4 ms·

I remained neutral on it since I also thought it was an interesting and clearly well researched article, but I think it leaned a bit too heavily on some somewha

I remained neutral on it since I also thought it was an interesting and clearly well researched article, but I think it leaned a bit too heavily on some somewhat inappropriate analogs to things like like with the ISS. It's a deteriorating old station where astronauts need to constantly prepare for orbital reboosts, receiving cargo, running commercial experiments, literally plugging holes more recently, and so on. This doesn't really translate meaningfully to the responsibilities on an interplanetary mission on new hardware. Similarly alot of his stuff about microgravity just handwaves away the fact that a lot of the mission will be spent in 0.3g. And, in terms of overall effects on the body 0.3g will almost certainly end up being closer to 1g than 0g. It'll make it much easier to do things like exercise and all the "normal" physics of things would be much closer to the environment we all evolved in, than in 0g where everything just gets super funky. In fact I wonder about the viability of simply wearing body weights while on Mars, something that obviously would not work in 0g. The radiation stuff has also been pretty well researched and isn't likely to be a show-stopper, especially with normal measures for protection like using the water supplies as a shield.

calcifer 2y ago
> overall effects on the body 0.3g will almost certainly end up being closer to 1g than 0g But what do you base this on? Vibes? Because the article correctly points out that: > This goes against our intuitions, but there have been bigger surprises in space.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Most of the major negative effects from time in 0g are pretty easy to derive from first principles - like the loss of bone density and muscle mass. The cause is simply a lack of muscular exertion. In 0g you don't really have much of any recourse against this except lots of mostly elastic based exercise, so astronauts on the ISS spend 2+ hours every single day just exercising, and it still isn't enough. On Mars the deterioration will obviously be lesser. And you also have much easier solutions not only in terms of working out but also passive, like the proposed body suits. Also I'd add that even the less well understood issue like vision decline generally has to do with things 'not going the right way' -- in this specific case 'stuff not going down' increasing the pressure on your ocular region (ever noticed how astronauts all seem to have kind of bloated heads while on the ISS?). On Mars (or any other body with some reasonable degree of gravity) these sort of things won't be a problem.

calcifer 2y ago

> overall effects on the body 0.3g will almost certainly end up being closer to 1g than 0g But what do you base this on? Vibes? Because the article correctly points out that: > This goes against our intuitions, but there have been bigger surprises in space.

somenameforme 2y ago
Most of the major negative effects from time in 0g are pretty easy to derive from first principles - like the loss of bone density and muscle mass. The cause is simply a lack of muscular exertion. In 0g you don't really have much of any recourse against this except lots of mostly elastic based exercise, so astronauts on the ISS spend 2+ hours every single day just exercising, and it still isn't enough. On Mars the deterioration will obviously be lesser. And you also have much easier solutions not only in terms of working out but also passive, like the proposed body suits. Also I'd add that even the less well understood issue like vision decline generally has to do with things 'not going the right way' -- in this specific case 'stuff not going down' increasing the pressure on your ocular region (ever noticed how astronauts all seem to have kind of bloated heads while on the ISS?). On Mars (or any other body with some reasonable degree of gravity) these sort of things won't be a problem.