Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the devastating effects of a year in space

brisbanetimes.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 135 posts

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#31

Post by danso »

product50 wrote: post #23
QAPereo wrote: post #5

...And this is why Mars for colonists is still very much a turgid fantasy. We need to dream less, and commit more to the hard and expensive org of solving these problems. Step 1: stop stripping NASA down to bare metal. Here’s some possible insight into the impact of radiation on their brains: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/space-radiation-may-d... this is in addition to bones, muscles, eyes, etc. Edit: the pr…

Yeah - so instead let us not do anything and spend our time commenting on random threads how bad the idea is. You realize that at every cusp of a major technological breakthrough, there were 100s of people like you saying how terrible the idea was? You are getting downvoted for your pessimistic and can't do attitude than anything else.

Well of course we don't track very well all the major ambitions that failed because of undue optimism.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#33

Post by digi_owl »

chrishacken wrote: post #14
martyvis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that lack of gravity seems to be a major risk factor for well-being I'm surprised a static structure like the ISS doesn't yet have a rotating centrifuge-like structure ala 2001: A Space Oddysey to at least ward off the effects during sleep and downtime

There actually was a proposal for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X There's also this issue: "Another problem is that we do know of adverse effects that arise at high rotational rates of speed. The Coriolis Effect has to do with rotating reference frames and it can seriously screw with the inner ear. The only way to maintain a strong centrifugal gravity while keeping rotational speed low is to lengthen th…

So in effect if your feet are moving faster than your head by just enough for the inner ear to pick it up, you are likely to look at outcomes similar to motion sickness...

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#34

Post by larkeith »

rocqua wrote: post #25
larkeith wrote: post #8

It should be noted that, in Mars' reduced gravity, it can be presumed the symptoms would be lessened. Still a major concern, however.

It's still a daunting prospect for those expecting to return from mars to earth.

I had been somewhat under the impression that current colonization plans were one-way deals. Agreed that it'll be an issue once we have the infrastructure and desire to return to Earth.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#35

Post by whatshisface »

chrishacken wrote: post #14
martyvis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that lack of gravity seems to be a major risk factor for well-being I'm surprised a static structure like the ISS doesn't yet have a rotating centrifuge-like structure ala 2001: A Space Oddysey to at least ward off the effects during sleep and downtime

There actually was a proposal for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X There's also this issue: "Another problem is that we do know of adverse effects that arise at high rotational rates of speed. The Coriolis Effect has to do with rotating reference frames and it can seriously screw with the inner ear. The only way to maintain a strong centrifugal gravity while keeping rotational speed low is to lengthen th…

Zero-G also makes people sick, but astronauts can get used to it. If you put someone in a small spinning station for six months, would they also get used to the motion sickness? What if you found someone suffering from (and that had learned to live with) permanent vertigo?

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#36

Post by coleca »

markatkinson wrote: post #7
baddox wrote: post #2

I’m a little confused why only 48 hours after his return from space, he’s sleeping at home with his girlfriend and debating whether to take aspirin or go to the emergency room. I would have expected significant medical attention for much longer than 48 hours, given that this was the primary purpose for his extended stay on the ISS.

Funny I thought the same thing. Or even an in house doctor for check ups and assistance.

So it sounds like even NASA astronauts even have a crappy healthcare plan like the rest of us.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#37

Post by bigiain »

baddox wrote: post #2

I’m a little confused why only 48 hours after his return from space, he’s sleeping at home with his girlfriend and debating whether to take aspirin or go to the emergency room. I would have expected significant medical attention for much longer than 48 hours, given that this was the primary purpose for his extended stay on the ISS.

On the other hand, if they'd tried to check _me_ into hospital, Id be all "Where do I sign, I'm checking myself out. I'm going to dinner and bed with my girlfriend who I haven't seen for a year!!!"

(Which is only _one_ of the reasons I didn't get to be an astronaut... ;-) )

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#38

Post by bigiain »

kilroy123 wrote: post #30
kybernetikos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the answer to your questions, but I did read in Chris Hadfields book that it takes basically the same amount of time you are in space to recover afterwards on the ground. If you're up for 6 months, you'll need about 6 months recovery.

But he's totally ok now, right?

It's entirely possible he's about as "totally OK" as a smoker who smoked for a decade and has now quit for a decade. I don't think we have _anything_ like enough long term data to even know what problems might start appearing in 20, 30, 40 years...

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#39

Post by neurotech1 »

simplicio wrote: post #6
baddox wrote: post #2

I’m a little confused why only 48 hours after his return from space, he’s sleeping at home with his girlfriend and debating whether to take aspirin or go to the emergency room. I would have expected significant medical attention for much longer than 48 hours, given that this was the primary purpose for his extended stay on the ISS.

Yea, especially given much of the purpose of his flight was to examine the effects of that long in space. I have trouble believing that NASA didn't, if nothing else, give him a phone # to call right away if he had any unexpected symptoms. The whole "should I go to the emergency room" thing kinda seems like a narrative added after the fact to add excitement to his article/book. (not that I doubt the episode was scary,…

They have on-call flight surgeon(physicians) for the Astronaut Office. This includes post-mission support.

The narrative seems like it was slightly dramatic to support the story. Similar "unusual" symptoms have occurred on previous missions with other astronauts.

Also, being a senior astronaut, he is likely personal friends with at least one of the assigned flight surgeon.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#40

Post by yorwba »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
martyvis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that lack of gravity seems to be a major risk factor for well-being I'm surprised a static structure like the ISS doesn't yet have a rotating centrifuge-like structure ala 2001: A Space Oddysey to at least ward off the effects during sleep and downtime

The ISS is simply too small for that. It would have to spin at a ridiculous rate in order to get to a level of gravity where the effects are no longer felt. And in this particular case that is actually a blessing because even if the space station would be able to do this the spaceship used for any interplanetary traveling would not and so no useful data for such a trip would be collected.

Since the centrifugal force for mass m, angular velocity w and radius r is mw²r, you only need w = sqrt(g/r) to reproduce Earth-like levels of acceleration. At r = 10 m, that's already less than 1 rad/s or 1/6 cycle/s. That doesn't seem ridiculously fast.

And why wouldn't an interplanetary spaceship be able to spin fast enough? You could just build it as a space station with thrusters.

Post reply on HN