An All Female Mission to Mars

Once again, we see one of the very few arguments for an all-women space (in space!) in the mainstream media (in this case Slate). Though the argument is entirely fact-based, writer Kate Greene waffles towards the end and argues that "diversity" is better, but "if the bottom line is what matters in getting to Mars, the more women the better."

But of course all the waffling and preemptive appeasement doesn't matter. She's attacked by the dudes anyway. Such a surprise...

Never mind all the all-guy missions. As we all know, all-women anything is an instant threat to men, while all male anything is okey dokey status quo and infinitely defensible.

We've actually posted on this subject before.

An All-Female Mission to Mars

As a NASA guinea pig, I verified that women would be cheaper to launch than men.

By Kate Greene

In February of 1960, the American magazine Look ran a cover story that asked, “Should a Girl Be First in Space?” It was a sensational headline representing an audacious idea at the time. And as we all know, the proposal fell short. In 1961, NASA sent Alan Shepard above the stratosphere, followed by dozens of other spacemen over the next two decades. Only in 1983 did Sally Ride become America’s first female astronaut to launch.

But why would anyone think a woman would be the first to space, anyway? Medical studies, for one thing. Some studies in the 1950s and ’60s suggested female bodies had stronger hearts and could better withstand vibrations and radiation exposure. Moreover, psychological studies suggested that women coped better than men in isolation and when deprived of sensory inputs.

Some of these investigations were limited in their design and sample sizes. But there was another, more compelling reason that women might outshine men as potential astronauts: basic economics. Thanks to their size, women are, on average, cheaper to launch and fly than men. As a NASA guinea pig, I had the chance to verify this firsthand.

Read the rest at the Slate link above.