Apollo still producing science
Discussion
Sadly.. Seems long distance space travel ( or microgravity) can have long lasting effects on your health. Small sample size and lets face it they had the right stuff so not typical people, but will be something to work against for other missions.
- half the science performed on ISS is on the astronauts themselves looking at the effects of space..
Spot on and contrary to some wistful views on PH, space travel is dangerous and tourisem to the Moon and Mars is unlikely in the nearish future I guess a waiver could always be signed agreeing for no NHS or private insurance medical help.
Send the robots to do the exploratory stuff......humans are becoming redundant, no white van man as Drones will deliver parcels articulated lorries will drive themselves along with taxi's
Send the robots to do the exploratory stuff......humans are becoming redundant, no white van man as Drones will deliver parcels articulated lorries will drive themselves along with taxi's
Toaster said:
Send the robots to do the exploratory stuff....
Perhaps. But would Apollo have been the epic it was if it has just dropped some radio-control toys on the Moon? Not much of an achievement. And if you want to explore in detail, boots and brains on the spot are far more effective than a toy and a TV (and in the case of Mars, major comms delays).Getting men to Mars will dangerous, difficult and expensive, but it is the next thing to be done in a sequence that started when H. sapiens esq walked out of the Rift Valley to see what was on the other side.
Simpo Two said:
It may be, of course, that Mars is 'a target too far' and man will never get there. In 200 years there may be thriving colonies there, or we may have entered another Dark Ages. After all the Romans thought they were the pinnacle of civilisation. Could go either way.
If the majority are like some who post here, then the latter is fairly likely.Simpo Two said:
Toaster said:
Send the robots to do the exploratory stuff....
Perhaps. But would Apollo have been the epic it was if it has just dropped some radio-control toys on the Moon? Not much of an achievement. And if you want to explore in detail, boots and brains on the spot are far more effective than a toy and a TV (and in the case of Mars, major comms delays).Getting men to Mars will dangerous, difficult and expensive, but it is the next thing to be done in a sequence that started when H. sapiens esq walked out of the Rift Valley to see what was on the other side.
You quite correct man will get to Mars at some point and hopefully return safely but the article does point out the sever risks involved.
Edited by Toaster on Friday 29th July 22:04
Toaster said:
There will always be volunteers to do the stuff that is risky to personal health, but with current technology its not for the masses
Absolutely. Crossing the Atlantic in 1919 wasn't for the masses either, but I can't see Mars ever being a holiday destination.Toaster said:
You quite correct man will get to Mars at some point and hopefully return safely but the article does point out the sever risks involved.
I can't help with radiation but the logical answer to weightlessness would be a rotating ship. Free gravity.Simpo Two said:
Toaster said:
There will always be volunteers to do the stuff that is risky to personal health, but with current technology its not for the masses
Absolutely. Crossing the Atlantic in 1919 wasn't for the masses either, but I can't see Mars ever being a holiday destination.Toaster said:
You quite correct man will get to Mars at some point and hopefully return safely but the article does point out the sever risks involved.
I can't help with radiation but the logical answer to weightlessness would be a rotating ship. Free gravity.The challenges are more than just radiation (but that is a big one)........its easier and simpler (but not simple) to send the robots
A trip to Mars now is more akin to an early 18th century sea voyage of discovery than a flight across the Atlantic in 1919. Sailing for months at sea in an 18th century ship was even more likely to kill you then than a 9 month trip to Mars is now. Sailors died of disease, accidents and violence. It took a long time to work out how to protect crews from the diseases that affected long distance sailors of that era.
For the record, the Daily Mail offered a £10,000 prize for a successful flight across the Atlantic as early as 1910. Of course, the technology wasn't capable of that at the time but the imperatives of World War 1 drove aviation advancement so fast that the mission was accomplished a number of times by the end of 1919.
For the record, the Daily Mail offered a £10,000 prize for a successful flight across the Atlantic as early as 1910. Of course, the technology wasn't capable of that at the time but the imperatives of World War 1 drove aviation advancement so fast that the mission was accomplished a number of times by the end of 1919.
Its been 52 years since Man first successfully built a space craft that successfully flew past Mars and 45 year since a space craft orbited the planet so clearly the scientists know how to do this, getting a human on to mars and back is full of risk the knowledge to do this probably stretches back to the late fifties and mid sixties. But apart from the ego job of a nation flying Humans to Mars for Exploration what is the benefit over and above robotic craft that can carry out similar or the same experiments and exploration tasks.
It difficult dangerous and bloody expensive with limited benefits compared to remote exploration. Will a crew be sent in the future looking at the developments then yes but whole colonies living thier maybe a handful but not for the majority
Edited to add that the original post highlights some of the actual risk to health so before shouting down and stating that people are negative look at the science !
It difficult dangerous and bloody expensive with limited benefits compared to remote exploration. Will a crew be sent in the future looking at the developments then yes but whole colonies living thier maybe a handful but not for the majority
Edited to add that the original post highlights some of the actual risk to health so before shouting down and stating that people are negative look at the science !
Edited by Toaster on Saturday 30th July 08:32
Toaster said:
In 1916 there was plenty of ariel activity new events happening every month the cost of which was a fraction of space travel.
Hang on, are you saying that making a biplane out of sticks is cheaper than sending a rocket to Mars? Well I never!Of course it is 'easy' and 'simple' to send robots, and 'risky' and dangerous' to send Man. That's the challenge. Sitting in room poking a joystick whilst looking at a monitor is little more than a computer game, and less exciting. But that's all humans want to do now, well perhaps with the odd marathon thrown in to look fit.
Eric Mc said:
And they could have said exactly the same to Captain James Cook.
And he did look at the science. And he fixed the problem.
As we will do for long distance space flights.
Indeed. Scurvy was a massive problem for quite some time, but almost totally forgotten now. The pioneers will always pay a heavier price than those who come afterwards, it's the trade-off for their place in history.And he did look at the science. And he fixed the problem.
As we will do for long distance space flights.
So, deep space travel causes death from cardiovascular disease, let's look at this;
Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
I would like to point out that the survey consisted of 100% Americans.
A nation famous for ... cardiovascular problems.
The only appropriate response is "further study required". We will need to send at least 24 people from each nation on the planet, in order to obtain accurate figures for the human race as a whole.
A nation famous for ... cardiovascular problems.
The only appropriate response is "further study required". We will need to send at least 24 people from each nation on the planet, in order to obtain accurate figures for the human race as a whole.
Einion Yrth said:
So, deep space travel causes death from cardiovascular disease, let's look at this;
Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
Don't think you can do much with the sample size but the headline of the paper says "possible" Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
"Apollo Lunar Astronauts Show Higher Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Possible Deep Space Radiation Effects on the Vascular Endothelium"
"Results show there were no differences in CVD mortality rate between non-flight (9%) and LEO (11%) astronauts. However, the CVD mortality rate among Apollo lunar astronauts (43%) was 4–5 times higher than in non-flight and LEO astronauts."
"Possible" also implies "don't really know".
It's a survey that actually tells us nothing. Of course, those who have already decided that manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit is a waste of time will jump on such a story as it reinforces their already held prejudices.
For the record, the sample size is 27. There were 9 Apollo missions to the moon -
8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
It's a survey that actually tells us nothing. Of course, those who have already decided that manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit is a waste of time will jump on such a story as it reinforces their already held prejudices.
For the record, the sample size is 27. There were 9 Apollo missions to the moon -
8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff