Re: Another problem with longer flights



Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
The evolution of species on Earth has depended on gravity for billions of years. Why are we so ignorant to think that we can solve the adverse effects of weightlessness within a couple of decades? Why aren't we more pragmatic?
Weight.
Building something that spins and generates 1 g like in 2001 means its going to have to be huge, as studies have shown that unless it's around 400' in diameter the crew are going to get sick as they move around inside of it from having "up" constantly changing between their head and feet as they move from point to point on its periphery.
This is going to cause dizziness and nausea.
The centrifuge aboard the Discovery was only generating 1/6 g and even then it was way too small to prevent the astronauts from getting sick: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html

"And although the Discovery's centrifuge scenes are superbly executed, in the scene at Space Station Five it's quite obvious the actors in these scenes are descending a ramp as they walk 'around' the wheel of the station from the background to the foreground. The Discovery's 38ft. centrifuge itself is the object of some debate: Clarke and science advisor Ordway have admitted that, as impressive as it looks, the centrifuge would need to have been many times larger or the Corriolus effect in the inner ear would have caused uncontrollable nausea in the crew members. There are also many questions as to the effect of the torque of rotation on objects inside a rapidly rotating centrifuge. According to Ordway's writings, the decision was made to have the centrifuge generate 1/6 G lunar gravity. Of course, rapid exercise such as Poole's running would be impossible in such low gravity."

Pat
.