12 people flew to the moon without landing on it, now only 1 is still alive (Fred Haise).
12 people walked on the moon, 4 are still alive (Buzz Aldrin, David Scott, Charles Duke, Harrison Schmitt).
(Conclusion: walking on the moon is healthy?)
Standard error of log-odds difference: √(1/1 + 1/11 + 1/4 + 1/8) ~= √(1 + 0.09 + 0.25 + 0.13) = √(1.47) = 1.47^0.5 = 10^(0.5 × lg 1.47) ~= 10^(0.5 × 0.16) = 10^0.08 ~= 1.2.
The effect is 1.75/1.2 ~= 1.5 standard errors from zero, thus not significant by common thresholds. You would find Fisher's exact test in agreement, but I like the (vepry slow) party trick of doing this all in my head. Techniques:
- Poor man's logistic regression: https://entropicthoughts.com/contingency-table-for-poor-mans...
- Mental logarithms: https://entropicthoughts.com/learning-some-logarithms
(If you like mental math you can then run an iteration of Newton's method: you take the remainder between the number and the square of your guess, 1.47-1.44 = 0.03, and divide it by twice your current guess, and add it to the current guess: 0.03 /(2x1.2) = 3/2.4 / 100 = 1.25 / 100 = 0.0125, so the next guess would be 1.2 + 0.0125 =1.2125. And the actual sqrt of 1.47 is 1.2124355653..., so that's pretty close. Newton's method roughly doubles the number of accurate digits at each iteration.)
Sqrt 10: Guess 3, then residual is 10 - 33 = 1, so next guess add 1/(23) = 1/6, so now we're at 3.166..., and the square of that is 10.0277..., so you're very close already.
The hardest part if you want to generate more digits is to keep track of the intermediary sum during the multiplication, that's why I never got past three significant digits. That would be an interesting little contest though!
NASA vetted the Apollo astronauts for those who did not have medical problems, so it would be more accurate to say they walked on the moon because they were healthy.
I mean, you don't have any data (or evidence) on that one way or the other; do you?
ADDED. Oops: the comment 3 levels above gives data. I regret wading into this thread.
If this conscientious attitude translates to health, that would mean "going to all your yearly checkups" and "don't pooh-pooh any small symptoms because you are macho and true men don't care". I know far too many men who died of something treatable by ignoring it until it was too late. (Women, at least around me, tend to be a lot more careful about themselves.)
I am now reading Michael Collins' biography - a talented writer btw. - and basically, they were used to very intrusive and systematic health checkups. I can see them developing a good habit out of this.
During the Apollo program any sign of weakness or vulnerability would be a reason to ground an astronaut, very likely permanently. So they regularly concealed absolutely anything and everything that wasn't directly expected or related to the mission. This included various forms of sickness or injuries, space adaption sickness, psychological issues, and more. Alan Shepard even managed to conceal symptoms of what would later turn out to be Meniere's disease.
Aldrin was friggin touring around Antarctica in his 80s where he ended having to get on an emergency evac! It's not exactly a caution first attitude to life. In general the secret to longevity is healthy living, good diet, and a positive outlook on life. Even the Ancient Greeks had countless people living into their 80s and beyond.
Someone that walked on the moon is probably feeling pretty dang good for a long time about themselves. And people want to talk to them.
Someone that flew but didn't probably doesn't have that same advantage.
Could also be impacted by fame / levels of personal income from being in one of the two distinct groups.
If only Apollo hadn't lost momentum ...
Same reason we've never sent people to Mars, it's even more complicated, magnitudes more dangerous, and what exactly are we accomplishing in doing so...? Nothin there.
https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned...
The timeline is pretty entertaining and a bit depressing, if you wanted to see the plan succeed:
...
By 2014: The first manned mission for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
By 2015: Astronauts will land on the moon using the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
By 2020: The United States will have established an extended human presence on the moon, using it as a launching pad for other manned exploration missions.
As for why, 1) to ensure the survival of humanity, 2) to drive scientific development and 3) because it's there.
2) science on earth drives scientific development. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there.
Yes we could collect, and study, more moon rocks. But outside of that theres not much to study (that can't be better studied on earth or in LEO).
The cost of study on the moon is a few orders of magnitude higher than LEO which in turn is a few extra zeros from study on earth.
I'll add that right now budgets for study on earth have been slashed. There's a lot more value to be gained spending that moon money here.
3) this argument is irrefutable. It's also pretty weak when appropriations are discussed. Apollo got killed because "been there, done that" with next to no reoccurring value.
Space has given us huge value. Mostly in LEO. GPS, Weather, Communications, satellite TV. Plus further out, Hubble, James Web, and probes like Voyager et al feed us data. This is the legacy of Apollo. Moon bases? Mars Bases? They make no scientific or financial sense.
SPOILERS AHEAD
###
###
###
Longer version. Think of Earth's gravity well. It's the obstacle to any significant space infrastructure. Anything of matter can't be built on LEO, with resources shot from , because it would destroy Earth's atmosphere.
Unlike resources in Lunar regolith (sand on moon). Moons gravity is much lower and there is no atmosphere. Harder to land than on Earth, It's just that we would need a significant amount of mass to jumpstart Moon excavation.
I see no reason that a Mars base couldn't eventually be entirely self-sustaining. More importantly, the challenges drive the innovation necessary to make humanity a spacefaring species, which is necessary to ensure the survival of humanity.
The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow.
Nobody said anything about science on the moon. Again, the challenge drives innovation.
All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there.
So you already understood the point I was making, yet you decided to argue against a complete straw man instead?!
The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.
Seriously?
Problem 1: The atmospheric composition and pressure is trying to kill you at all times. Anyone who lives on Mars will either do so under massive domes to maintain breathable atmosphere at a pressure humans can survive at. Any breach in this dome is fatal to all inside. If we can't make a dome work somehow, we're now all living in tiny, pressurized shelters and any outdoor time at all requires a full EVA suit and is treated as life-threatening.
Problem 2: The law of thermodynamics is also trying to kill you at all times. Average temp is -81 degrees Fahrenheit. You must not only pressurize and condition air for human life, you must also heat it, continuously. If anything happens to your heating system, you are dead within a day.
Problem 3: To grow food will require all the atmospheric support the people already do, plus a reliable source of clean water. Mars has ice caps, but you're nowhere near them unless you land there, and then you better have an even bigger heater to solve Problem 2 with.
> The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.
Any humans who live on Mars right now are guaranteed to die there, for the simple fact that it's logistically all but impossible to not only get people there, but to do so in such a way where they have the supplies for a trip home, including fuel for vehicular re-ascent and earth return. Not to mention food, water, living space, and the sort of space vehicle that can travel for 6-8 months, land/remain in orbit for mission duration, then return 6-8 months. If you want to live on mars for a week, you're committing to a year and a half in space, aboard a craft that cannot resupply at any point, no can anything go wrong that requires help from Earth. At our current technology, again, basically suicide.
And again, we could PROBABLY solve these issues, you're right. But we come back again to: why? Mars doesn't have anything we need, and even what could be useful, we have ample supplies back on Earth. A moon base I'll grant would be better for low-G construction, perhaps even of something that could make the journey to Mars itself, but that's a lot of money and risk to use one dead rock to leapfrog to a second dead rock.
And none of this touches on the psychological issues people will deal with being locked in a pressure vessel 270 million miles from home with about 4 sources of imminent death within reach at all times.
While not as glamorous as the lack of, you know, water, air, heat etc it makes solar and cosmic radiation pretty deadly. Which means the bases need to be underground. So, um, the first thing to ship to both should be a big heavy digger...
I'll go with NASA vetted the hell out of the health of their astronauts.
(Also yes obviously the sample size is too low to draw meaningful conclusions)
More likely though, as you suggest, the same astronomical standards (pun intended) applied to all crew members.
They could spacewalk and open CM hatch from the outside. Wrench for opening the hatch was stored in the lunar module.
It's not a stretch to think that the people who flew on the earlier missions could have been older on average, though. Just looking at some of the ages, 2 of the still alive crowd are younger than all of the Apollo 8 astronauts. All of them are younger than two out of the three Apollo 8 astronauts.
Even a few years difference in age can make a huge impact when we're talking about people in their 90's.