nazi dog whistles, but this is not one I know.
Yeah, that's stretching it a little (probably based off the Cracked article from a while back). Ace of Base was named after Ace of Spades (a song by Motorhead) as a reference/homage, anything beyond that is purely speculation as the band have categorically denied it.
And yes, Ulf was indeed in a band that wrote some pretty heinous stuff but he has both repeatedly apologised for that, made clear he no longer believes in any of this, and made explicitly clear that Ace of Base never shared these ideas.
Sources for those wanting to read up on it: Original article in Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/rm35nr/ace-of-bases-secret-nazi-past Speculation laden clickbait Cracked article that spawned a bunch of unfounded and unconfirmed theories about the origins of the band's name, meaning/readings of their lyrics, etc: https://www.cracked.com/blog/how-90s-pop-band-secretly-sold-nazism-to-america Follow-up in Huffington post: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ace-of-base-nazi-past-lyrics_n_3148797 and https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/26/ace-of-bases-ulf-ekberg-addresses-neo-nazi-allegations-_n_3161454.html