E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mary Roach's book about how humans handle outer space, "Packing for Mars," tells you pretty much everything you always wanted to know about sex, poop and vomit on the final frontier. But Roach insists that extraterrestrial grossology isn't the point of her story.
Taking lighthearted looks at the science of bodily functions (or non-functions) is Roach's specialty: "Stiff" delved into the scientific contributions of cadavers. Roach recounts her global odyssey in search of evidence of the afterlife in "Spook." And in "Bonk," she takes a lighthearted look at the study of sexual physiology.
"All of the books are about the wonders and mysteries and strangenesses of the human body," Roach told me this week during a telephone interview.
She kicks those themes up to a higher level in "Packing for Mars," which is based on her encounters with scientists and spacefliers, mission planners and historians at space centers and laboratories around the globe. Here are just a few of the questions addressed in the book:
• Why do roughly half of all astronauts get sick in space? (Because of a mental disconnect between the brain's interpretation of visual and vestibular data.)
• Would it be fatal to throw up in your space helmet? (Maybe, but probably not.)
• Have any astronauts had sex in space? (Again, probably not, but Roach nevertheless delves into the theoretical mechanics of sexual congress in zero-G.)
• How do you go to the bathroom in space? (Verrry carefully.)
• How does recycled urine taste? ("Clear and sweet," Roach says.)
The subject matter can make for hilarious discussions, such as this one on "The Daily Show." But Roach says she isn't playing this merely for laughs, even though "the press tends to pick up on the s*** and vomit." For her, the bottom line is that exploring outer space forces us to rethink and re-engineer the most basic things that humans do. Why do it? At least in part, we explore, rethink and re-engineer precisely because those are among the basic things that humans do.
Roach discussed the big picture as well as the funny little details during our interview. Here are some edited excerpts from the Q&A:
Cosmic Log: There's been a lot of talk in the space community over which way NASA should go. Are we going to the moon or not? Maybe not, at least not in the time frame that was suggested five years ago. As an outsider who's now been inside the space effort, do you have any thoughts about how the mission should be framed?
Mary Roach: I would love to see a Mars mission be an international effort, in the same way that the International Space Station has been. People know it as a place to do science, but what it's also been is a 10-year exercise in global space cooperation. You have dozens of space agencies around the world cooperating, sending personnel, funding it, and really working together. The whole idea there was getting ready for Mars. The ISS has been long-term training for a Mars mission.
W.W. Norton
"Packing for Mars" surveys the curious science of life in the void.
So, for me, it would be sad for it all to just come grinding to a halt after all the years and all the work that's gone into studying how you deal with bone loss in space. [Bone loss is also a problem.] What are we going to do about radiation? How are we going to deal with the psychological challenges? To have all the research just pile up and then go nowhere would seem tragic to me.
I would love to see it be a global effort, also because that's a way to make it more fundable. I'd love to see private enterprise and a bunch of different international space agencies get together and make it an all-encompassing project. Not since the moon landing have we seen an event that has been watched by so many people. It would bring people together. Not to be all idealistic and dorky about it, but it would be a pretty amazing thing to happen. And I hope it does happen in my lifetime. …
The other thing to bear in mind is that the technology coming out of a Mars mission would be pretty extraordinary. Anything that you have on Earth has to be rethought for zero gravity, in a vacuum, so you have to think outside the box in terms of creative technologies that work. You have things that are lightweight, miniaturized, automated, fireproof, very strong. Those kinds of technologies get a boost from a mission. With Mars, you’re going to have extreme recycling and sustainability. You can't carry a lot of stuff. It’s just six people for a two-year mission. You've got weight restrictions. So a lot of new technologies would come out of that.
Q: A major theme in your book is how difficult it is for the human body to adapt to living in space. Is there anything you found during during your adventures that surprised you the most, or grossed you out, or that you found fascinating?
A: Well, all of it I found fascinating. I guess I was most fascinated by the extent to which zero gravity affects all the different parts of the body... The human bladder, for instance. It's designed for gravity. I didn't realize that the way that you know you have to go to the bathroom is that you have these things called stretch receptors. When the liquid builds up on the floor of the bladder, it starts to stretch it out, and that sends a signal to your brain.
But in zero gravity, the liquid clings by surface tension to the entire interior of the organ. They don't have that same signal. By the time you realize that you need to go, the bladder could be so full that you press the urethra shut. Then you use a catheter, and you've got a minor medical emergency. It's actually a fairly serious aspect of learning to deal with being in space. You almost have to toilet-train astronauts.
I was floored by the number of ways in which zero gravity affects almost everything about you. You're two to three inches taller, your spine flattens out, you have more fluid in the upper half of your body, and the body's blood volume sensors are up only in the top half of the body. Your body thinks you have too much fluid, so you end up shedding fluid, and so you end up losing weight. Also, your body thinks you have too much blood, so it slows down production of blood cells, and your immune system is compromised.
Q: That reminds me, there were some questions raised in the book where the scientific answers were a little unresolved. You mentioned fluid retention, and there was some discussion about what zero gravity does to penis size ...
A: Well, I think we did resolve that. I think that I got a pretty good explanation from [NASA physiologist] John Charles. There's something called the line of hydrostatic indifference, right around the diaphragm. The penis is below that. In zero gravity, you would have less blood, less body fluid down there, so I think that confirms what Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo astronauts have said. Some of the shuttle astronauts have a different view. I don't know, maybe they were just really excited about being in space.
Q: Another thing I was curious about was what happens if somebody dies in space. You address that issue in the book, saying that if someone died during a spacewalk, you would just have to cut that astronaut loose. But if someone were to die on the space station, or the shuttle?
A: There wouldn't be that much of an issue. They would bring the body back. The shuttle mission is usually just a couple of weeks. If someone died on the International Space Station, the shuttle would go up and bring the body back and return it to the family. But on a Mars mission, where you can't turn around and come back, that's where it becomes an issue.
Space itself is a very effective preservative. You put the body in the air lock and expose it to the vacuum of space, and it will be frozen. Then you could either do a burial in space, or you could bring it back if you're coming back, or you could bury it on the surface of Mars. Those are the options ... they talk about "Medcode Zero."
If the family was OK with burial in space, that would be a fitting end ... kind of like burial at sea. It wouldn't be a disrespectful thing to do to send the body out of the air lock.
Q: In the book, you say that being on a zero-gravity airplane flight was almost like doing heroin....
A: No, no, no! I've never done heroin.
Q: I understand. You're not a heroin addict ...
A: Some people have written that I compared zero gravity to being on heroin. No. I was making the point that I can imagine that people who do heroin immediately want to do it again. It was like that, in that I got back down from the zero-gravity ride and immediately wanted to do it again.
Q: I was just curious whether you have found that opportunity ...
A: Ah. No, I haven't had another fix. It's a little expensive, something around $5,000. That seems like a little much for me to be spending on something so frivolous as a few minutes in zero gravity. But believe me, I'd attempt it.
Q: Do you aspire to go into space yourself? If someone were to say, 'Mary, we'd like you to write this book about taking a flight on SpaceShipTwo,' would you do it?
A: I would love to go into space. Yes, of course. I wouldn't want to be on the first round trip. I'd be a little uncomfortable with the safety angle on the first flight. But eventually? Absolutely.
For another perspective on "Packing for Mars," check out former msnbc.com colleague Rob Merrill's review for The Associated Press. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter with @b0yle. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
This is so facinating I wish I could be a kid again. I have a young granddaughter who is totally into everything science and she loves space anything. I envey where she is today.
Grandpa, that makes me happy, the more future scientists we have, the better!
If you don't think anyone has had sex in space you are smoking a bone! Bet the Russians did it before us... Bet NASA won't tell the truth either!....
I too would love to go to Mars! Mary Roach, in her short interview point's out some very interesting aspects of space travel, especially the medical complications that might ensue on a very long space voyage. Delaying a Mars mission as the administration proposes is inexusable! As Mary pointed out, human nature desires to explore the unknown. This is the main idea of the space program. Going to the moon was a baby step for space exploration. The International Space Station is the current baby step. Indeed, it would take an international consortium to accomplish a mission to Mars. The current administration should begin an effort to send a team of American astronauts together with Russian cosmonauts within 10 years. If this were to become a firm committment, other countries would surely cooperate. This correlation already exists on the I.S.S.
"What a waste of science to go to Mars."
It's not all about science, anyway.
"Were better off exploring the unknowns under the deep sea which is 95% unexplored to learn new things. "
Are you under the impression that no one is doing that? Oceanographic projects do not and will never be as high-profile as a major human space project, even if you pour the same 'resources' into both.
And eventually we will become accustomed to going to Mars as well (much as we almost have with LEO), and give it no more thought than a deep-sea project.
"Mars cannot be colonized as it cannot hold an atmosphere..."
Why? And don't give me this 'stripped by the solar wind' business, Venus is closer to its source, also has no magnetic field, yet has an atmosphere denser than Earth. And Even accepting that, what time scales are we talking about? Losing it overnight? Or losing it over several hundred thousand years (a rate that humans could keep up with)?
In any case, Mars is more colonizbale that most of the deep oceans, if that's your point.
Oh, and it's not all about colonization, either.
"...and so it's a total waste of time of money better spent on things here on Earth making it right than exporting our crap to outer space."
Find out how much is already being spent on things here on Earth before making such assertions. And to exactly what 'exported crap' do you refer?
"I used to be a sci fi nut and a big believer in space in the 60's but today you have to realize it's a waste of resources."
I was an SF reder and space enthusiast in the 60's as well. A shame you gave up your dreams.
"Were better off thinking long term and capping the sun from Venus to cool the planet down and terraforming that planet to inhabit it hundreds of millions of years in the future (with some foresight)"
And yet you think a massive project like that is okay (but if it really takes 'millions of years' to achieve, it's not going to happen...fortunately, it might take a sliver of that time, if it's practical at all).
In any case, human expansion into space isn't limited to Venus and (especially) Mars. A place doesn't have to be made to look like Earth, for humans to live there, any more than humans made the entire Earth look like East Central Africa where we began, in order to live on the rest of it...
Sad that someone thinks in terms of a waste of science. There is no such thing. Resources ($$) -- than's a different story.
The things that interest scientists will have more impct on where we go (up vs down) than what a few politicians decide we "should" do. Consensus goes a long ways in guiding the progress of society. If more scientists want to study the oceans than want to study space, where will we go?
It seems to me that many of the physical problems associated with extended space travel have to do with the lack of gravity. And even at our current level of technology, it would be no great feat to simulate the effect of gravity by simply rotating the part of the spacecraft in which the astro/cosmo/taikonauts travel. Just keep the carousel lubricated (and provide some rudimentary radiation shielding), and going to Mars becomes equivalent to a long camping trip.
Just what state of mind were they in back in the '70's when they believed going to Mars
was as possible as going to the moon at that time. Here we are 35 years later and not much more
than dreaming about it.
That's because of politics...not because we couldn't have done it. A great number of people were actually planning on the steps to get us to Mars until the winds of Washington changed. We are capable right now of doing the mission if money and the sense of national pride and purpose was there (i.e. the Apollo program).
Those helmets the actors have on are eerily similar to the ones designed
for the "Alien" movie back in 1980.
Let's go to Mars!
Totally favor going to Mars, but what's the hurry? I'm thinking long-term. It'll still be there in 2100.
I'm not persuaded by the spin-off argument wrt human spaceflight. Knowledge gained about and through human spaceflight seems to begat.... more human spaceflight, which is ok, I guess, but expensive, circular, and not all that interesting outside the arena of.... human spaceflight.
Ok, tell me if I'm crazy here. I think that trips to Mars ought to be one-way, i.e. the first people to Mars become the first Martians. Pre-position enough supplies that the new Martians can be self-sustaining within a few years. That makes more sense to me than exerting a colossal amount of effort just to bring crews back to Earth. One issue might be that the type of person who would sign up for such a trip, may not be the type that we'd want to entrust with it. However, I think that the prospect is exciting enough though that we'd get some very fine volunteers.
Good book ... really informative , in an entertaining way
Wish my teachers 50+ years ago had been like Mary Roach.
This is a very interesting article. Thanks, Alan and Mary, for the insights!
These problems seem to suggest that what we really NEED for a trip to Mars is 1.)Shorten the flight time to days or weeks instead of months, and 2.) Take gravity with us StarTrek style; this would obviate the physiological problems.
The important questions focus on what NEEDS to be done, NOT what CAN be done. Start with the needs, and then work backwards until we find the how.
The BEST solution to problems pertaining to interplanetary, or even interstellar, travel would be met by what NASA has called "propellantless propulsion" (aka "antigravity" to the general public). NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program (BPP) unfortunately ended just as technical developments in this field were becoming very interesting. I believe we are closer to having this capability than is generally recognized. Even hobbyists could build devices that demonstrate pertinent principles.
See "Advanced Stellar Propulsion Systems" for more insights:
http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#MotionCancellers
and
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Fraser_NatureOfTime.pdf (article)
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/294 (discussion)
The energy problems are being addressed elsewhere:
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/issues.html#PappEngine
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/issues.html#ExcessHydrogen
Universities should offer courses on these topics to inspire us. They could include:
Introduction to Third Generation Physics
Fundamentals of Advanced Space Propulsion Physics
Fundamentals of Advanced Space Propulsion Astrophysics
Fundamentals of Hyperspace Navigation
See http://scripturalphysics.org/do_review.html
--"Look with favor upon a bold beginning." —Virgil
--"Boldly go where no man has gone before." —Star Fleet
You're a fascinating writer, Brian. I've "wasted" my entire afternoon reading your papers. Much of it I have had to read 2, 3 or even 4 times before I understood it, but the nature of space & time is nothing if not interesting. You have whetted my appetite for more. Thank you.
With a name like ThotSeed I would think you would want to encourage new ways of thinking and long term problem solving. The ocean depths are indeed unexplored, but also under great pressure. Mars would be easier to colonize, and presents the challenges we will need to have resolved long after the oceans have evaporated and the Earth's crust has melted. Earth is the cradle.
Reaching for Mars is them most ambitious and admirable scientific endeavor that our generation could be persuing (in my opinion).
Think long term:
1. Settling on Mars (and beyond) would help to ensure the survival of our species in the wake of a cosmic or man-made catastrophy on Earth (think about the evicence of previous extinction events prior to humans and of the billions of people continuing to expand and consume natural resources).
2. There WOULD be scientific advances produced that could improve the quality of life for our civilization (i.e. recycling, miniaturization, solar & battery power, medicine, etc.). My laptop probably has more computing power than the Apollo mission computers, and the computing power is doubled roughly every year or so. Such devices are going to get smaller, faster, lighter, cheaper, etc. And, coupled with the need for innovation for extend space missions, it follows that other technologies will follow suit.
3. Reaching for the stars has the potential to unite mankind and usher in a new era of cooperation between nations. For sure, there would be competition (which would be a good thing), but no one country will be able to do this on it's own in a sustainable way.
4. Exploring our solar system would open doors to new resources, the disovery of unknown resources, and the advancement of our understanding of the universe.
While this might start out being funded by governments, private business WILL become involved and will likely drive this effort in the long run. It will be profitable to fund asteroid mining and habitats, Lunar colonies (close to home if the need for support arises), orbiting cruise ships, trips to Mars for living or industry. Think of the possibilities to grow economies and provide skilled jobs.
There's no short term solution for the challenges at hand, but the long term benefits and pay-offs are worth working towards.
Mars DOES have an atmosphere, just thin, and mostly CO2. (Not much good for use of parachutes.) You would need solid structures to hold sufficient air pressure for people to live in -- like pressurized aircraft. If strong enough fabrics were developed, perhaps a Mylar balloon would work. Just think of the space station on a rocky-dusty surface.
The idea of a one-way trip is interesting and scary! I'd want to be sure that the "farm" would work and that usable water was available, etc. before I agreed to go! (But then again, if I were on death row, I might take the chance!)