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

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#111

Post by OtterCoder »

chrismealy wrote: post #108
SCAQTony wrote: post #85

The first three paragraphs sound like he is a PTSD victim from a forgotten war. The next seven, like a nerve gas victim. With all this in mind. This si more than a red flag for space travel, more has to be done before we even consider establishing a base anywhere off-world. Till then, probes and asteroid mining seem more profitable, safe and mind expanding.

People don't want to accept the truth about humans in space.

People don't care if their frontier is safe. The human drive to explore and stake out new lands has always been much stronger than their need for safety.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#112

Post by neurotech1 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #100
neurotech1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's probably picked up a heck of a lot of expertise on basic medical stuff over the years so he can almost be his own CNA. They probably decided that having him at home in a normal environment with a fitbit or something logging his heart rate and whatnot was better than having him in an unfamiliar hospital.

Astronauts are qualified as EMT as part of their astronaut training.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#113

Post by crush-n-spread »

agumonkey wrote: post #97
_ph_ wrote: post #51

This is why people like Scott Kelly should be considered heroes. They are pushing our knowledge about manned spaceflight, and doing to at considerable personal risk and effort. But as a result, we are getting more knowledgeable about the problems, and hopefully solution approaches. That stays on the ISS of 6 months or even a year are somewhat a routine is quite an achievement. And we might find out, how to do even lo…

I still wonder if Musk considered effect of months in space on the average person.

Musk knows that it is not the ideal environment for human health. But Musk also knows that the rate-limiting step is not human health in space, but the cost of getting to space. We can not move forward in making a healthy environment for humans in space if we're not putting hundreds of ambitious, fearless humans in space at low cost per human.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#114

Post by astrodust »

banned1 wrote: post #76
astrodust wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only possible, it's typically less expensive on a per-capita basis than what the US is doing now. The system isn't perfect here, some people fall through the cracks or live so far away from a doctor that they can't get the care they need, but anyone that's able to see a doctor or visit a hospital will get the same treatment as anyone else who can. I don't think you realize how much money is lost in the black…

The quality of care must go down for some, right? It's not possible to a) keep the same existing standard of care for all, b) maintain prices, or c) keep the same level of profit for the industry. Something has to give. If [a] and [b] are true, then profits will be lower, and therefore quality will suffer next.

> ... then profits will be lower.

Ah, you see, when you remove profit as the primary motivator a lot of problems go away.

Here (Canada) the insurance is public, but the hospitals are private, the doctors are self-employed. The insurance companies (plural since each province has their own singular insurer) regulate prices so costs are predictable. If a knee replacement is $X and they expect to do Y of them per year based on statistics, then it's no surprise what the final tab will be.

Hospitals and doctors are free to innovate in terms of how they provide care provided they can meet all applicable standards and regulations. If they make money, great. If they lose money that's their problem. On the whole there's no serious problem with providing the care at the regulated prices.

So yeah, it is possible to maintain the same level of care for all if you're willing to reign in profit.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#115

Post by QAPereo »

pvaldes wrote: post #102
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…

Well, if we know positively than human body can't stand such travel, then the only answer to colonize mars is sending humans that doesn't have a body. This could solve the problem.

Or just a more ambitious plan, including funding for advanced radiation shielding, a rotating section for gravity etc. we can do it, but it’s going to take a lot of work, money, and time. All people seem to want is a magical billionaire.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#116

Post by QAPereo »

valuearb wrote: post #84
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…

Stripping NASA down to bare metal? The same NASA that’s spending over $2B a launch to build the SLS, when they could buy the same capacity from private launch companies at less than 1/10th the cost? And radiation is not a significant threat, we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go.

we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go

Same with the age of sail, which claimed many lives, often for the dubious benefit of a few wealthy assholes who never touched a ship.

Are you volunteering to be first to Mars?

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#117

Post by crush-n-spread »

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…

We need to dream big while we commit to solving the problems spaceflight poses to human health.

Whether or not NASA has the right amount of funding is not going to make or break this; instead, we need to lower the cost of spaceflight and start sending more stuff and more people up there. With the cost of going to space lowered one hundred times, suddenly NASA's current budget becomes quite sufficient.

This article is one man's emotional retelling of his first days on Earth after a year in LEO (he's trying to sell his book). In contrast, a trip to Mars is only three months, and it will be on a ship with a water layer (radiation shielding) between the outer hull and the cabin - a much better environment for humans. Thus this article is not the determining factor for whether or not Mars is a pipe dream.

The other big danger of spaceflight is the body's response to microgravity, which can be solved with a massive centrifuge. Hard, but possible.

Telling humans to not dream and have hope for colonizing Mars is an egregious offence. The window of technology is open, but it will not be open forever. We will lose our technology in the future, either soon or in many millenia. In addition, there is rising tension in our low-growth society. A few more natural disasters or bad geo-political alliances and tensions might explode, hastening the closing of our technology window. Should that window close, and we fail to reach Mars, then humans will be a grand failure: We had all the resources to colonize another planet and begin colonizing the Universe, but instead we killed ourselves as we gave in to our aggressive tendencies.

Thus we _must_ be more ambitious. We _must_ dream big and strive every day to do the impossible, for the cost of not striving may be another 14-billion-year waiting period to get the opportunity to do this again, on another planet, at another time, waiting for another species to awaken with consciousness and begin it's own effort to overcome the Great Filter[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#118

Post by QAPereo »

crush-n-spread wrote: post #117
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…

We need to dream big while we commit to solving the problems spaceflight poses to human health. Whether or not NASA has the right amount of funding is not going to make or break this; instead, we need to lower the cost of spaceflight and start sending more stuff and more people up there. With the cost of going to space lowered one hundred times, suddenly NASA's current budget becomes quite sufficient. This article is…

I’m into science, not quasi religious hope in the face of the terror of our own extinction. If we leave Earth, we’ll be solving nothing, we are the problem. At best we’d be delaying something, not solving the underlying issues of what led us to flee Earth. If you think of Mars as a backup for Earth then think again, it needs to be independent of Earth, and that’s a dream for now.

Less hope, more rational thought might save us; hope lets you ignore reality and live for a dream.

Just live.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#119

Post by crush-n-spread »

QAPereo wrote: post #118
crush-n-spread wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to dream big while we commit to solving the problems spaceflight poses to human health. Whether or not NASA has the right amount of funding is not going to make or break this; instead, we need to lower the cost of spaceflight and start sending more stuff and more people up there. With the cost of going to space lowered one hundred times, suddenly NASA's current budget becomes quite sufficient. This article is…

I’m into science, not quasi religious hope in the face of the terror of our own extinction. If we leave Earth, we’ll be solving nothing, we are the problem. At best we’d be delaying something, not solving the underlying issues of what led us to flee Earth. If you think of Mars as a backup for Earth then think again, it needs to be independent of Earth, and that’s a dream for now. Less hope, more rational thought migh…

In your first argument, you argued that we could not colonize Mars. Now you concede that we can colonize Mars, while arguing humans have a fundamental flaw. What is your point, and why do you hold it?
Post reply on HN