Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
How? When were animals kept in lunar gravity for long enough to find that out? Microgravity on the ISS, Skylab and Russian stations sure but Lunar gravity? Citation NEEDED!
Feeding a High Population, Non-Agricultural world
- Thread starter mavikfelna
- Start date
It’s called the lunar landing it’s in the history books look it up
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
It is called TOO short a time to evaluate such things. The longest stay was just over 3 days. Not long enough to see long term effects.
I watched those landings as they happened.
Not to mention you'd have trouble distinguishing between five days of microgravity prior to and after the time spent under lunar gravity, and the actual time spend on the moon. Or to account for extra periods of acceleration here and there (around 4.5G during re-entry I think). Compared to a space station jaunt, liftoff, orbital insertion burns, and and re-entry are a much higher percentage of mission time, and involve longer periods of acceleration in absolute terms as well.
You could use the Command Module Pilot as a control, I guess.
Still, only a sample size of 6 missions.
And... me too. I'd just turned 3 for Apollo 11 but I've got fuzzy memories of that one, and clearer memories of the program when it was still flying.
You could use the Command Module Pilot as a control, I guess.
Still, only a sample size of 6 missions.
And... me too. I'd just turned 3 for Apollo 11 but I've got fuzzy memories of that one, and clearer memories of the program when it was still flying.
So your assumption is that low gravity doesn’t affect human biology even though we know that microgravity does. Seem like a long stretch zero gravity causing all sorts of problem long term while 1/6 g doesn’t. Funny how every plan for long term low gravity stays have included ways to maintain muscle mass and bone density as well as making sure no pregnancy happens. But I guess you have a better understanding of the potential problems of low gravity than the experts.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
Nonsense. I said no such thing.
Not having data on such issues is what I have said. Microgravity and 1g is ALL the long term data we have and that is insufficient to do more than guess how much gravity is needed for development and health.
To add to the low-G issues for humans, NASA has found out that astronauts who spend longer terms (3mos or more) also have poorer vision when they return. Evidently the low-G affects eyesight for some reason. They are looking at ways to address it, but I don't think they have figured anything out as of yet.
It may be that for longer flights we'll see the hamster-cage for sure to give at least some gravity to the astronauts. That, in theory, would offset a lot of these problems. The only thing comes down to mass and engineering the ship to work with it. Might be for main engine burns they lock it in place and it runs only when the ship is not under active propulsion. Would be interesting to see actual real-world design specs for something like this that could be built with our tech today (and, of course, be able to get from drawing board to production model).
I'm wondering if lunar gravity (being only about 1/6th of Earth) would be able to be strong enough to offset some of the issues seen?
Except you used your argument that we don’t know the effects to counter my statement about needing a minimum of TL 9 for Astroid belt world and very low gravity worlds. If you’re using the lack of data to counter my statement about the effects of low gravity on human biology when we strong suggested evidence of these effects than you are arguing that it will have no effect.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
You are making claims without data. I point out the lack of data. All I'm saying is you have no FACTS for your claim. I'm not saying you are wrong as I DON'T KNOW but then again neither do you but you are making the claims anyhow.
Is Lunar gravity enough? Neither of us KNOW but apparently only I know that.
Is Martian gravity enough? Neither of us KNOW but apparently only I know that.
We lack data to allow us to know the minimum gravity required for long term health.
Now either of us can for our game decide what the minimum is. But that would only be for in game. Reality may or may not agree with what we decide to use.
Is Lunar gravity enough? Neither of us KNOW but apparently only I know that.
Is Martian gravity enough? Neither of us KNOW but apparently only I know that.
We lack data to allow us to know the minimum gravity required for long term health.
Now either of us can for our game decide what the minimum is. But that would only be for in game. Reality may or may not agree with what we decide to use.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
At TL7 we could build O'Neill cylinders, there are just engineering challenges and money requirements,
en.wikipedia.org
O'Neill cylinder - Wikipedia
I suggest you read this https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210019591/downloads/ICES-2021-142.pdf because apparently there’s been more research than you think and the current belief is neither the moons or mars gravity is enough for safe long term human survival.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
What it says is WE DON'T KNOW but THINK that at some level below 1g development and living long term are possible.
It is STILL only the two data points.
Also "A model was used to predict bone mineral density change in partial gravity"
How accurate is "the model" WE DON'T KNOW!
It is STILL only the two data points.
Also "A model was used to predict bone mineral density change in partial gravity"
How accurate is "the model" WE DON'T KNOW!
Probably fairly good since quite a bit of research is done with computer models. Common sense if nothing else is going to support the ideal that it’s a graduate effect not a we’re fine it’s .1 g opps now we are in trouble wi switch over to zero g. Much of our science is the product of data models and extrapolation using observational methods. Your arguing that we don’t know because we only have two points of data is right up there with saying that we don’t know that we can’t accelerate to the speed of light, we never tried it but we have proven data which supports that we can’t accelerate to the speed of light. Science runs on predictable patterns not on/off. We know for a fact that zero g environments are harmful to the human body we have done simulations that show that this effect is a graduated one. Arguing that ‘WE DONT KNOW BECAUSE WEVE NEVER DONE IT’ is disingenuous since that measurement can be applied to much of our proven science.
Have we every had people in .6 or .4 g environments to study no, do we have actual evidence that strongly supports the theory that such environments are not healthy for the human body most absolutely definitely. This is not realistically a case of we don’t know it’s a case of we don’t know how extreme the effects will be at various g levels. You can argue the lack of data points all you want but in the end it’s not a realistic argument.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
A model based on 2 data points is inadequate.
Conclusions bases on a SURVEY? So OPINION. They even conclude at the end just what I have been saying THEY NEED MORE DATA POINTS.
Further
Conclusions bases on a SURVEY? So OPINION. They even conclude at the end just what I have been saying THEY NEED MORE DATA POINTS.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Also, science doesn't accept things based only on predictive models. If you took what your predictive model says should be the effects of long-term exposure to 0.2G, then did an actual experiment that matched the findings of your predictive model, then distributed the results and methodology to the scientific community to be debunked. Now, you repeat that process for every available permutation of 0G to 1G. If no one can discredit your results, congrats, you have done science and have actual evidence, not just predictive models.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
In this case they have a hypothesis on which they have based their model to do predictions. Without verification of some predictions (and no failed predictions) this hypothesis cannot graduate to theory.
At best an educated guess and those are wrong more often then we would like.
At best an educated guess and those are wrong more often then we would like.
In the opening paragraph the article states "The review concludes, “It can be anticipated that partial gravity environments as present on the Moon or on Mars are not sufficient to preserve all physiological systems to a 1 g standard if not addressed through adequate countermeasures.”1 Adequate countermeasures appear to be unavailable."
It's using Earth's 1G environment as the standard, which like a lot of our other standards, makes sense as we started from here and we need a starting point for reference.
However, and this is a big thing here, IF colonies were to be built on Mars and Luna, there is nothing in the article that says people can't survive there in the long term - just that they will have difficulties adapting to Earth's 1G standard. More than one sci-fi book has postulated people adapting to life in lower gravity and NOT stepping foot on Earth. So if we go with that idea, then you'll have people adapted to living at the bottom of the gravity well (or "heavy" Earthers), and then those who are adapted to living in lower-G environments. How the body will adapt to all this is up for debate as we have no hard data to go by. Without genetic engineering interference it would be many generations before we'd see adaptive changes taking place.
In the section about rotating (aka hamster cages) as a way go generate spin, it speaks to 4RPM to generate 1G with a 56m radius. The entire section is focused on 1G - but doesn't go anywhere near scaling it down, to say .7G, or even up to say 1.1G. The spinning effect does affect some people, and some more than others. But we do know there are those who can easily adapt to it, as seen by how some people apparently have few ill effects from it.
The last sentence of their conclusion one can infer that they haven't as yet thought anything up. Doesn't mean we couldn't adapt other tech we already have today to help with such a thing. Bottom line is we have very little data upon which to work with - the number of people who have spent time in space is so very small - and these people are not truly representative of the "average" person since they are astronauts. These are the best of the best to get to that place.
It could be that permanent Mars and Luna colonies will spark a fork in the human race whereby low-gravity people will adapt and heavy Earthers will visit, but will not stay. The article is interesting, but leaves as many questions unanswered and unasked. The focus on 1G is a bit unrealistic in my mind when talking about colonization of space and other planets. I think much more research (and long-term studies) is necessary for us to have actual data to draw upon rather than tiny datasets, theories and inferences.
Thanks for the link!
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
Quite possibly as they tend towards the upper end of fitness they will be the ones the worst affected by enforced low exercise. Maybe the people least affected by low g will be the couch potatoes. The couch potatoes might even exercise MORE and benefit from it if moving around is easier.
I just don’t think you get it. There’s no question that low gravity environments are harmful to humans the question is the degree and the viable safe time of exposure to such environments. They want more data points not to prove the harmful effects they want more data points to figure out how much exposure to various levels of lower gravity is realistically safe/reversible. You keep trying to imply that the lack of data points means that they are in some way not sure or wrong about the effects of low gravity this is not the case in any study. What they are not sure of is how long at want percentage of 1g is going to cause irreversible harm. The ideal that we are fine until we reach micro gravity is not in any way realistic or even remotely suggested by any of our research, it’s simply not the case. Never once has it been suggested that people living long terms in gravity environments such as the moon are not going to be adversely impacted. Again there is no such thing as a magic ‘OH NO THE GRAVITY WE ARE IN IS TO LITTLE’ it’s a sliding scale just like air pressure, temperatures, and many other factors needed to maintain human life.
On top of all this the moon actually has a higher gravity than would be the case for anyone living in the Astroid belt which was the whole argument to begin with.
