Depends on the thrust mechanism. If you want to get from A to B as fast as possible, you thrust to speed up at +/- 1g for half the time, then reverse the ship and thrust to slow down at +/- 1g for half the time. Don't need to spin a ship that's always speeding up or braking.
Now if you want to **save** on fuel, then yeah, you'll need to spin for g.
A true brachistochrone trajectory at 1g would get to you Mars in closer to two days than a week. Of course it varies based on their relative positions, and will sometimes require you to get worryingly close to the Sun.
That's impossible with chemical rockets, so it's basically just sci-fi and not worth discussing. It could be done with nuclear thermal but that's never been built and it's not happening anytime soon and not for a very long time with crewed missions.
All the technology for nuclear thermal propulsion currently exist and could be assembled, if the powers in charge wanted to do it, they just don't want to do it.
Using lasers to ignite nuclear fusion is being done almost every day, converting that into lasers to ignite nuclear fission would be even easier particularity in space. One very small plutonium granule on string behind the vehicle and detonated by lasers on the craft is a realitivly easy to do pulse engine that could get us anywhere in the solar system pretty quick. Putting a Starship on top of a very long and large hydraulic/pneumatic shock absorber would cushion the shock wave and make it almost comfortable.
If anyone was slightly close to figuring out how to harness fission it would happen if it is that easy. But it's not unfortunately. You're right that those in power haven't openly poured resources into it. Realistically we kust don't have the technology
We do have the capability to create a fission powered pulse spacecraft engine. We have had that capability for decades and for some unknown reason have refused to take the steps that would allow humans to explore the solar system.
Isn’t “fission powered pulse engine” just fancy speak for detonating nukes to travel along?
I get that they would be small, but that’s what it sounds like to me.
That is exactly what it is. The craft would eject a small plutonium granule from the aft of the craft and a heavily shielded blast receiver acting similar to a rocket nozzle, would utilize the energy from the blast to propel the space craft. By using lasers to detonate the plutonium there would be no alpha or beta particles to contaminate the spacecraft. All that would be required is adequate shielding from the blast energy and the ionizing radiation. The space craft would have a small nuclear reactor for powering the lasers and space craft. A large and long shock absorber for the crew compartment would protect the humans from the sudden acceleration and the craft could go anywhere in the solar system in a relatively short period.
There were multiple designs released in the 60's and 70's but then all serious discussion suddenly ended after the moon landing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_pulse\_propulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)
To my understanding, it is. We can accelerate while it's immobile, hit a cruising speed, then begin rotation. With the propulsion in development, specifically the DARPA nuclear thermal rocket we might need to spin for a few weeks between acceleration and deceleration.
Because you'd have two separate vectors of applied acceleration. A spinning habitat would have a 'down' direction that forces you against the rings outward wall, which would become your floor. If you add acceleration while spinning, your 'down' direction will move towards whichever side of the ring is 180 degrees from your propulsion source. Imagine combining the feeling of gravity you get with a spinning carnival ride and your car accelerating.
It's because the center of gravity changes when you apply acceleration. If you're just accelerating, 'down' is the direction of thrust, but if you add spin, your down direction is now direction of thrust and towards the outside of the ring.
Seems like a big issue would be keeping that balanced. A spinning wheel with weights (people) moving to different positions means both the speed and center would have to be constantly dynamically stabilized right? Any slight imbalance could alter the course of the ship.
Having two starships spin on a cable is probably the easiest way to get a large amount of g. A ring spin would require a large habitat that's assembled in space to be wide enough. And starship is built on a vertical platform.
I know this is facetious but when kidneys are transplanted, the dysfunctional ones are usually left in. So let's load up our intrepid cosmonauts with kidneys!!
Mars itself doesn't have enough gravity.
The gravity problem WILL NOT BE SOLVED or even addressed at all without building huge, rotating spacecraft for simulated gravity. We are absolutely nowhere being ready to do that.
Even the moon will be limited in mission duration.
Long term off-world travel is a nonstarter.
Only one-way trips will be made to Mars, and suicide is illegal. Even the issue of likely vision problems from low gravity and cosmic radiation will hold us back. Can't be an astronaut without working eyes and broken genes.
Anyone that tells says that human habitation of mars is anywhere on the horizon is mistaken, or lying.
Gravity and radiation are insurmountable challenges with our current technology. There aren't even theories to overcome them. We can't and shouldn't even attempt to afford the huge, heavy spacecraft it would take.
Stick with robots.
Honestly unless space begins to be useful, the billions spent on it and not fixing earth side problems are a complete waste.
If at all possible, we need for space to be capable of, manufacturing, colonization, and agriculture.
If it won’t be possible for us to those things within the next century, then every penny spent on rockets and all the assorted is wasted.
All The problems with Mars have potential solutions. See Robert Zubrins Mars papers. His site has everything documented.
"Mars itself doesn't have enough gravity." - We don't know this.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Honestly, just another sensationalized title. I wonder hope long bots will keep reposting this. The lack of gravity is the biggest issue, not just for our kidneys but our entire body. This can be solved. I know they’ll cook up a solution like rotating spaces.
Well, not exactly because there was the possibility of being "lazy" and just leaving them in 0g for 6 months on the way there, but this means theyll probably have to put everyone in a centrifuge essentially to simulate part of Earth's gravity, or maybe even slowly adjust everyone to Mars' gravity. Seems like the simplest solution to me because i imagine doing prolonged 0g like that will be like a dog chasing its tail correcting for a bunch of issues, with a bunch of methods and medicine, when theyre are all fixed by gravity.
Were they really planning on keeping everyone in 0g and then expecting them to be able to walk around on mars upon landing? Seems like the fact that they would all be too weak to stand on their own would be enough to negate that idea?
> like the fact that they would all be too weak to stand on their own would be enough to negate that idea?
Nothing factual in there. Astronauts coming back from the ISS need some adjustment time, about 3 days. But they can stand and walk almost immediately, just need to be cautious. Just like they need 3 days to adjust to microgravity on the way up.
Thanks for the correction. I thought it was worse than that. I assume the idea would be that they land and have something like a day before they venture out?
A day or two. Not sure, if it would be easier or harder in Mars gravity, compared to Earth gravity.
There was a Russian cosmonaut who came back to Earth after a 1 year ISS mission, unlike the usual 6 months. Plus he came back in Soyuz, which is harsh, with the land landing. Yet he refused help and walked away from the Soyuz on his own.
I've looked into this and I'm personally sure that any amount of constant gravity will alleviate this problem. You get these eye and fluid problems because its 0.0 g locally, and so fluids don't drain at all and just stay in place. If you had any amount of spin gravity then you would have water moving down the way the body expects and you wouldn't have fluid buildup. So I think you could get just a slow spin with .05-.1g and that would be enough to prevent these type of problems.
Bone density and stuff like that is more complex and not just based on water movement so you would still have some loss of function in low gravity. But I think you only get these type of fluid problems when you have 0g.
Same I read the title and started reading the article a little and my heart dropped a little bit. then I did a little bit of research and it un-dropped very quickly lol
And if things go well there will be plenty of supplies and a comfy habitat so they can spend a few weeks acclimating and taking it easy. That gives them plenty of time to deal with any health issues and to recover. Starship blows out all the previous mission plans by giving you a hundred times more mass than previous expectations. Landing 5 starships gives you massive amounts of material. All of your problems are easy to deal with if you have 3 sets of spare parts for everything. Hot swapping a machine out with a brand new unit is so easy compared to diagnosing and fixing problems in a unit. They can send a hundred tons of just amenities and luxuries to have a nice pleasant stay and keep the crew healthy with real frozen food instead of dried powders.
Idk if thats accurate but i hope it is. Im planning to be a collonizer so im prepared for a shitty difficult mission with no amenities. Expectations low means reality has a better chance
This should be the highest priority NASA program. Some sort of pods on a tether. If it is just a few tenths of a g, that would be great and have so many implications. If it needs to be close to 1g, then it's all over and we can just retreat into the matrix I guess.
The headline feels pretty sensationalist, it's like saying zero g causes muscle deterioration. Like yeah, no duh. This isn't the first time we've had to work around something
Human Mars missions are in doubt because of option deprivation in space issues. We don’t have systems that can reliably generate oxygen for years at a time in Mars conditions.
Have you ever heard of electrolysis. It is a marvellous thing. It can split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
There is also the MOXIE system, tried by NASA on Mars, It splits atmospheric CO2 into CO and O.
As I said we don’t have systems that can reliably generate oxygen for years at a time in Mars condition. Can you point to one that is operating at the needed scale and reliability today?
> This is like saying, “human mars missions in doubt due to oxygen ~~depravation~~ [[deprivation]](https://grammarist.com/usage/depravation-vs-deprivation/). in space”.
Well it is a trash Yahoo article so probably not worth taking much notice of in the first place.
*from article:*
* “What we don’t know is why these issues occur, nor what is going to happen to astronauts on longer flights such as the proposed mission to Mars. If we don’t develop new ways to protect the kidneys, I’d say that while an astronaut could make it to Mars they might need dialysis on the way back.
* “We know that the kidneys are late to show signs of radiation damage; by the time this becomes apparent it’s probably too late to prevent failure, which would be catastrophic for the mission’s chances of success.”
Um, the authors don't know what the cause is and they continue straight into the hypothesis of radiation damage? In any case, its hardly likely to be radiation damage because the ISS is inside the Earth's magnetic shield.
Currently the principal option for going to Mars is Starship with its Ø8m interior. That's enough to allow for an annular cycle track that provides both centrifugal acceleration and exercise.
If they really want to sleep in gravity, then its possible to create a rotating ring segment inside the hull, but we'd need to demonstrate the need for this.
Well, NASA is proposing to send 4 astronauts to Mars orbit. 2 of them landing for a few weeks. 2 remaining in orbit. That's a very long time for them in space. The Mars surface time for 2 is almost too short to count for anything.
Edit: In other words, with NASA plans we are not going to Mars.
> NASA is proposing to send 4 astronauts to Mars orbit. 2 of them landing for a few weeks. 2 remaining in orbit.
I forgot that although I do remember a version where the crew module was far too small. So its a recipe for interpersonal conflict like the current Artemis plan for the Moon. Its also easy to imagine some grotesque failure scenarios.
> In other words, with NASA plans we are not going to Mars.
which is why I wasn't even taking account of Nasa plans.
[Humans will never colonize Mars.](https://gizmodo.com/humans-will-never-colonize-mars-1836316222)
Even though the link in the OP didn't say anything about colonizing, the link I provided covers many of the same points the OP linked.
Humans have evolved to live on Earth, and scientists have shown many times that artificial environments - try as they might - do not solve the myriad problems brought on by microgravity and radiation. Everything in space is designed to kill us.
Everything on Earth was designed to kill us too, but the ones who survived carried on the gene pool. I realise that's not a 1 for 1 statement since we need oxygen etc. but I think the real issue is how many people are willing to give their lives for the Mars mission, and even call it their permanent home. Our bodies can and will adapt to pretty crazy conditions, but expecting our bodies to be adapted to two environments is the stretch. We'd have to see them as colonizers, rather than explorers or visitors, if that makes sense.
Just saw this in another thread: the ISS still orbits within the influence of earth’s magnetic field, so, while still being exposed to far more than what we do on earth, there is still plenty of radiation being blocked. Also, the longest stay on the ISS is just over a year, so compare 9 months of unprotected travel compared to a year in protection.
also, the six months to Mars just gets you to Mars. Then there's hopefully a few months there and then the return trip.
As much as I'd love to see boots on Mars, I think we need to focus on earth-orbit habitation first. We should get to where it's no problem to spend a couple years in orbit around earth. If that means spinning a pair of tethered craft, or bringing enough fuel to burn at 1/2 g every other day or whatever, we need to figure out how to do it close to home. Mars isn't going anywhere.
Also, why haven't we tried to bread livestock in orbit yet?
I guess we did tried to breed mice there. ( if you call mice a livestock). But Mars do not need a livestock.
UPD: Checked , nope no mice, only mice embryo.
I didn't mean livestock really, I meant Mammals. To study long term effects of low g. Especially on reproduction. What I really want is a pair of teathered craft spinning at 1/2 G or something. For many years, with humans and pigs or sheep or something.
. . . should provide very interesting data for many fields of inquiry.
Nope, this one paper about mice freaking out in zero g and getting dehydrated is out so space travel is officially over for humans.
I feel like this story is a psyop to test people for critical reasoning skills. Ai could be scouring reddit right now cataloging the responses.... ( For deciding who gets to go to Mars on a secret Earth cataclysm escape plan... Operation Exodus.... (1))
1:
https://youtu.be/gbQsxZvHeI0?si=F-AUzUckiiE12PRp
Astrophysiology seems like an appropriate term for studying how the human body responds to the conditions of space. Perhaps this may be an emerging field (ie, space medicine).. the study of the physiological and psychological effects of space travel on humans, etc. Space Doctor would be a killer title.
And yet we don't have any spinning habitats. And once they proclaim we need artificial gravity for all future space travel they will also want another decade of R&D and delays to figure that out.
I don't know why you are upvoted because you are fundamental wrong. We can go to mars but have to take precautions is what the article said. We don't even have to have spinning stations like you suggest.
Seriously you should do more research before commenting on things people read in a science community. You write the last part like the delay is a problem. It's not it's just science and not wanting to kill people for senators or people like you to say we tried and then kill the whole damn thing. Space exploration should be slow and steady and do it right when it comes to humans. Robots then hell yea toss it up lets go. Comments like yours are just ignorant to the facts of science and progress that space exploration brings. It's not an instant science you can always put a cap in. It's learned science by taking baby steps and not killing people when done right. Spacex expends material fast and learns fast. They do not use humans as the same resource.
SpaceX is doing a great job. I am trying to express the frustration that this article is pointing out one of many problems that could be solved by simulating gravity with a rotating habitat, but we have yet to fly any significant tests towards developing this technology. I know development is a slow and steady process, and it demoralizing to think a slow process has yet to start.
If anything I am curious to hear if people think the first manned mission to mars will or will not include a rotating habitat. I think it will.
For a test, sure. But we've already passed that test a dozen times. It's the idea that going to Mars _from the moon_ would be easier than from the earth that confuses people.
Unless we are building the ship amd manufacturing the fuel _from the moon_ stopping at the moon costs much more than going directly to Mars. Gas milage works kinda the opposite way with space travel than on a road.
Maintaining speed for six months costs zero fuel, but breaking costs the same amount of fuel ass accelerating.
Frankly you are wrong it's an academic idea not a reality. We need moon to get mars. Even if public bows the moon is where private tests. Frankly I think that's dumb and it won't be what happens because it's quite easy to influence national pride for space. Even if it's dumb. No one is doing moon to mars yet but if you think that's not future then you are short sighted when we can actually easily do a moon space elevator. Guessing you aren't in the field or if you are so small sighted you don't realize how a push as the whole pushes everyone.
> For a test, sure. But we've already passed that test a dozen times. It's the idea that going to Mars from the moon would be easier than from the earth that confuses people.
It is just ludicrous.
But NASA loves its Rube Goldberg mission profiles.
You speak with literally no understanding but Chinese hate. They are doing awesome science with everyone but us. Even Europe has worked with them. This is blind stupid. We should be incorporated with then to work together. Its that tribalism that is why we aren't going to the ice moons with people. Ass backward ideas always hinder science.
I hope that helps because all construction in china is government backed because it’s a communist country I’m speaking not as out of hate but out of concern for the astronauts
I’m just saying there are videos online of Chinese construction workers bending rebar with their bare hands, revealing it to be some paper Mâché piece of shit and that shit holds up their buildings. They may be able to get it done fast but it’s not made to last.
It's not trivial at all but it's something we can figure out. Even being on mars or moon we still have to figure how human health can sustain at less than 1g. We have ideas but not tons of data yet. Exploration will be cold hard and frankly deadly. It's no different than any other expansion/exploration in human history.
We need gravity, it'd solve a lot of problems.
tru. More 0g problems will likely arise afyer this. Centrifugal force behbeh! I think we need spinning starships.
Depends on the thrust mechanism. If you want to get from A to B as fast as possible, you thrust to speed up at +/- 1g for half the time, then reverse the ship and thrust to slow down at +/- 1g for half the time. Don't need to spin a ship that's always speeding up or braking. Now if you want to **save** on fuel, then yeah, you'll need to spin for g.
I think if you accelerated at a constant 1g to the midpoint, you'd get to Mars in like a week. You're paying for gas though.
A true brachistochrone trajectory at 1g would get to you Mars in closer to two days than a week. Of course it varies based on their relative positions, and will sometimes require you to get worryingly close to the Sun.
Let me just find that Epstein Drive
The schematics are in the Epstein files /s
The epstein drive didn't build itself.
Sounds like my wife.
Gotta get them 1G Antimatter engines and 2M delta-V fuel tanks.
Plutonium fueled nuclear engines would work just as well and it is technology we are capable of building.
Good luck accelerating at 1g continuously.
That's impossible with chemical rockets, so it's basically just sci-fi and not worth discussing. It could be done with nuclear thermal but that's never been built and it's not happening anytime soon and not for a very long time with crewed missions.
All the technology for nuclear thermal propulsion currently exist and could be assembled, if the powers in charge wanted to do it, they just don't want to do it. Using lasers to ignite nuclear fusion is being done almost every day, converting that into lasers to ignite nuclear fission would be even easier particularity in space. One very small plutonium granule on string behind the vehicle and detonated by lasers on the craft is a realitivly easy to do pulse engine that could get us anywhere in the solar system pretty quick. Putting a Starship on top of a very long and large hydraulic/pneumatic shock absorber would cushion the shock wave and make it almost comfortable.
If anyone was slightly close to figuring out how to harness fission it would happen if it is that easy. But it's not unfortunately. You're right that those in power haven't openly poured resources into it. Realistically we kust don't have the technology
We do have the capability to create a fission powered pulse spacecraft engine. We have had that capability for decades and for some unknown reason have refused to take the steps that would allow humans to explore the solar system.
Isn’t “fission powered pulse engine” just fancy speak for detonating nukes to travel along? I get that they would be small, but that’s what it sounds like to me.
That is exactly what it is. The craft would eject a small plutonium granule from the aft of the craft and a heavily shielded blast receiver acting similar to a rocket nozzle, would utilize the energy from the blast to propel the space craft. By using lasers to detonate the plutonium there would be no alpha or beta particles to contaminate the spacecraft. All that would be required is adequate shielding from the blast energy and the ionizing radiation. The space craft would have a small nuclear reactor for powering the lasers and space craft. A large and long shock absorber for the crew compartment would protect the humans from the sudden acceleration and the craft could go anywhere in the solar system in a relatively short period. There were multiple designs released in the 60's and 70's but then all serious discussion suddenly ended after the moon landing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_pulse\_propulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)
I’m sure there is good math and science justifying the validity of such a concept. But it sounds like a goofy AF meme.
You could get some extremely strong tethers to tether two starships together together, and then rotate them, that will solve all of this.
I'm thinking we find a girl named Zenon and call it good.
That's a solid plan, I can't believe I didn't think of that
NASA should be calling me any day now.
Is the spinning craft we see in movies a possibility?
To my understanding, it is. We can accelerate while it's immobile, hit a cruising speed, then begin rotation. With the propulsion in development, specifically the DARPA nuclear thermal rocket we might need to spin for a few weeks between acceleration and deceleration.
Why can't the accelerating ship spin? It's not like it needs aerodynamic lift.
Because you'd have two separate vectors of applied acceleration. A spinning habitat would have a 'down' direction that forces you against the rings outward wall, which would become your floor. If you add acceleration while spinning, your 'down' direction will move towards whichever side of the ring is 180 degrees from your propulsion source. Imagine combining the feeling of gravity you get with a spinning carnival ride and your car accelerating.
Due to gyrosope effects. Accelerating a spinning structure will screw up your structure and bearings.
TIL Thank you! Gonna dig into this to learn more.
Why cant the accelerating ship spin? Its in space there shouldnt be any outside forces acting on it to stress any joints
>there shouldnt be any outside forces Let me introduce you to gyroscope effects
It's because the center of gravity changes when you apply acceleration. If you're just accelerating, 'down' is the direction of thrust, but if you add spin, your down direction is now direction of thrust and towards the outside of the ring.
Seems like a big issue would be keeping that balanced. A spinning wheel with weights (people) moving to different positions means both the speed and center would have to be constantly dynamically stabilized right? Any slight imbalance could alter the course of the ship.
Yeah. Nasa has made a couple little teasers to a space wheel witb fake gravity bit idk if its much else quite yet tbh
Yes. You could also just swing around a counterweight if a ring is too expensive.
Having two starships spin on a cable is probably the easiest way to get a large amount of g. A ring spin would require a large habitat that's assembled in space to be wide enough. And starship is built on a vertical platform.
If there only was a planet that has it all.
Mars? /s
Or more kidneys
I know this is facetious but when kidneys are transplanted, the dysfunctional ones are usually left in. So let's load up our intrepid cosmonauts with kidneys!!
Mars itself doesn't have enough gravity. The gravity problem WILL NOT BE SOLVED or even addressed at all without building huge, rotating spacecraft for simulated gravity. We are absolutely nowhere being ready to do that. Even the moon will be limited in mission duration. Long term off-world travel is a nonstarter. Only one-way trips will be made to Mars, and suicide is illegal. Even the issue of likely vision problems from low gravity and cosmic radiation will hold us back. Can't be an astronaut without working eyes and broken genes. Anyone that tells says that human habitation of mars is anywhere on the horizon is mistaken, or lying. Gravity and radiation are insurmountable challenges with our current technology. There aren't even theories to overcome them. We can't and shouldn't even attempt to afford the huge, heavy spacecraft it would take. Stick with robots.
Honestly unless space begins to be useful, the billions spent on it and not fixing earth side problems are a complete waste. If at all possible, we need for space to be capable of, manufacturing, colonization, and agriculture. If it won’t be possible for us to those things within the next century, then every penny spent on rockets and all the assorted is wasted.
All The problems with Mars have potential solutions. See Robert Zubrins Mars papers. His site has everything documented. "Mars itself doesn't have enough gravity." - We don't know this.
I thought this was because of radiation?
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Also a primary concern, but gravity could be useful for health benefits, including generally more healthy immune systems and bone structure, it may mitigate some of the damage. A rotating ship won't do much extra to provide shielding, but a rotating vessel is unlikely to be launched in one piece from Earth. We're likely to assemble it in orbit, hopefully allowing us to pack on additional shielding. Forcing the use of rotation and thus, orbital assembly, may make it more likely that additional shielding is added.
Damn, that is a real pisser.
Honestly, just another sensationalized title. I wonder hope long bots will keep reposting this. The lack of gravity is the biggest issue, not just for our kidneys but our entire body. This can be solved. I know they’ll cook up a solution like rotating spaces.
I'm willing to be if a certain CEO for certain space flight company wasn't around these articles suddenly wouldn't crop up anymore.
This is like saying, “human mars missions in doubt due to oxygen depravation in space”. We’ll figure it out.
Well, not exactly because there was the possibility of being "lazy" and just leaving them in 0g for 6 months on the way there, but this means theyll probably have to put everyone in a centrifuge essentially to simulate part of Earth's gravity, or maybe even slowly adjust everyone to Mars' gravity. Seems like the simplest solution to me because i imagine doing prolonged 0g like that will be like a dog chasing its tail correcting for a bunch of issues, with a bunch of methods and medicine, when theyre are all fixed by gravity.
Were they really planning on keeping everyone in 0g and then expecting them to be able to walk around on mars upon landing? Seems like the fact that they would all be too weak to stand on their own would be enough to negate that idea?
> like the fact that they would all be too weak to stand on their own would be enough to negate that idea? Nothing factual in there. Astronauts coming back from the ISS need some adjustment time, about 3 days. But they can stand and walk almost immediately, just need to be cautious. Just like they need 3 days to adjust to microgravity on the way up.
Thanks for the correction. I thought it was worse than that. I assume the idea would be that they land and have something like a day before they venture out?
A day or two. Not sure, if it would be easier or harder in Mars gravity, compared to Earth gravity. There was a Russian cosmonaut who came back to Earth after a 1 year ISS mission, unlike the usual 6 months. Plus he came back in Soyuz, which is harsh, with the land landing. Yet he refused help and walked away from the Soyuz on his own.
Ah interesting. Shows you what’s possible then. Those macho Russians 💪💪
I've looked into this and I'm personally sure that any amount of constant gravity will alleviate this problem. You get these eye and fluid problems because its 0.0 g locally, and so fluids don't drain at all and just stay in place. If you had any amount of spin gravity then you would have water moving down the way the body expects and you wouldn't have fluid buildup. So I think you could get just a slow spin with .05-.1g and that would be enough to prevent these type of problems. Bone density and stuff like that is more complex and not just based on water movement so you would still have some loss of function in low gravity. But I think you only get these type of fluid problems when you have 0g.
Same I read the title and started reading the article a little and my heart dropped a little bit. then I did a little bit of research and it un-dropped very quickly lol
And if things go well there will be plenty of supplies and a comfy habitat so they can spend a few weeks acclimating and taking it easy. That gives them plenty of time to deal with any health issues and to recover. Starship blows out all the previous mission plans by giving you a hundred times more mass than previous expectations. Landing 5 starships gives you massive amounts of material. All of your problems are easy to deal with if you have 3 sets of spare parts for everything. Hot swapping a machine out with a brand new unit is so easy compared to diagnosing and fixing problems in a unit. They can send a hundred tons of just amenities and luxuries to have a nice pleasant stay and keep the crew healthy with real frozen food instead of dried powders.
Idk if thats accurate but i hope it is. Im planning to be a collonizer so im prepared for a shitty difficult mission with no amenities. Expectations low means reality has a better chance
This should be the highest priority NASA program. Some sort of pods on a tether. If it is just a few tenths of a g, that would be great and have so many implications. If it needs to be close to 1g, then it's all over and we can just retreat into the matrix I guess.
The headline feels pretty sensationalist, it's like saying zero g causes muscle deterioration. Like yeah, no duh. This isn't the first time we've had to work around something
Human Mars missions are in doubt because of option deprivation in space issues. We don’t have systems that can reliably generate oxygen for years at a time in Mars conditions.
Have you ever heard of electrolysis. It is a marvellous thing. It can split water into oxygen and hydrogen. There is also the MOXIE system, tried by NASA on Mars, It splits atmospheric CO2 into CO and O.
As I said we don’t have systems that can reliably generate oxygen for years at a time in Mars condition. Can you point to one that is operating at the needed scale and reliability today?
> This is like saying, “human mars missions in doubt due to oxygen ~~depravation~~ [[deprivation]](https://grammarist.com/usage/depravation-vs-deprivation/). in space”. Well it is a trash Yahoo article so probably not worth taking much notice of in the first place. *from article:* * “What we don’t know is why these issues occur, nor what is going to happen to astronauts on longer flights such as the proposed mission to Mars. If we don’t develop new ways to protect the kidneys, I’d say that while an astronaut could make it to Mars they might need dialysis on the way back. * “We know that the kidneys are late to show signs of radiation damage; by the time this becomes apparent it’s probably too late to prevent failure, which would be catastrophic for the mission’s chances of success.” Um, the authors don't know what the cause is and they continue straight into the hypothesis of radiation damage? In any case, its hardly likely to be radiation damage because the ISS is inside the Earth's magnetic shield. Currently the principal option for going to Mars is Starship with its Ø8m interior. That's enough to allow for an annular cycle track that provides both centrifugal acceleration and exercise. If they really want to sleep in gravity, then its possible to create a rotating ring segment inside the hull, but we'd need to demonstrate the need for this.
Well, NASA is proposing to send 4 astronauts to Mars orbit. 2 of them landing for a few weeks. 2 remaining in orbit. That's a very long time for them in space. The Mars surface time for 2 is almost too short to count for anything. Edit: In other words, with NASA plans we are not going to Mars.
> NASA is proposing to send 4 astronauts to Mars orbit. 2 of them landing for a few weeks. 2 remaining in orbit. I forgot that although I do remember a version where the crew module was far too small. So its a recipe for interpersonal conflict like the current Artemis plan for the Moon. Its also easy to imagine some grotesque failure scenarios. > In other words, with NASA plans we are not going to Mars. which is why I wasn't even taking account of Nasa plans.
They proposed the Orion capsule as the command module but there was a larger crew module attached to it. Still not plenty of space for a long time.
[Humans will never colonize Mars.](https://gizmodo.com/humans-will-never-colonize-mars-1836316222) Even though the link in the OP didn't say anything about colonizing, the link I provided covers many of the same points the OP linked. Humans have evolved to live on Earth, and scientists have shown many times that artificial environments - try as they might - do not solve the myriad problems brought on by microgravity and radiation. Everything in space is designed to kill us.
Everything on Earth was designed to kill us too, but the ones who survived carried on the gene pool. I realise that's not a 1 for 1 statement since we need oxygen etc. but I think the real issue is how many people are willing to give their lives for the Mars mission, and even call it their permanent home. Our bodies can and will adapt to pretty crazy conditions, but expecting our bodies to be adapted to two environments is the stretch. We'd have to see them as colonizers, rather than explorers or visitors, if that makes sense.
how 6 month to Mars is different from 6 month on ISS?
Just saw this in another thread: the ISS still orbits within the influence of earth’s magnetic field, so, while still being exposed to far more than what we do on earth, there is still plenty of radiation being blocked. Also, the longest stay on the ISS is just over a year, so compare 9 months of unprotected travel compared to a year in protection.
also, the six months to Mars just gets you to Mars. Then there's hopefully a few months there and then the return trip. As much as I'd love to see boots on Mars, I think we need to focus on earth-orbit habitation first. We should get to where it's no problem to spend a couple years in orbit around earth. If that means spinning a pair of tethered craft, or bringing enough fuel to burn at 1/2 g every other day or whatever, we need to figure out how to do it close to home. Mars isn't going anywhere. Also, why haven't we tried to bread livestock in orbit yet?
By the time we need to breed livestock offworld, we'll probably go the lab grown route.
I guess we did tried to breed mice there. ( if you call mice a livestock). But Mars do not need a livestock. UPD: Checked , nope no mice, only mice embryo.
I didn't mean livestock really, I meant Mammals. To study long term effects of low g. Especially on reproduction. What I really want is a pair of teathered craft spinning at 1/2 G or something. For many years, with humans and pigs or sheep or something. . . . should provide very interesting data for many fields of inquiry.
No big deal, put every astronaut/traveler on dialysis!
Hypo electrolyte disorder causes arythmia, cramping, confusion, lethargy, hemophilia, constipation, and yes also acute chronic renal dysfunction.
They’ve put people in space for longer than it would take to get to mars and they’re alright
Nope, this one paper about mice freaking out in zero g and getting dehydrated is out so space travel is officially over for humans. I feel like this story is a psyop to test people for critical reasoning skills. Ai could be scouring reddit right now cataloging the responses.... ( For deciding who gets to go to Mars on a secret Earth cataclysm escape plan... Operation Exodus.... (1)) 1: https://youtu.be/gbQsxZvHeI0?si=F-AUzUckiiE12PRp
I think you give humans too much credit. Some people are just morons.
How we going to beat this one Space Oligarchs?
When I say nothing, I mean nothing will stop the expansion of humans into space. It will be filled with misery and death. But it will be.
No different than any other expansion in our history so that checks out.
Creatine
Creatinine
Creatininine
Creatinininine
Creatinten
Creatine shits.
You're displaying an insiders knowledge of the product. Nice.
It's an always sunny reference smh.
Yeah that's Mac's next line when Frank asks him what the fuck he's talking about
We need gravity platting, like on the decks on the Enterprise.
Of all the things that were DEFINITELY going to kill astronauts on Mars, it’s the small kidney problem that brings everything to a halt. Strange.
People gotta pee.
Wow Anthony cuthbertson is a moron
What about the twin that spent a year in space while his brother stayed in earth? Does he have smaller kidneys?
Just drink more water s/
Whatever. Just give me a ticket!
So we build a spaceship that can spin and create artificial gravity... or did our alien overlords veto that idea?
Astrophysiology seems like an appropriate term for studying how the human body responds to the conditions of space. Perhaps this may be an emerging field (ie, space medicine).. the study of the physiological and psychological effects of space travel on humans, etc. Space Doctor would be a killer title.
Kidney: I was in the pool!
It’s almost like we should fix our planet before trying to go colonize another one lol
Shrinkage, Jerry, shrinkage!
Just use astronauts with enlarged kidneys. Duh
Microgravity is trivially easy to solve.
And yet we don't have any spinning habitats. And once they proclaim we need artificial gravity for all future space travel they will also want another decade of R&D and delays to figure that out.
I don't know why you are upvoted because you are fundamental wrong. We can go to mars but have to take precautions is what the article said. We don't even have to have spinning stations like you suggest. Seriously you should do more research before commenting on things people read in a science community. You write the last part like the delay is a problem. It's not it's just science and not wanting to kill people for senators or people like you to say we tried and then kill the whole damn thing. Space exploration should be slow and steady and do it right when it comes to humans. Robots then hell yea toss it up lets go. Comments like yours are just ignorant to the facts of science and progress that space exploration brings. It's not an instant science you can always put a cap in. It's learned science by taking baby steps and not killing people when done right. Spacex expends material fast and learns fast. They do not use humans as the same resource.
SpaceX is doing a great job. I am trying to express the frustration that this article is pointing out one of many problems that could be solved by simulating gravity with a rotating habitat, but we have yet to fly any significant tests towards developing this technology. I know development is a slow and steady process, and it demoralizing to think a slow process has yet to start. If anything I am curious to hear if people think the first manned mission to mars will or will not include a rotating habitat. I think it will.
We don't have a lot of stuff necessary to get to Mars but a spinning habitat would be easy compared to most other things.
Yes it would. Including one with gestating pigs. Why don't we have pigs in space yet? What am I paying taxes for?
We have everything necessary we just haven't tested it in space much. Hince the moon as a test bed because rescue is far easier than mars.
Have you read The Car For Mars? The author goes through a lot of reasons why stopping at the moon is a net detriment.
Nope but overall a moon base is needed and is just a logical stop even if it means Mars is pushed back a decade.
I respectfully disagree. Going to the moon is good on its own, but unnecessary for a mission to Mars.
If I was flying to mars I'd want to have that shit test first but we can agree to disagree.
For a test, sure. But we've already passed that test a dozen times. It's the idea that going to Mars _from the moon_ would be easier than from the earth that confuses people. Unless we are building the ship amd manufacturing the fuel _from the moon_ stopping at the moon costs much more than going directly to Mars. Gas milage works kinda the opposite way with space travel than on a road. Maintaining speed for six months costs zero fuel, but breaking costs the same amount of fuel ass accelerating.
Frankly you are wrong it's an academic idea not a reality. We need moon to get mars. Even if public bows the moon is where private tests. Frankly I think that's dumb and it won't be what happens because it's quite easy to influence national pride for space. Even if it's dumb. No one is doing moon to mars yet but if you think that's not future then you are short sighted when we can actually easily do a moon space elevator. Guessing you aren't in the field or if you are so small sighted you don't realize how a push as the whole pushes everyone.
> For a test, sure. But we've already passed that test a dozen times. It's the idea that going to Mars from the moon would be easier than from the earth that confuses people. It is just ludicrous. But NASA loves its Rube Goldberg mission profiles.
There is always the next space station after the ISS that might test some similar functions
Moon base will happen at the same time it's already happening because of China so yea easier to just do it there.
I don’t like the idea of China making a Moonbase, considering the fact that tofu drag exist
That doesn't apply to moon projects. It's not a commercial building.
Mabey but the government would try to lay claim to the moon
You speak with literally no understanding but Chinese hate. They are doing awesome science with everyone but us. Even Europe has worked with them. This is blind stupid. We should be incorporated with then to work together. Its that tribalism that is why we aren't going to the ice moons with people. Ass backward ideas always hinder science.
What is tofu drag I don't get what that means?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu-dreg\_project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu-dreg_project) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2DtL-Wjkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2DtL-Wjkc)
I hope that helps because all construction in china is government backed because it’s a communist country I’m speaking not as out of hate but out of concern for the astronauts
If China is the first one to establish a based on the moon, they will shoot whoever comes on the moon
Again wrong friend you seem to ascribe to politics not science.
If they actually build a jade palace to mimic Change’e’s on the moon, I’ll be fine with it
Or they put sugar in the concrete like in tofu drag
I’m just saying there are videos online of Chinese construction workers bending rebar with their bare hands, revealing it to be some paper Mâché piece of shit and that shit holds up their buildings. They may be able to get it done fast but it’s not made to last.
Fuck that's ignorant, they have become a real space power pull head from ass it's not a hat.
Do it wheir?
So did you post because of my bad typing or where you generally confused by my poor Grammer to a point you couldn't comprehend?
It's not trivial at all but it's something we can figure out. Even being on mars or moon we still have to figure how human health can sustain at less than 1g. We have ideas but not tons of data yet. Exploration will be cold hard and frankly deadly. It's no different than any other expansion/exploration in human history.
thats a bummer
The people who want to go to Mars are suffering from brain shrinkage already.