3 ms·
There is a big difference between space risk and small aviation risk. You always get health issues when you go to space long-term (see the links I have in other
by Noseshine 10y ago
There is a big difference between space risk and small aviation risk. You always get health issues when you go to space long-term (see the links I have in other replies) with current technology. That is not true for aviation, and you overstate the risks too. That's (rare) accidents vs. "simply doing it is bad for you". I repeat that I'm talking about long-term space flights, not something like a week-long space shuttle mission.
- mikeash 10y agoWhere am I overstating the risks? Flying as a hobby probably doesn't have much in the way of long-term health consequences, but doing it as a profession does. Radiation exposure at cruise altitude is significantly higher, but nobody seems to warn prospective pilots or flight attendants that they're risking their health for their job. At least with astronauts, you can be certain that they'll be taught just about everything there is to know about the health consequences of space travel before they're given the opportunity to go on a long-term space mission.
- Noseshine 10y ago> Where am I overstating the risks? 2nd sentence > long-term health consequences, but doing it as a profession does Okay, you are just trolling, I didn't know that. My apologies. We were talking about a flight to Mars, it's obvious you are not serious. Sorry I missed your joke(s).
- mikeash 10y agoYou go on and on about the risks of long-term space flight, but deny the risks of spending a lot of time at airliner cruising altitudes? How bizarre. Obviously, the ill effects aren't nearly as bad, since the radiation exposure is lower and there are no negative effects from zero g, but it's fairly well established that flight crews suffer greater incidences of certain diseases, like cataracts and some cancers.