 |
ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people.”
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:36 pm Post subject: Space travel in stasis |
 |
|
A very interesting article from Digital Trends-
Space travel in stasis is coming sooner than you think.
Dave Palmer, Digital Trends
Once again, the stuff of science fiction becomes reality. Deep space travel could take a number of years to reach a far off destination, and humans simply are not made for that type of travel. Aerospace company SpaceWorks, with funding from NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts program, is developing a solution for that problem, according to Spectrum. Their first hurdle to jump is the relatively short 55-million-kilometer multi-month trip to Mars.
Imagine being confined to a space the size of a walk-in closet with three or four of your work colleagues for several months, conducting a mission, and climbing back into that same confined space for another several months with nothing new to occupy your time. If it sounds like the makings of a reality show that drives the contestants to murder each other, you probably are not far off. Astronaut interaction, boredom, and irritation one of the smaller problems facing astronauts who are brave enough to endure space travel. Think celestial cabin fever.
The amount of resources required to transport six humans to Mars is surprising. NASA estimates a habitation module would need 380 cubic meters of volume, and would weigh in at 28,000 kilograms. Those six hungry astronauts would need 13,000 kg of food. That same group of astronauts in a state of stasis would require less space, less food, and ultimately result in a reduction of 140,000 kg of weight from smaller engines and less fuel consumption.
Stasis is simply defined as a state of "inactive, low metabolic torpor state for mission transit phases." It is more similar to hibernation than something more sci-fi like cryo-sleep. The problem is that humans do not naturally hibernate, but they can be placed into a state similar to hibernation for several days. Hospitals do this all the time and call it therapeutic hypothermia. After a traumatic injury, a patient can be placed into a sedated hypothermia to give the body a few days to use all its energy to heal.
Astronauts in this state would receive nutrients intravenously, but intravenous feeding has been shown to cause problems over a long period. SpaceWorks still has some problems to work out, but the message to take away is that space travel in a state of stasis is closer to reality than thought previously.
Link to original source-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/space-travel-stasis-coming-sooner-021342630.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Traveling in an unconscious state makes a lot of sense, but the medical risks tend to make me think the right way to accomplish a mission to Mars is to spend enough money (a LOT of money) to design and build a ship large enough and complex enough to provide a spacious and appealing home for the crew.
After all, it's not like we HAVE to go to Mars. We're just doing it for the scientific challenge. So, why insist on doing it as soon as possible, and (more to the point) as cheaply as possible?
The ship we see in The Martian impressed me as exactly what I have in mind.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud, I absolutely agree!
That was also the arrangement in the BBC documentary VOYAGE TO THE STARS ; A SPACE ODYESSY .
It makes sense to have a large enough ship constructed in LEorbit that provides for shielding and gravity.
The only problem with the ARES was too many windows! Good for dramatic scenes but bad for radiation exposure! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | ..After all, it's not like we HAVE to go to Mars. We're just doing it for the scientific challenge. So, why insist on doing it as soon as possible, and (more to the point) as cheaply as possible? ... |
Doing things "as soon as possible" is a necessary driver to scientific progress. People working at their leisure rarely work at all. We know that a goal with no deadline is rarely accomplished.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office offered a damning view of NASA's Orion capsule:
"It's nevertheless striking that it will probably take NASA about 17 years to design and develop Orion before finally flying its first crewed mission in 2023. During the same amount of time, from 1964 to 1981, the space program flew the Gemini spacecraft; designed, developed, and flew the Apollo capsule; and designed, developed, and flew the much more complex space shuttle."
They actually tested the Orion Launch Abort System motors (two motor firings) eight years ago in September of 2008.
There have been numerous multi-million contracts let since 2004 for studies and hardware that is already becoming long in the tooth. The Launch Abort System motor was built on a 63 million dollar contract and could be old technology by 2023...so Orbital Sciences, Lockheed Martin et all will be back at the trough for more money.
No deadline combined with no budget cap is THE recipe for NO progress.
Note the variations in these speeches (one real, one modified).
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
Or:
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
I guarantee you that if JFK had delivered the second version of the speech, the first words from the moon would have come from Alexei Leonov trumpeting the triumph socialism and claiming a "Workers Moon". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bravo Brent !!!!!
That is EXACTLY why we are in the state we are in.
There was no immediacy in replacing the space shuttle and the plans continually revision after revision, budget after budget and administration after administration!
The VISION is totally lacking and it may not be until the Chineese and Russians have established moon bases until we do finally wake up and rush to catch up!
The shame is we've already wasted billions dollars fooling around !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brent Gair wrote: | | No deadline combined with no budget cap is THE recipe for NO progress. |
Brent, the problem with citing the "Space Race" of the 1960s (with its rush to get it done by a very immediate deadline) is that is was done in hurry for all the wrong reasons.
The sad fact is, it had nothing to do with "scientific progress", at least not in the eyes of the people who controlled that all-important funding. It was just a political stunt, fueled by Cold War fears — not scientific curiosity. Admittedly there was a period of national pride that lasted just as long as "beating the Russians to the Moon" was touted as important.
But the moment we did beat the Russians, the Apollo program fizzled out and thousands of NASA employees got their pink slips . . . on the day Apollo 17 left the pad!
Wernher von Braun's plan for space exploration was the right way to do it, but it bore little resemblance to the mad rush to "do it quick and do it cheap". Before any Moon landings were supposed to take place, he wanted a large space station designed and built, with science labs and artificial gravity and a large crew who didn't have to exercise for hours every day just to keep from loosing bone and muscle mass.
| Brent wrote: | | I guarantee you that if JFK had delivered the second version of the speech, the first words from the moon would have come from Alexei Leonov trumpeting the triumph socialism and claiming a "Workers Moon". |
Okay, so our guy got to say the first words from the Moon. Wonderful. And look how effective that was at inspiring America to boldly go where no man has gone before. Or, to put if another way —
Big deal! So what? 
The chief motivators during the misguided "Space Race" were the times the Russians proved they were beating us — not when we were beating them.
Examples: They put up Sputnik. We got busy and put up Explorer 1.
They put the first man into space. We stepped up our program and got Alan Shepard into space . . . briefly.
They did the first space walk. We accelerated out program and finally got men out of the capsules.
We didn't do these things because it advanced science. We did them because we were trying to catch up with the Russians. So, what if the Russians had beat us to the Moon? Would we have just given up our space program?
Hell, no!
The best thing that could have happened back in the 1969 would be for the Russians to get there first and really piss off the American government, causing them to throw money at projects like building space stations and lunar bases and anything else we could do to make up for loosing round 1 in an on-gong competition.
But what happened instead? After we won . . . we quit. And they quit, too. Today Russia is a shadow of it's former glory, and as far as space exploration goes, so are we! That is not the recipe for scientific progress. I would amend your earlier statement —
No deadline combined with no budget cap is THE recipe for NO progress.
— to read this way instead.
No competition combined with no motivation for generous funding is THE recipe for NO progress.
So, what does this mean today in relation to my claim that we shouldn't try to conduct space mission "as soon as possible and as cheaply as possible"? Well, let's ponder this fact for a moment.
| Brent wrote: | | The Launch Abort System motor was built on a 63 million dollar contract and could be old technology by 2023. |
Okay, so scientific research is devising new and better ways to do things before we even get a chance to use the methods we spent millions to develop.
Excuse me, but is that supposed to be a bad thing? 
I realize that eventually we have to commit to a mission and actually build a spacecraft and send it somewhere. But my contention is simple: we haven't built anything quite good enough yet, and we need to keep working. The very fact that we can't get something off the ground before we find out there's a better way to do it would seem to support that idea.
As I said earlier, it's not like we HAVE to go to Mars. We're just doing it for the scientific challenge. So, why insist on doing it as soon as possible, and (more to the point) as cheaply as possible?
And since the public is not real impressed with unmanned probes and R/C cars that creep around on Mars, poking at rocks and digging little trenches and sending back pictures that look a lot like Arizona, I don't think we're going to have much luck getting significant funding for space exploration until we're willing to sink enough money into it for projects that will impress the tax payers who foot the bill for this stuff.
The short version of my entire argument is simply this: "quick and cheap" might save the tax payers a lot of money and produce small-but-tangible-results — but it also bores the crap out of them!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MetroPolly
Space Ranger
Joined: 29 Nov 2015
Posts: 185
Location: Oakland,CA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, Bud. I"m not sure what to say here. I, for one, like hearing about unmanned probes and the Mars rovers. I know not many other do, but like I've said before, I"m a nerd.
As for the rest of it, you're absolutely right that the whole reason we went to the moon was to beat the Soviets, and honestly, the public kind of got bored with it after that.
I just hope it doesn't take another challenge to get us off our collective butts and exploring again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't really disagree with your major points Bud, but think again about the serendipidy of the struggling effort.
I'm reminded of HOW THE WEST WAS WON. For ALL the wrong reasons, extension of slavery, extinction of Native Americans, the greed of railroad tycoons, gold prospectors etc America became a nation and grew into what we have today. (Which for all it's faults and travails is STILL the best hope for mankind!)
I'm also reminded of the impetus of scientific progress during wartime. Not a terribly desireable state of affairs.
Regardless of the source of the effort we need a "plan" that can be achieved free of political influence and dedicated to scientific principles.
Your attitude, Bud, seems to be very idyllic and great in a perfect world. We are FAR from perfect (yet!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord Green wrote: | Regardless of the source of the effort we need a "plan" that can be achieved free of political influence and dedicated to scientific principles.
Your attitude, Bud, seems to be very idyllic and great in a perfect world. We are FAR from perfect (yet!) |
I'm curious. How did you get the impression that my attitude was idyllic based my statements that the only reason we once had a vibrant and energetic space program was because Washington wanted to achieve purely political goals?
My somewhat pessimistic (but realistic) assertion was that the politicians and taxpayers who fund our space programs don't really give a rat's rear end about science.
What I'm suggesting is that the only way we'll ever get those bozos to show any interest in the things we, the Geek Squad of science and technology, love with all our hearts is to jazz up the programs with flashy (and expensive) efforts that can be "sold" to the public as sexy and exciting!
The general public does NOT care about science! 
Trying to explore space with programs that are "quick and cheap" (regardless of any deadlines we impose) is domed to failure. It's like trying to make Star Wars on a shoestring budget and expecting anybody to be impressed with the shoddy results.
If NASA would stop being such stuffy old fogies and start promoting space programs with the same imagination and pizzazz that Hollywood uses to promote blockbuster films, we'd have thriving colonies on Mars by 2030 . . . with movie theaters!
That's exactly what was happening in the 1960s, when the news media provided hours and hours of free publicity for NASA every time a launch took place. But they didn't do it very well, and after a while folks got tired of the same old anchormen showing those crude miniatures and crappy cartoons of capsules in orbit.
It was Star Wars on a shoestring budget, and folks got bored after a while.
Imagine what a really good advertising agency could do with a few million bucks and the job of providing glitzy promos for NASA projects which would be shown as commercial spots on television! They would be exactly like the trailers we love to see for big budget movies, complete with special effects, actors, and music!
If you think my idea is unrealistic, think again. The military has been promoting enlistment for years with sexy ads about how great it is join up and "be all you can be."
Do you think Hollywood paid for ads like the one below? If so, you're wrong. You did! Commercials like this one are funded by your taxes.
Best of the 21st Century! Marine Corps Recruiting Commercial
_________ 
I'm suggesting that NASA do the same thing for their space programs — ads that are just as big and bad and sexy.
These ads would encourage young people to stay in school and seek jobs in high-tech industries. They would stimulate the economy by encouraging industrial contracts for the development of new technology.
And they would change the public's misconception that scientists are nerds and geeks! They aren't. They're "rock stars" with brains who can lead mankind into a bold and brilliant future!
We need to get behind people like that and fund their expensive — but invaluable — efforts to create a future which lives up to the ones we've seen in our favorite science fiction films!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud wrote: | | My somewhat pessimistic (but realistic) assertion was that the politicians and taxpayers who fund our space programs don't really give a rat's rear end about science. |
That's very true. Kennedy was caught off mike stating that he personally could care less about going to the moon, but for political reasons he had to make it a priority.
Perhaps that's why Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are the true visionaries of the space age! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think what we need is John Harriman from THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON, by Rob't Heinlien.
We knew what was needed even in the 50's but lost the dream.
With Star Wars, Star Trek, and the excitement about Mars rovers Opportunity, Curiosity and others perhaps the time has come!
We DO really need a non-political agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
