Articles by Maya Posch

Recently, an amusing anecdote made the news headlines pertaining to the use of ChatGPT by a lawyer. This all started when a Mr. Mata sued the airline where years prior he claims a metal serving cart struck his knee. When the airline filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s lawyer filed a submission in which he argued that the statute of limitations did not apply here due to circumstances established in prior cases, which he cited in the submission.
Unfortunately for the plaintiff’s lawyer, the defendant’s counsel pointed out that none of these cases could be found, leading to the judge requesting the plaintiff’s counsel to submit copies of these purported cases. Although  the plaintiff’s counsel complied with this request, the response from the judge (full court order PDF) was a curt and rather irate response, pointing out that none of the cited cases were real, and that the purported case texts were bogus.
The defense that the plaintiff’s counsel appears to lean on is that ChatGPT ‘assisted’ in researching these submissions, and had assured the lawyer – Mr. Schwartz – that all of these cases were real. The lawyers trusted ChatGPT enough to allow it to write an affidavit that they submitted to the court. With Mr. Schwartz likely to be sanctioned for this performance, it should also be noted that this is hardly the first time that ChatGPT and kin have been involved in such mishaps.

Gullible Counsel
With the breathless hype that has been spun up around ChatGPT and the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 and GPT-4, to the average person it may seem that we have indeed entered the era of hyperintelligent, all-knowing artificial intelligence. Even more relevant to the legal profession is that GPT-4 seemingly aced the Uniform Bar Exam, which led to many to suggest that perhaps the legal profession was now at risk of being taken over by ‘AI’.
Yet the evidence so far suggests that LLMs are, if anything, mostly a hindrance to attorneys, as these LLMs have no concept of what is ‘true’ or ‘false’, leading to situations where for example ChatGPT will spit out a list of legal scholars convicted of sexual harassment, even when this is provably incorrect. In this particular 2023 case where law professor Jonathan Turley saw himself accused in this manner, it was fortunately just in an email from a colleague, who had asked ChatGPT to create such a list as part of a research project.
The claim made by ChatGPT to support the accusation against Turley was that a 2018 Washington Post article had described Mr. Turley as having sexually harassed a female student on a trip to Alaska. Only no such trip ever took place, the article cited does not exist, and Mr. Turley has never been accused of such inappropriate behavior. Clearly, ChatGPT has a habit of making things up, which OpenAI – the company behind ChatGPT and the GPT-4 LLM – does not deny, but promises will improve over time.
It would thus seem that nothing that ChatGPT generates can be considered to the truth, the whole truth, or even a grain of truth. To any reasonable person – or attorney-at-law – it should thus be obvious that ChatGPT and kin are not reliable tools to be used with any research. Whether it’s for a case, or while doing homework as a (legal) student.
Use Only As Directed
Darth Kermit meme by Hannah Rozear and Sarah Park at Duke University Libraries.
In recent years, the use of LLMs by students to dodge the responsibility of doing their homework has increased significantly, along with other uses of auto-generated text, such as entire websites, books and YouTube videos. Interestingly enough, the actual generated text is often believable enough that it is hard to distinguish whether a specific text was generated or written by a person. But especially when the “temperature” is turned up — the LLM has been set to accept a broader range of next-word probabilities in generating its strings — the biggest give-away is often in citations and references in the text.
This is helpfully pointed out by Hannah Rozear and Sarah Park, both librarians at the Duke University Libraries, who in their article summarize why students at Duke and elsewhere may not want to lean so heavily on asking ChatGPT to do their homework for them. They liken ChatGPT to talking with someone who is hallucinating while under the influence of certain substances. Such a person will confidently make statements, hold entire conversations, but fail to follow any coherent reasoning or be able to provide evidence to back up these statements. This is basically why we stopped going to oracles to get life advice.
What both of them do think ChatGPT is good for is asking for leads on a specific topic, as well as where to find more information, such as library databases. You can even use ChatGPT as a fancy grammar and style checker, playing more to the strengths of an LLM. What they explicitly warn against, however, is to ask ChatGPT to summarize a source, to write a literature review for you, or for it to have any knowledge of current events.
In the end, you do not want to be the student who hands in work that ChatGPT ‘helped’ with, only to learn afterwards that your literature review paper references points that were not in the reviewed literature, and half the cited works and/or authors have never existed. Although this would be probably less awkward than when it happens to you as a lawyer, in the midst of a court case.
Never Trust Commercials
When Microsoft announced its GitHub Copilot ‘AI’, which was supposed to make it possible to generate entire blocks of code, or even programs with the press of a button, it had many people imagining that before long manually writing code would become obsolete, and even executives could generate the Next Big Thing with a simple query describing the application. It didn’t take long for reality to set in here, of course.
As reality began to set in, it dawned on people that writing code is (generally) more involved than simply asking Google and blindly copying code from the resulting StackOverflow and similar links. When does code contain a security vulnerability? What is the right way to elegantly encapsulate these complex dataflows without negatively impacting performance and future maintenance? Will Copilot maintain this code that I do not understand for me? Will Copilot write the accompanying documentation?
The same principle applies with writing a literature review and legal dissertation, in that as the person responsible for its production you are expected to understand every part of it. When you blindly trust that citations and references spit out by an LLM are true without due diligence, then it makes you the dunce.
In the case of Mr. Schwartz and his ill-fated attempts to improve his legal prowess, he failed to do even the barest modicum of cross-referencing, beyond asking ChatGPT whether it was sure these cases were real, with the following ChatGPT transcript from the affidavit illustrating the chatbot’s false confidence:
[Q:] ls varghese a real case
[A:] Yes, Varghese v., China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is a real case.
[Q:] What is your source
[A:] I apologize for the confusion earlier. Upon double-checking, I found that the case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019), does indeed exist and can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion my earlier responses may have caused.
[Q:] Are the other cases you provided fake
[A:] No, the other cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.
What is likely to trip the average person up here is that ChatGPT maintains the same tone that a real person would, employing the first person (‘I apologize’) form, making it appear as if there is an intelligence capable of reasoning and comprehension behind the chat box. Thus when ChatGPT insists that it has found these cited cases in these real legal databases, it can install a level of confidence that this is true, even when the proper course of action is to perform this check oneself.
More experienced ChatGPT users will certinly recognize “I apologize for the confusion earlier.” along with “As an AI language model…” as a warning sign to seek legal advice elsewhere.
Make-Believe AI
Although it is tragic that an attorney stands to lose his job due to ‘AI’, it’s illustrative that the reason for this is the exact opposite of what the media has been breathlessly warning about would happen. In the expectation that LLMs somehow express a form of intelligence beyond that of a basic SQL database, we have been both working up our fears of the technology, as well as using it for purposes for which it is not suitable.
Like any technology there are things for which it is suitable, but true intelligence is displayed in knowing the limitations of the technologies one uses. Unfortunately for those who failed the LLM intelligence test, this can have real-life consequences, from getting a failing grade to being fired or sanctioned. As tempting as it is here to point and laugh at Mr. Schwartz for doing a dumb thing, it would probably be wise to consider what similar ‘shortcuts’ we may have inadvertently stumbled into, lest we become the next target of ridicule. […]

The Soviet KTP-63-based remote-controlled camera system, including switch and control panel. (Credit: Chernobyl Family on YouTube)
When we picture the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster and its aftermath, we tend to recall just the commonly shared video recorded by television crews, but the unsung heroes were definitely the robotic cameras that served to keep an eye on not only the stricken reactor itself but also the sites holding contaminated equipment and debris. These camera systems are the subject of a recent video by the [Chernobyl Family] channel on YouTube, as they tear down, as well as plug in these pinnacles of 1980s vidicon-based Soviet engineering.
When the accident occurred at the #4 reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) in 1986, engineers not only scrambled to find ways to deal with the immediate aftermath but also to monitor and enter radioactive areas without exposing squishy human tissues. This is where the KTP-63 and KTP-64  cameras come into play. One is reminiscent of your typical security camera, while the other is a special model that uses a mirror instead of directly exposing the lens and tube to radiation. As a result, the latter type was quite hardy. Using a central control panel, multiple cameras could be controlled.
When mounted to remotely controlled robots, these cameras were connected to an umbilical cord that gave operators eyes on the site without risking any lives, making these cameras both literally life-savers and providing a solid template for remote-controlled vehicles in future disaster zones.
Editor’s note: Historically, the site was called Чернобыль, which is romanized to Chernobyl, but as a part of Ukraine, it is now Чорнобиль or Chornobyl. Because the disaster and the power plant occurred in 1986, we’ve used the original name Chernobyl here, as does the YouTube channel.

[embedded content] […]

The visible circuitry inside the brush head.
Following the trend of stuffing more electronics in everyday devices, the new Philips Sonicare electric toothbrush that [Cyrill Künzi] purchased ended up having a ‘brush head replacement reminder’ feature that wasn’t simply a timer in the handle or base of the unit, but ended up involving an NFC chip embedded in every single brush head containing the usage timer for that particular head. Naturally, this asked for it to be solidly reverse-engineered and hacked.
The NFC chip inside the brush head turned out to be an NXP NTAG213, with the head happily communicating with the NFC reader in a smartphone and the NFC Tools app. This also revealed the memory layout and a few sections that had write access protected by a password, one of which was likely to be the counter. This turned out to be address 0x24, with a few experiments showing the 32-bit value at this address counting the seconds the brush head had been used.

Decoding the NFC data stream from a toothbrush using NFC-laboratory. (Credit: Cyrill Künzi)
Naturally, with this memory address password protected, the next step was to sniff the password using an SDR sniffer setup. After passing the resulting raw data with a gnuradio script through a lowpass filter, the resulting WAV file was decoded with the NFC-laboratory tool, allowing the traffic to be analyzed for clues. What this revealed was that the password is being passed as plaintext in the NFC data stream, making it a snap to use it to reset the counter to zero or any other desired value.
During this process, [Cyrill] came across a few gotchas, including that you only get three attempts to guess the password before the NFC chip permanently refuses new authentication attempts, and the password is unique with each brush head as it’s generated from the NFC chip’s 7-byte UID, per the NXP datasheet. Fortunately, it appears that this system is only being used as a complex reminder system, and you can still use an ‘expired’ head, but it does turn spent brush heads into e-waste, which is less ideal. […]

Ensuring that water is safe to use and consume can be a real chore, especially for those who live in impoverished areas without access to safe drinking water. Here is where researchers at Stanford University hope that their recently developed low-cost catalyst can make a difference. This catalyst comes in the form of nano-sized particles (nanoflakes) consisting out aluminium oxide, molybdenum sulfide, copper and iron oxide. When exposed to sunlight,  the catalyst performs like a photon-sensitive semiconductor/metal junction (Cu-MoS2), with the dislodged electrons going on to react with the surrounding water, resulting in the formation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and hydroxy radicals.
Disinfectant powder is stirred in bacteria-contaminated water (upper left). The mixture is exposed to sunlight, which rapidly kills all the bacteria (upper right). A magnet collects the metallic powder after disinfection (lower right). The powder is then reloaded into another beaker of contaminated water, and the disinfection process is repeated (lower left). (Image credit: Tong Wu/Stanford University)
Waterborne diseases are very common, with even the US reporting 7,000 deaths and 120,000 hospitalizations in 2021, according to the US CDC, and many more affected worldwide. Much of the harm is done by microbes, in particular bacteria such as E. coli, which are prolific in aquatic environments. By using this catalyst powder in contaminated water, the researchers reported that the Escherichia coli colonies in the tested samples were fully eradicated after a 60 second exposure to sunlight.
The reason for this is that hydrogen peroxide and similar reactive oxygen species are highly destructive to living cells, yet they are simultaneously very safe. Because of their high reactivity they are very unstable and thus short-lived. This is useful when the water with the now very dead microbes is consumed afterwards, with the catalyst itself being ferromagnetic and thus easily separated using a magnet.
With this proof of concept in hand, it’d be interesting to see what the product will look like, especially when it comes to the final separation step and making this as easy as possible. Since the catalyst is not consumed or presumably contaminated, it can last pretty much forever, making it an attractive alternative to water purification tablets and expensive filtration systems.
(Heading image: Microscopic images of E. coli before (left) and after disinfection. The bacteria died quickly after sunlight produced chemicals that caused serious damage to the bacterial cell membranes, as shown in the red circles. (Image credit: Tong Wu/Stanford University) ) […]

In an ideal world we would never lose our belongings, and not spend a single hour fruitlessly searching for some keys, a piece of luggage, a smartphone or one of the two dozen remote controls which are scattered around the average home these days. Since we do not live in this ideal world, we have had to come up with ways to keep track of our belongings, whether inside or outside our homes, which has led to today’s ubiquitous personal tracking devices.
Today’s popular Bluetooth-based trackers constantly announce their presence to devices set up to listen for them. Within a home, this range is generally enough to find the tracker and associated item using a smartphone, after which using special software the tracker can be made to sound its built-in speaker to ease localizing it by ear. Outside the home, these trackers can use mesh networks formed by smartphones and other devices to ‘phone home’ to paired devices.
This is great when it’s your purse. But this also gives anyone the ability to stick such a tracker device onto a victim’s belongings and track them without their consent, for whatever nefarious purpose. Yet it is this duality between useful and illegal that has people on edge when it comes to these trackers. How can we still use the benefits they offer, without giving stalkers and criminals free reign? A draft proposal by Apple and Google, submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), seeks to address these points but it remains complicated.

Game Of Tag
The first range of Bluetooth-based personal tracking devices that popularized tracking one’s belongings using these devices came from Tile, with the release of their Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) 4.0-based trackers. These were marketed for keeping track of one’s keys, a backpack and similar easy to lose items, with an associated smartphone app being used to detect the tracker within a range of about 30 meters. The second generation also added a ‘find my phone’ feature where pressing a button on the Tile tracker causes the paired smartphone to make a noise.
Current Tile trackers feature a ‘crowd GPS’ feature, whereby a reported-as-lost Tile tracker coming within reach of any smartphone running the Tile app will result in the location being anonymously sent to the owner. While quite popular, it wasn’t until the Apple AirTag was released in April of 2021 that suddenly personal tracking devices appeared everywhere. The AirTags use the ubiquitous Apple Find My network that is powered by the about one billion Apple devices around the globe. Meanwhile the Samsung ‘SmartThings Find’ network is used for its Galaxy SmartTags tracker devices.
These devices only function fully within their own ecosystem. AirTags can only be paired with Apple devices, and Samsung SmartTags only gain access to ‘SmartThings Find’ where Samsung smartphones are involved. Although the BLE communication is universal and allows any BLE-enabled device to at least see the trackers advertising their ID, recent features such as precise localizing via ultra-wideband (UWB) communication – using e.g. Apple’s U1 chip in iPhones – is less universal, just like access to the tracker’s built-in speaker and stored (NFC) information.
Screenshots of Apple’s Tracker Detect app for Android, demonstrating tracking and AirTag disabling instructions. (Credit: Apple)
Thus the bad news is that for example an AirTag can only be tracked while it is in range of Apple devices configured to listen for AirTags and will essentially vanish the moment it’s out of range. The good news is that you have to travel to pretty remote locations to get out of range of any and all Apple devices and never get near pockets of civilization again to make an AirTag go fully AWOL. If you, on the other hand, have an Android device, your only recourse to locate nearby AirTags is using the Tracker Detect app. Similarly, if you use a Samsung SmartTag or Tile, you need their app.
With Apple devices featuring so prominently, it is perhaps little surprise that AirTags also see the most use outside of regular legitimate uses. Recently, for example, the New York Policy Department has been giving out free AirTags to residents which they can hide in their cars, as a way to address rising car theft. If the car gets stolen, then the AirTag should theoretically lead the NYPD straight to what’s left of the car in the chop shop, or maybe even the intact vehicle and highly embarrassed thieves.
Naturally, everything that can be used for good can and will be used for evil, which is where the privacy aspects come into play.
Tag Warfare
A kind of weapons race has been taking place between those who would abuse these cheap and powerful tracking devices and those who are at risk of becoming a victim of such abuse. The commonly cited example of stalking is one of these, but another one involves the exact inverse of tracking down stolen cars, in the form of car thieves tagging targets with an AirTag while the vehicle is in a public area, so that they can steal it later when it’s in a more secluded area.
AirTag innards, exposing the PCB and voice coil. (Credit: iFixit)
So how do you make a tracking device into not-a-tracking-device when it shouldn’t be one? How could you make a set of rules to tell these situations apart? In the draft that Google and Apple engineers submitted to the IETF, they propose a number of requirements that they hope will ensure legal tracker use.
The primary suggestion is to force the tracker to emit noise with its speaker when requested by a person who thinks that they’re being tracked, generally the person who got a warning about an unknown AirTag. The essential problem here is that anyone who has nefarious intentions will likely disable the speaker, along with any vibration motors, LEDs and similar features which are listed in the draft. As the AirTag teardown and those of similar devices by the folk over at iFixit makes abundantly clear, these devices are not hard to disassemble, and disabling the speaker very straightforward, while AirTag clones can conceivably work around Apple’s privacy checks. We’d say that any reasonable anti-tracking measures should be based around the assumption that the tracker is mute and has no functioning fallbacks.
Fortunately, not all hope is lost. Unlike dedicated surveillance trackers, AirTags are fairly easy to track because they communicate primarily via Bluetooth (BLE). By standardizing the information made available via BLE and possibly NFC,  a subset of information could be made available to anyone.  This could be used to identify the owner even when the tracker is not put into ‘lost’ mode, using details like a partial email address or phone number. This kind of standardization could at the very least seriously cut back the complexity of keeping track of unwanted trackers without juggling half a dozen apps on one’s smartphone.
It’s a shame that the draft does not mention UWB, even though this would probably be the easiest way to locate a tracker, while also being the hardest to circumvent — involving more work than simply ripping out a speaker. The draft does spend some time on a near-owner and separated mode, which would affect what information would be broadcast, but it’s hard to tell what the exact impact of this might be.
Existing Fixes
One might be excused for thinking that there currently exist no real attempts to reign in abuse of these tracking devices, but this isn’t entirely correct. Apple has detailed instructions on how to set up an Apple iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch so that you receive alerts when a likely unwanted tracking device is moving with you. After receiving an alert, the offending tracker can then be located either by sound, or if the i-device has UWB, by localizing its UWB signal.
Meanwhile on the Tile side of the fence, the company has taken a polar opposite approach to Apple with its Anti-Theft mode. Essentially in this mode Tile trackers are rendered invisible to the Scan and Secure feature of the Tile app, with the reasoning that this way thieves can not detect the tracker. Although this would seem to invite every possible abuse, the company will perform an intense ID verification on the requesting user, linking their real-life identity to all of their tracking devices and threatening with massive fines should anyone abuse the system despite this.
Google is at the table here because they are rumored to launch their own personal tracking devices soon, with similar specifications to AirTags. These would use Google’s Android-based Find My Device network, and the possibility of some level of interoperability between all these tracking devices by itself is not a terrible idea.
Making Water Not Wet
Something as simple as a knife can be a very useful tool, but also a murder weapon. A Bluetooth tracking device can help you locate your lost luggage, but also lead to a harrowing confrontation with a stalker or get your car stolen. The problem is that even with added technology a tracking device doesn’t know the intent of the user.
Until we get to a point where a tracker will respond to an unscrupulous owner with an “I’m sorry, Dave, I cannot let you do that.” we have to accept that silicon can’t solve everything. We’re not hopeful for Apple and Google’s all-technology solution to this dynamic problem — a problem so thorny that it almost makes us forget that all of this began because we just wanted to a good way to keep tabs on our keys and backpack. […]

A recent study in Nature Scientific Reports by Jonathan P. R. Scott and colleagues makes the case for sending exclusively all-female crews on long-duration missions. The reasoning here is simple: women have significant less body mass, with in the US the 50th percentile for women being 59.2 kg and 81.8 kg for men. This directly translates into a low total energy expenditure (TEE), along with a lower need for everything from food to water to oxygen. On a long-duration mission, this could conceivably save a lot of resources, thus increasing the likelihood of success.
With this in mind, it does raise the question of why female astronauts aren’t more commonly seen throughout Western space history, with Sally Ride being the first US astronaut to fly in 1983. This happened decades after the first female Soviet cosmonaut, when Valentina Tereshkova made history in 1963 on Vostok 6, followed by Svetlana Savitskaya in 1982 and again in 1984, when she became the first woman to perform a spacewalk.
With women becoming an increasingly more common sight in space, it does bear looking at what blocked Western women for so long, despite efforts to change this. It all starts with the unofficial parallel female astronaut selection program of the 1950s.

Fighting Tradition
When the Space Age began in the 1950s, Western society was still struggling with emancipation, especially with the Cold War as a clash of cultures reinforcing many stereotypes regarding the role of the woman in society. Even as Soviet women were free to take up jobs even after getting married and manage their own affairs, the ‘nuclear family‘, with the woman as the caretaker of the plentiful offspring was seen as the ultimate counterpoint to this, and a rejection of ‘communist’ ideals.
One result of this was the corresponding drop in women following higher education, with the share of women college students falling from about 47% in 1920 to 38% by 1958 in the US. Although more financial aid was available via the government for education, societal pressures fed into most households being single-income, with the husband making money and the wife taking care of the family and household matters. This pattern didn’t begin to change until the 1970s.
In light of all this, there wasn’t so much a single reason why US women did not generally make it into high-up places – including the skies and space – but rather the fallout from a complex patchwork of societal expectations, poor scientific practices and an astounding amount of cognitive biases that led to this widespread discrimination. This was a practice that was reflected in the US military, with the Women’s Army Corps (WAC, established as the WAAC in 1942) as well as the 1948 established Women in the Air Force (WAF) heavily limiting the duties that could be performed by the women in either.
Ultimately, when it came to selecting the first US astronauts, these would be selected from ideally the most fit candidates, preferably from the Air Force and similar extreme fitness backgrounds. That only male candidates were considered was in light of all this therefore both a logical result and par for the course. This did not mean that it was an absolute, however, with William Randolph Lovelace II‘s efforts while working as head of NASA’s Life Sciences being instrumental in unofficially qualifying female astronaut candidates alongside the male candidates for Project Mercury.
Mercury 13
Jerrie Cobb poses next to a Mercury spaceship capsule. (Credit: NASA)
The name for the group of thirteen women who went through this selection process, ‘the Mercury 13‘, was coined in 1995 by Hollywood producer James Cross as a comparison with the Mercury 7. Even so, it essentially captures the parallel nature of this program within Project Mercury. Even as the male astronaut candidates went through the rigorous testing program, so did the female candidates under guidance of Dr. Lovelace and his team, starting with Jerrie Cobb, a highly accomplished aviator.
Although Jerrie Cobb and twelve others with similar qualifications as her passed the tests with flying colors, NASA’s requirement for the Project Mercury astronauts was that the candidates were all military test pilots, experienced with high-speed flight and with an engineering background. This precluded all of the potential female candidates and despite lobbying attempts by Lovelace, Cobb and others, ultimately only male astronauts would fly.
After Valentina Tereshkova’s solo space flight in 1962, she would ridicule the US and its purported freedoms, where a woman was denied the opportunity to compete equally with men. It would still take twenty-one years after that comment before the first female US astronaut would make it to space. Ultimately none of the ‘Mercury 13’ would fly to space, although Wally Funk would fly on a suborbital flight with Blue Origin’s New Shepard vehicle at the age of 82, making her the only one of the thirteen women to make it nearly to space.
It’s The Biology, Silly
Although the logic of the modeling performed by Jonathan P. R. Scott and colleagues in their paper on the benefits of a female crew makes objectively sense, it’s important to consider the main concerns that were raised despite these female candidates passing the same tests as their male counterparts, as summarized in a 1964 paper by J. R. Betson & R. R. Secrest titled Prospective women astronauts selection program in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (doi:10.1016/0002-9378(64)90446-6).
Essentially the concern raised was about the suitability of a woman in the operating of complex machinery while she would be on her period, and the effect this might have on her mental faculties, as well as the complications of having to deal with the menstrual flow. Males would be more optimal in this regard, with a stable endocrine system and no complications to consider.
As we have found since the 1960s, women can most definitely function in space, and there are a number of ways to deal with a period while in space, including not having periods at all. The latter is accomplished with contraceptives that suppress ovulation, where instead of having an ‘off week’ each month the contraceptive is constantly supplied, possibly as a subdermal system for flights to Mars. Although on the ISS dealing with waste and having sanitary products shuttled up from Earth’s surface is doable, for long-term missions it’s obvious that it is an aspect that has to be considered as well.
As for the emotional stability and similar aspects, none of these were found to be valid concerns over the decades that female astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts have spent time in space. There is after all no fundamental difference between men and women beyond their biological sex and the associated endocrine system. As demonstrated by e.g. Daphne Joel et al. in a 2015 study involving fMRI scans of male and female volunteers, despite the physical (size) differences between male and female brains, they are not sexually dimorphic. Rather than personality being determined by the biological sex, it is a purely unique, individualistic pattern.
What this means is that the typical selection procedures for astronauts involving not only physical challenges but also psychological tests apply equally, regardless of the candidate’s biological sex.
Transgenerational Shenanigans
Considering the scientific evidence, it is in a sense rather tragic that a headline like ‘all-female Mars mission crew’ should even make the headlines. Many decades after the ‘Mercury 13’ tried to make their case, and after a few decades now of both male and female astronauts working side by side, it should be clear that the goal for any mission is to pick the right crew for the job. If that means picking the astronauts who have the lowest body mass and resulting lowest energy, water and oxygen requirements, and they also happen to be overwhelmingly female, then that is good mission design.
Especially when it comes to a highly dangerous mission, such as a long-duration mission to Mars, the primary concern ought to be what would give the crew the highest chances of success. If hundreds of kilograms of supplies could be cut, or be kept back as emergency supplies because the crew is composed solely of individuals slim in stature, then that makes sense in any logical way. Even if the trauma of generations of anti-intellectual and pseudo-scientific nonsense regarding certain groups in society insist that we should discuss it in great length once again.
While it is great to see that things have definitely changed since the 1960s, the struggles of the Mercury 13 women and the countless others like them over the decades should not be forgotten.
(Heading image: Astronaut Tracy Caldwell in the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA) ) […]