12 thoughts on “Psychological Hibernation”

  1. Hypothesis: An applicant must be extraverted to talk his way into the job but an introvert would adapt better to the conditions.

  2. If we anticipate problems then we can engineer in anticipation to address them. In terms of lunar settlement, even from the Initial Crew stage, the habitat could be a very large, well-lit inflatable with a large greenhouse section. The Initial Crew should stay for an extended period to reduce the risk of LOC during rotations. So, spouses should be included if the extended stays exceed about 18 months. So, large, well-lit living spaces with lots of plants and one’s spouse should go far to mitigate psychological deprivation.

    If Mars is done with the BFR then the same process could be applied only with five times more crew per mission.

    Conceivably there could be situations requiring a small crew, perhaps traveling in medical stasis, going as far as the Moons of Jupiter, Saturn, or beyond. But, that far out in time, I think that we’d have NTRs and reliable transport and automated habitation systems such that a decent amount of initial crew would arrive to a large, well-lit, comfy habitat with their spouses.

    1. If we anticipate problems then we can engineer in anticipation to address them. In terms of lunar settlement, even from the Initial Crew stage, the habitat could be a very large, well-lit inflatable with a large greenhouse section.

      Doug, if they can’t afford that in Antarctica they’re never going to to do it on the moon. They’ll just rotate people in and out as necessary.

      1. Is affordability why something like this hasnt been tried in Antartica? I can see some logistical issues, which might be considered an affordability issue.

        Maybe Bigelow, or someone, needs to build an expandable hab that starts in a cargo container.

      2. I suppose we could quibble about the term “settlement”, but I don’t think I’d consider what goes on at the Antarctic to be that; it’s more like “extended visitation”. If you’re going to have any significant population living there permanently, I would think it’d be a different matter from a cost perspective. The Soviets made some effort, for example, to put leisure activities in their far-flung cities, like the amusement park at Pripyat.

        1. Google pics of the place where the study was done and compare with other Antarctic stations. I didn’t look at pics of the interior but the exterior looks foreboding.

    2. People need personal space and room to roam in solitude. A greenhouse where you have to hang out with a bunch of people sounds horrible. It might be nice for mixing with other people but when I’m on the lake, I dont want anyone within eyesight. Same goes for hiking, seeing more than a couple people ruins the experience.

      High ceilings, good light, and plants are all great but we also need art. How do you find a modern artist capable of making something appealing and that can hit you in the member berries for Earth? They are out there but I wouldnt trust a government to find them.

      I’m not sure people will enjoy living on the Moon. Someone needs to put together a comprehensive list of all the ways it will suck. I recall something about being constipated all the time.

      1. How well can today’s high-end VR provide simulated privacy and mental stimulation? Has anybody studied the effects of modern VR on physically confined subjects?

        Any study more than a couple years old is probably irrelevant; it’s only recently that we’ve had sufficient fidelity to be able to convince the brain that it’s looking at a place, not a screen.

        AR might provide some benefit as well, but it can’t produce an entirely new space, only modify an existing one.

Comments are closed.