If you are in fact worried about TMS wasting your tax money then focus in on someone like Bill Clancey who works for you and is spending money at MDRS on research which has been in peer reviewed science journals.

Thus, other science don't think what we are doing isn't science... You a scientist, Ed...where are your articles in what journals?

Chris wrote: No, they were learning geology from Gene Shoemaker because they were jet pilots not geologist.

EP wrote: Which is exactly what I said: they were training.

Chris writes: Learning is not exactly the same as training...
The Apollo Astronauts were learning Geological Science because they for the most part were not scientists. Sure they also were learning and training to use the equipment and later in suits to feel comfortable with a full up simulation, but there is a difference from what you suggest. The folks we send to MDRS and FMARS already know geology they often have Ph.Ds in it. Do you? Do you have science degree of anykind?

Chris wrote: The big problem with your logic is we are working on Human Factors not training people to go to Mars...yet.

EP wrote: Good, at least he understands that they are not training.

Now if he only understood that their experiment is of such bad construction that it has no bearing on human factors either.

Chris writes: See, this is where you need to prove our experiments are of so poorly construction that nothing is learned, those papers seem to suggest you don't happen to be correct. By the way if we are doing experiments we are defacto doing science (poor or not)... Can't have it both way either we are not doing science or we are doing experiments. Which is it? Please tell us here how a badly designed experiment can provide human factors information? Please tell us what you thing human factor engineering is. I have a friend who takes a refrigerator box places it in front of the wheel chaired person and has them touch the areas the can reach while in the chair...this is human factor engineering whether Jim uses some wooden frame work of just and old cardboard box. Appearance of the things use have no bearing on the merit of the experiment....otherwise Marie Curies shack experiment shouldn't count as science...clueless...

EP wrote: The Apollo training space suits bore some resemblance to the real thing. The Mars Nuts' sutis are made of canvas and dust bin parts, and bear no resemblance to any possible real Mars suit.

Chris writes: I'll have one more run at this....You don't want to get it! No, they didn't unless they needed Spacesuits they didn't wear them! Instead they wore ordinary clothing.

Chris wrote: See above image...

EP wrote: C does not bother to show the other image he posted, which showed the use of an Apollo simulation suit.

Chris writes:

Sorry that is a Gemini Suit, note the backpack ordinary frame between the PLSS and whatever the big white box is...

EP further wrote: The training in this image was identifying samples while driving a rover. It would have been better with simulation suits, but there were limits.
Once again, this was training, the science would be done on the Moon -these guys had tickets, you don't; we know the folks playing Mars right now arenot doing science, and since none of them will ever get there, they aren't training either -

Chris writes: How do we know there not doing science? Because you say so? How do we know people do science. They write about it and put it in journals and present papers at conferences... BTW, we do both those things... If you think we aren't doing science read the papers then attack them...

Chris wrote: I would contend you don't have expertise in knowing what a real Mars suit would look like.

EP wrote: If you're an expert, then please tell us all why these canvas and dust bin costumes you people run around in do not have the same mass as any suit which could possibly use on Mars. Could it be that such suits would make playing Mars less fun?

Chris writes: How does this show expertise? Anywa, we do have suits that match the weight expected to be used on Mars. Tell us what weight you think that would be on Earth?

Chrie wrote: Why are they so threatened by costumed players if that is what we are?

EP wrote: Because they try to fool people into thinking that costumes are space suits.

Chris writes: You have little faith in the intelligence of other people, don't you.

Chris wrote: Why is it that when I mention peer review papers put out by TMS and members of the MDRS and FMARS crews they don't address any of them...attack them?

EP wrote: neurotics build illusory worlds, psychotics live in them - My god, you people even think that using acronyms somehow makes this PR stunt more respectable, or more scientific - it's magical thinking, much as your "science" resembles cargo cults... Whoever signs off on any of this should not be recieving taxpayer money: I have some real problems here in the real world which need to be dealt with.

Chris writes: You didn't answer the question, just called us names. Should I be surprised? No, we use acronyms because they are quicker to say...just as you used initials thru-out your posting because it's quicker.

--Chris Vancil