Re: The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets (another Op-Ed by Jeff Bell

"Pat Flannery" <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11od63rpuuj0q12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Tom Cuddihy wrote:
>
>>You're telling me a centrifuge 7 feet across would have allowed us to
>>study 'in detail' the effects of low gravity on humans? That's exactly
>>why it was canceled, because it never would have extended to humans
>>except for in extrapolation from mice. We won't know the actual effects
>>on humans until we study the effects ON HUMANS. I think we should
>>start, personally, on the moon, where the gravity is half of that on
>>Mars and no centrifuge is required.
>>
>
> That's certainly one way to do it, but I think that you might want to get
> some clue about what exactly is going to happen to the astronauts before
> you send them up there for a few months though.
> It probably won't be as severe as the effects of zero G, but I'll bet you
> still end up with bone and muscle loss, just at a slower rate. In the case
> of the Moon, this really isn't a critical problem- if things start to
> deteriorate badly, the astronauts can pack up and head home early.
> Mars is a whole other ball of wax...there isn't any way to come home early
> due to the celestial mechanics involved in the spacecraft's flight plan.
> If you've got a health problem due to low G forces you may well have a
> life-critical situation for the crew with no way out.
>
> Pat

Back when Reagan was President, it would have been possible to change ISS's
design to spin the entire space station. With the addition of a rope and
counterweight, you could get a reasonably large circle for 1/6 G. That
would have added cost, but given us a chance to study something we hadn't
studied yet.

I agree with you on the moon. Suppose we had a 10 person habitat and
regularly schedule flights to and from the moon. We could bring someone
home early without disrupting the mission or costing much more than we were
planning to spend. If someone got sick on the way to Mars, they might abort
the entire mission which would be a $20 billion loss.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The moon, and Mars (or not?)
    ... > for human missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars." ... The head of NASA declares that the spaceships are too risky ... He just forgot to mention that the humans will not be ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... > of sending humans back to the moon and then on to Mars - despite the ... Washington - The DOD is racing to carry out President Bush's costly ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Heres a question: How can we sanely discuss going to MARS and
    ... I have always thought and still do think what Nina Totenburg said on "Inside Washington" last week about sending a human to Mars, or another one to the Moon, ... Robotic missions are much cheaper, ... There was a massive debate before the Apollo program about whether or not we could achieve the same thing with a robotic mission instead of sending humans to the moon, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Barack Obama came to Huntsville last year ...
    ... I like the idea of skipping the return to the moon and going straight to ... For humans to go to Mars, a big boomer nuke will be ... will live and prosper on the Earth as well. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: What chance to you give for many to reach mars in the next 50 years?
    ... Well lets see, if we are back on the Moon by 2018, or say 10 years, ... the chances of humans on Mars within 50 years to be 100%. ... There is a reason to go to Mars as well, a reason that seems to me to ... "To ensure the survival of humans, he adds, efforts must be made to ...
    (sci.space.history)
Quantcast