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

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#541

Post by pnpnp »

elkos wrote: post #73
pnpnp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can actually get really hot in space without some kind of active heat transfer. The body in the suit would probably alternate between freezing and frying. Not a great way to preserve a body IMO.

Depends on where in space. In LEO... sure. In the orbit of the Tesla Roadster it's mostly warm isn't it?

Since it’s never really in the shadow of a planet (heliocentric orbit), it’s probably hotter overall.

From the videos I’ve seen, it’s also spinning really slowly. I think you could see off-gassing in some of the videos. I looked into it a little further, and there was speculation it was from the plastics and paint getting extremely hot in direct sunlight.

“Space” is roughly the same temperature (a little warmer near stars with particles and free gas), but the direct solar radiation is what is so hot. Since space is an excellent insulator, getting rid of the thermal energy becomes a problem when you’re not shaded.

If you want to read some more on this, check out what the JWST has done for thermal management. It’s really cool (no pun intended).

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#542

Post by TchoBeer »

macrolime wrote: post #327
jsemrau wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe immortality is a requirement for space travel? With the 78 years avg that we currently have we won't get far unless we bend spacetime. If everyone lives forever, time becomes meaningless.

If we could manage to build a spacecraft that could continuously accelerate at 1g. It would, from the perspective of the inhabitants on the ship, be possible to travel to the end of the edge of the visible universe and back in 100 years, even though billions of years would have passed on earth. Relativity is weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_under_constant_ac...

note that a spacecraft which can continuously accelerate at 1g would require an insane amount of energy. Relativity is indeed weird.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#543

Post by tabtab »

credit_guy wrote: post #476

Isochoric supercooling looks much more promising. The body does not freeze solid. The temperature is lowered to below freezing, but all fluids remain fluids. I'm not aware of experiments with animals, and obviously not humans. But here's an experiment with human cardiac tissue [1], which went quite well. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02650-9

Preserving sufficient structure of the brain is the most important. Hearts may not be a good test.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#544

Post by kragen »

hulitu wrote: post #443
netsharc wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I had a thought, that if you copied the contents of your brain onto an object that can the simulate it, or even a new brain, then the "new instance" of you will probably just think it's the real you, just that it's on a computer/in a different body now. If New You sees a picture of a partner that left you, or a pet that died when you were a child, it will feel the same sadness you would. And it would just go…

That's what they did in Total Recall. It didn't work.

you are citing a work of fiction as if it was evidence for something

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#545

Post by kragen »

snordgren wrote: post #253
kragen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is relatively little correlation between conformism and intelligence a world dominated by military power is not a nerd paradise consider the plight of the iranian nuclear scientists

Despite the tragedy in Ukraine, most people in most countries are living through an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Since 1950, the global population has more than tripled, while militaries have shrunk. Since 1960, military spending as a share of global GDP has gone down from over 6% to less than 3%. The world isn't perfect, but it has become a lot less warlike and more hospitable for nerds in recent decad…

01960 was in some sense the height of the cold war, and also only 15 years after the end of world war ii (in europe and japan, anyway; in china and some other places war continued longer)

the cold war ended in 01991, and since then the us has been pretty much free to invade and conquer and colonize wherever it wanted without any real opposition

it's been 77 years since the end of world war ii, so this is probably an atypically peaceful moment in history

probably a few years into world war iii military spending will be a much larger fraction of gdp

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#546

Post by throwuwu »

jodrellblank wrote: post #534
throwuwu wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, materialism is an empty pursuit.

That's not an interesting comment. What isn't an empty pursuit?

Charity, love, contemplation of beauty, building friendships, raising children, many more. These are not empty in many ways, they provide long lasting satisfaction, they help others, they give you a feeling of peace, they can be shared freely, they provide meaning and make the world a better place for yourself and others.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#547

Post by credit_guy »

tabtab wrote: post #543
credit_guy wrote: post #476

Isochoric supercooling looks much more promising. The body does not freeze solid. The temperature is lowered to below freezing, but all fluids remain fluids. I'm not aware of experiments with animals, and obviously not humans. But here's an experiment with human cardiac tissue [1], which went quite well. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02650-9

Preserving sufficient structure of the brain is the most important. Hearts may not be a good test.

This test was a pragmatic one directed by the needs of heart transplants. There is no brain tissue transplant as of now. But there's no reason for science to not try other tissues and then even lab animals, then even pets, and at some point humans.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#548

Post by adastra22 »

terminal_d wrote: post #457
adastra22 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re always free to take the quick way out. Don’t be so quick to condemn 8 billion other humans to the same short lifetime just because you can’t imagine living longer.

That's very rude.

Advocating that others should not be allowed to live is beyond rude.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#549

Post by ramraj07 »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #453
ramraj07 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just being reasonable here. It’s _possible_ I might find life that’s thousands of years long interesting, but it’s beyond my current imagination. I’ll be perfectly happy with doubling my lifetime (tripling my productive life?). as a biologist, that sounds more reasonable anyway.

Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days [1]. Doubling the lifespan, 240+ years, is most certainly not possible, not reasonable, using diets, exercises, and so forth: if it were such a low hanging fruit, we would have already been there. Even if we could push the body using current technology, no one will want to live 100+ years (from age 70 to 160+) as an old person, being in pain constantly, fighting all…

You’re right we can push beyond that limit or even there (assuming that person actually lived that long, look up the controversy) with just diet or the biology we know today. But as you point that’s nothing fundamentally problematic with the idea of our body being viable for hundreds of years with the right support. So I’m hopeful.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#550

Post by terminal_d »

adastra22 wrote: post #548
terminal_d wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very rude.

Advocating that others should not be allowed to live is beyond rude.

Nipping a fantasy =/= killing people

Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.

Post reply on HN