3 ms·
If we were on a planet with significantly lower gravity, walking would be much more difficult. Notably, on flat ground we absolutely must have an upward compone
by dotancohen 1y ago
If we were on a planet with significantly lower gravity, walking would be much more difficult. Notably, on flat ground we absolutely must have an upward component to our application of force with the surface - this is clearly seen in videos taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. This baby on a hypothetical lower gravity world would find standing easier, yes, but not mobility. At least not once he's taken his first few trail steps.
- lukan 1y agoThe moon has very little gravity bringing extra problems, but maybe Mars would have the right gravity to enable Babies walk from the beginning?
- jonplackett 1y agoIf you enjoy this kind of speculating you might like the Expanse series of books and TV shows. They have humans growing up on Mars, the asteroid belt, moons. Anyone who doesn’t grow up on earth cannot go there without extreme gravity training.
- lukan 1y agoI did enjoy the first season of the series, but then was turned off by some story arcs, but maybe I will give it a try again. Are the books more consistent?
- wafflemaker 1y agoMuch more consistent. Books are huge, hence the need to shorten them. But IMHO, series have done a really good job overall. Given how nearly impossible it is to simulate micro-gravity, or other advanced technology.
- dotancohen 1y agoAlso, in season three or four suddenly everybody started cursing all the time. The series just wasn't fun to watch anymore.
- jazzypants 1y agoI legitimately did not notice this and I cannot imagine it affecting my enjoyment of a show.
- le-mark 1y agoThat series strived for realism in that regard, and in using magnetic boots to work in zero gravity; which was admirable. That made the things that were not realistic stand out even more imo. The (unfortunately named) Epstein drive, a drive that consumes very little mass under constant acceleration allows for relativistic speeds in very little time (weeks). Their ships were flying from one side of the solar system to the other in weeks, but they couldn’t make interstellar flights? Also the effects of cosmic rays and hard radiation on reproduction makes the disaffected belter population seem impossible. That’s all fine of course, just inconsistent imo. Shohreh Aghdashloo performance was a real treat though!
- ghaff 1y agoShe was also in a show with Ray Liotta (Smith) that, in spite of some unevenness, sadly didn't make it through its first season.
- DennisP 1y agoRegarding reproduction, I'm willing to write that off to advanced medical technology doing DNA repair. Most of the plot wouldn't be that different with slower space drives, so I wasn't too bothered by that either. But fwiw, it turns out it is possible to get that level of rocket performance, if ToughSF got their numbers right: https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-drive.html https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-dr... It wouldn't look the same and the power level would be higher than what all of civilization uses today, but the amount of fusion fuel isn't all that remarkable. The design uses helium-3, which could be collected in large quantity from Uranus and Neptune.
- nilamo 1y agoThe Epstein drives are efficient, but not efficient enough to run for months at a time without stopping, and are thus unusable for interstellar travel. The books go into that when talking about Medina/Behemoth/Nauvoo... The whole reason it had a rotating drum was because the engines would only be active at the start and end of the journey.
- jonplackett 1y agoWalking would probably suck on such a planet and we would see babies bounding long distances instead!
- stonemetal 1y agoIf gravity were lower we would have evolved differently, walking would have adapted too. On the other hand babies probably wouldn't be able to walk either. Being mobile, defenseless, and not having "runaway!" as the default defense mechanism (like horses) is an evolutionary dead end.
- rowanG077 1y agoSure we might have evolved differently. But that doesn't mean that the human body doesn't work better at sustained 0.8G or 1.2G or whatever.
- mikkupikku 1y agoProblem is we don't have any good data about which gravitational accelerations would be suitable for long term health. We have 1g as our baseline, and we know that months in 0g messes you up and longer is a bad idea. We don't know anything about the long-term effects of living in Mars or Lunar gravity though. It could be studied using von Braun stations, but nobody has done it.