SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:57PM
from the in-soviet-russia-mars-monkey's-you dept.
from the in-soviet-russia-mars-monkey's-you dept.
Russian scientists are currently training macaques to solve puzzles and use a joystick for a planned 2017 trip to Mars:
Each day a team, led by Inessa Kozlovskaya, trains the monkeys to control a joystick and hit a target highlighted by a cursor.
When they complete the task successfully they are rewarded with a sip of juice.
Once they have mastered this task the macaques will be trained to solve simple mathematical tasks and puzzles.
At the end of their training the creatures should be capable of completing a daily schedule of tasks on their own.
[...] Macaques typically have a lifespan of around 25 years, so it is hoped there is enough time to train them properly and for them to survive the six-month trip to Mars, added the team.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
-- Gandhi
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Subsentient on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:14PM
That seems cruel. If humans lose their minds in long space trips, doing it to monkeys seems somehow worse.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Tramii on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:13PM
Most of the stresses of spaceflight probably would not apply to monkeys. I'm assuming the monkeys won't realize they are in space. As far as they are concerned, they got moved into a new weird cage and they all developed superpowers! They can't/won't think about all the things that could possibly go wrong. They don't know that the world if watching them from afar. They won't care if they mess something up (unless it turns out to be fatal). They won't think about missing their friends/family (at least not any more than they already were). It seems like they might have some trouble sleeping, but I can't think of anything else that would really be different from their current situation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:50PM
I think you seriously underate the intelligence and emotions of higher animals. I don't believe that monkeys and apes are all that far behind humans, in fact there is probably some overlap between the great apes and humans in these respects. Humans don't like to hear or believe this, as they did (or still do) not like Darwin's theory, and it does not help that there is no easy form of communication between humans and other species.
I have a dog who is not even in the same league as monkeys, but even he exibits considerable concern when taken in a car, depending whether the car turns in the direction that leads to the vet, or not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:34PM
I have a dog who is not even in the same league as monkeys, but even he exibits considerable concern when taken in a car, depending whether the car turns in the direction that leads to the vet, or not.
That just means that you are a lousy dog trainer. I've trained my dog to ride comfortably in the back of my car on any trip. Doesn't matter if it's to the vet or to the dog park. Did he start out that way? Certainly not. But after repeating the process over and over again (and with positive reinforcement), he now can go on a 6 hour roadtrip and not bat an eye.
Sure, capturing random monkeys from the wild and then immediately shooting them up into space would be pretty stressful. But they aren't doing that. Your example fails to demonstrate how sending trained monkeys into space would be cruel or psychologically damaging.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:27PM
I agree. What is the point of doing this? Is there some doubt about the survivability of a trip to Mars? My understanding is that big problems will be keeping astronauts sane for the 6 month journey, and the logistics of keeping them supplied for the mission and return trip.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:21PM
Is there some doubt about the survivability of a trip to Mars?
Yes. For starters, no live organism from Earth made the trip there so far (that we know about.) No life support system was ever tested on such a trip. It would be a bit unusual to build a complex machine the first time ever, with plenty of new parts, load it with humans, and shoot it on a year-long trip with no chance of help. Even the first flight of STS was less risky.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:42PM
Odd you mention the STS without mentioning the ISS.
Its been up there testing life support systems for long enough, don't you think?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:36PM
Odd you mention the STS without mentioning the ISS. Its been up there testing life support systems for long enough, don't you think?
It's not odd. The life support system of the ISS, and of all preceding stations, is entirely inadequate for a trip to Mars. ISS depends on periodic, frequent resupplies with oxygen, fuel, water, food. The same cargo vehicles collect and dispose of all the trash. There is some limited recycling of water (70%), but primarily the system is built around disposable filters of various types that clean the water and the air. The oxygen is produced from waste water, thus also irrevocably consuming the supply. This is not a concern on a station that is designed for resupply, but if you use a similar setup for a flight to Mars, the passengers will die after 2-3 months into the trip - not because they will drown in waste, but because before that happens they will run out of water and out of oxygen. A LSS for a trip to Mars has to support needs of the crew for both legs of the trip *and* for the stay in orbit and on the surface - and remain fully functional for at least a couple of years, in space, where repairs are either difficult or impossible.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:34PM
Besides how many black people are there in Russia anyway? I doubt they'll find enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @09:26PM
"That's racist. You should have said Mexicans." - D Trump.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:01PM
Which is worse, being cruel to monkeys or being cruel to people (who volunteered but perhaps didn't truly understand what they volunteered for)? I'm not saying that's an easy moral question, but it's at least a question.
My general view on the matter: If we're going to engage in the activity of putting people on another planet, we need to accept the fact that people (and testing animals) are going to be killed in the process. People died getting us to the moon, to LEO, and even to the first successful space flight. Which isn't unusual in the history of exploration: People died to get Europeans across the oceans and deserts too (I'm just talking about the difficulties of travel here, not what the Europeans did once they arrived).
I for one am OK with it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:34PM
As you mentioned, the difference is in consent. Humans may not understand all possible risks or possible outcomes, but they UNDERSTAND that they don't understand, yet still choose to go, usually for the betterment of mankind. And, a lot of them probably love the idea. Monkeys cannot give consent, and their minds are too weak to fully comprehend everything going on around them. As far as they know, they're trapped in a weightless metal cage with nobody else and no greenery. Want to see monkeys commit suicide? Send them to mars.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 30 2015, @01:20AM
to LEO, and even to the first successful space flight
The first successful manned space flight was LEO. I'm not sure anyone died in the process to launch Sputnik, but obviously plenty died during the V2 and V1 stages.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:39PM
Exactly.
This probably won't actually happen, as the sane portion of the world will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by this crazy 1950's mentality.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:39PM
I don't think you can claim that literally *nothing* will be gained. As mentioned in a previous post, if nothing else it would help test that the life support system would hold out on a trip to Mars.
Now, if you want to debate if the amount of information collected is not worth the cost, well that's another matter.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 30 2015, @01:16AM
How's that cube, mr code monkey?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 30 2015, @02:29PM
Maybe after sending monkeys into space, if they need a beta test on a larger animal, they could use a death-row criminal! (Maybe give him a cyanide tablet in case he wants to terminate the experiment.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves