It kills me that people can use long term exposure to 0 g as an excuse for not going to Mars then propose longer term uninterrupted exposure to very low g as an alternative. It makes no sense. We need to know what the impact 0f 0.38g and 0.16 are long term. The results alone could settle the issue of which makes sense as a long term base if results are negligible at 0.38 g, but still significant at 0.16 g. I think such a study will show a big difference. I expect the impact of g on bone retention will greatly favor Mars under any circumstance. Retention could increase exponentially with gravity, be linear, or be isothermal. Exponential would lead to Mars being far better, linear would make Mars 2.5 times better, isothermal could make Mars and even the Moon with lesser probability essentially equivalent to Earth. NEOs will be essentially 0 g environments regardless. Studies on the impact of exercise suggest that simulating 1 g for a limited period of time greatly reduces the impact of 0 g so I expect significant continuous partial g will greatly mitigate the impacts of 0 g. I think the lack of research in this area shows a total lack of serious effort to move beyond LEO.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to Zubrin's "Gaiashield" is a good baseline...
The Obvious Problem
The whole thread (59 posts)
- Panel says not enough funds for Mars or the Moon
- Thanks To Everyone For A Great Thread
- Forget the Moon. Forget Mars.
- re: Forget the Moon. Forget Mars.
- Forget Lifeless Rocks?
- Whats wrong with geology?
- NASA's focus on Exobiology is turning out to be a pact with the devil
- This "lifeless rocks" attitude is one reason why NASA is in the trouble it is in now
- Whats wrong with geology?
- Just how bad...
- NEA and Phobos missions...