3 ms·

My first thought is kill one, train a thousand. Mars is a long way away and if you have a problem its your's alone to solve. But really how do you not have rcd

My first thought is kill one, train a thousand. Mars is a long way away and if you have a problem its your's alone to solve. But really how do you not have rcd power supplies in this sort of context! Does Nasa stuff run on AC? I can't see a reason why you wouldn't want something like mains power for the crew being 12v dc for most applications and only a few things like an oven or high wattage device needing more. Kettle?

matt4077 8y ago
> My first thought is kill one, train a thousand. While there may be an argument to make for more risk-taking in science, with space travel itself being among the likeliest candidates, I don't see how it applies to this situation. Remember that every one of these simulated missions provides hundreds or thousands of examples for indidividual human interactions each. That's an indication of the amount of data needed to draw applicable conclusions. Allowing people to die could never approach those levels. Any conclusions would also be tainted by the nature of these experiments as simulations far more than any other events–because "is the result worth the price" would be the dominating question.
- gonzo41 8y ago
  I was being flippant. I was suprised by the electrical fault. That sort of mistake doesn't really seem very NASA.
walrus01 8y ago
12vdc is hard to distribute with any higher amperage more than a few feet. One of the reasons why serious telecom stuff is 48 to 56vdc, so you don't have to run a 4 gauge wire to everything. In this particular setup they use consumer grade electronics which are pretty much all AC powered, so they have a setup that is not dissimilar from an off grid photovoltaic home with a few big DC to AC inverters, fed off the battery bank, in the 3500W to 6000W size range.
Johnny555 8y ago
My first thought is kill one, train a thousand But this accident was caused by something that many people have already died from and has already been solved by common electrical code requirements. If someone is going to die or be injured during one of these experiments, it shouldn't be from a well known risk that has simple mitigations.

matt4077 8y ago

> My first thought is kill one, train a thousand. While there may be an argument to make for more risk-taking in science, with space travel itself being among the likeliest candidates, I don't see how it applies to this situation. Remember that every one of these simulated missions provides hundreds or thousands of examples for indidividual human interactions each. That's an indication of the amount of data needed to draw applicable conclusions. Allowing people to die could never approach those levels. Any conclusions would also be tainted by the nature of these experiments as simulations far more than any other events–because "is the result worth the price" would be the dominating question.

gonzo41 8y ago
I was being flippant. I was suprised by the electrical fault. That sort of mistake doesn't really seem very NASA.

walrus01 8y ago

12vdc is hard to distribute with any higher amperage more than a few feet. One of the reasons why serious telecom stuff is 48 to 56vdc, so you don't have to run a 4 gauge wire to everything. In this particular setup they use consumer grade electronics which are pretty much all AC powered, so they have a setup that is not dissimilar from an off grid photovoltaic home with a few big DC to AC inverters, fed off the battery bank, in the 3500W to 6000W size range.

Johnny555 8y ago

My first thought is kill one, train a thousand But this accident was caused by something that many people have already died from and has already been solved by common electrical code requirements. If someone is going to die or be injured during one of these experiments, it shouldn't be from a well known risk that has simple mitigations.